Imp. Rulings; Doctrine of Clean Hands & Suppression of facts.

 Imp. Rulings; Doctrine of Clean Hands & Suppression of facts.

Index;

1. SCI (2011.05.11) in Amar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors [Writ Petition(Civil) No.39 of 2006] [The court is supposed to know the law] 

2. SCI (2010.11.09) in Ramjas Foundation & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors [Civil Appeal No. 6662 of 2004] [Other courts & Judicial forums]

3. SCI (2008.07.09) in K.D.Sharma vs Steel Authorities Of India Ltd. & Ors.[ Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2008] [Disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts] 

4. SCI (2006.02.02) in Ram Saran vs. IG of Police, CRPF and others, [Appeal (civil)  3044 of 2003]

5. HC Karnataka (2003.04.17) in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Electronic Research Ltd. And Anr. [2003 262 ITR 361 Karn]

6. SCI (1993.10.27)  in S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath [1994 AIR 853, 1994 SCC (1) 1]

7. SCI (1991.04.29) G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and others v. Governor of Karnataka and other [AIR 1991 SC 1726, 1991 SCR (2) 563] [Non-disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts.]

---------------------------------------------

i). SCI (2011.05.11) in Amar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors [Writ Petition(Civil) No.39 of 2006] held that;

• # 57. In one of the most celebrated cases upholding this principle, in the Court of Appeal in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner {1917 (1) K.B.486} Lord Justice Scrutton formulated as under:

• "and it has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts- facts, now law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it -  the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement."

----------------------------------------------

ii). SCI (2010.11.09) in Ramjas Foundation & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors [Civil Appeal No. 6662 of 2004] held that;

• # 14. The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every Court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case. . . . . . . 

----------------------------------------------

iii). SCI (2008.07.09) in K.D.Sharma vs Steel Authorities Of India Ltd. & Ors.[ Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2008] held that; 

• 24. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 

• .......

• 26. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating:

• -  We will not listen to your application because of what you have done. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it.

• 28. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play `hide  and seek' or to `pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, the Court knows law but not facts.

----------------------------------------------

iv). SCI (2006.02.02) in Ram Saran vs. IG of Police, CRPF and others, [Appeal (civil)  3044 of 2003] held that; 

• ………….A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. ...............

----------------------------------------------

v). HC Karnataka (2003.04.17) in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Electronic Research Ltd. And Anr. [2003 262 ITR 361 Karn] held that;

• # 18. In ITO v. S. B. Singar Singh and Sons , the Allahabad High Court has ruled that (headnote) : "Even when express power to review its orders is not conferred by a statute, a court or a Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to rectify a wrong committed by itself". Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has absolutely no jurisdiction as held by it even when a plea of fraud is placed before it. It is rather unfortunate that the Tribunal has not focussed the after effect of fraudulent pleas and fraudulent acts by litigants while passing the impugned order. I must also point out at this stage that the wheels of justice can move only on true facts. Any mischief including a fraud on the Tribunal would result in derailing the wheels of justice. Justice is based on truth and truth cannot be trampled by an act of fraud. A litigant has to come to the court with clean hands and an unclean hand has to be shown the door by a court and not an entry to the court. Such entries to such persons would pollute the true atmosphere of a temple of justice. All these necessary material unfortunately is not considered by the Tribunal, while rejecting the petition.

----------------------------------------------

vi). SCI (1993.10.27)  in S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath [1994 AIR 853, 1994 SCC (1) 1] held that;

• # 5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

----------------------------------------------

vii). SCI (1991.04.29) G. Narayanaswamy Reddy and others v. Governor of Karnataka and other [AIR 1991 SC 1726, 1991 SCR (2) 563], the Court denied relief to the appellant who had concealed the material facts. While dismissing the special leave petition, the Court observed thus:

• Curiously enough, there is no reference in the Special Leave Petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts.

• On this ground alone, the Special Leave Petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions.

----------------------------------------------