No litigant is entitled to obtain the aid of the law to protect him in carrying out a fraudulent act
The most sagacious judgments of our Courts define "fraud" as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a sort of cheating intended to gain an advantage. Any litigant who approaches Court is bound to produce all the documents relevant, material and germane to the litigation. Non-production or non-mentioning or withholding a vital document in order to gain an advantage on the other side
tantamounts to playing fraud on the Court as well as the opposite party [S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath & Ors (1994) 1 SCC 1 (paras-1,5 & 6), A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. vs. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 221 (paras 21-33), K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 481 (paras-26-28 & 34-52) and Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114 (paras 1- 9)].[Para No.12]
This fact of suppression assumes more significance in a writ proceeding which has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution. The very basis of writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted the very functioning of the Writ Courts would become impossible. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course and it is thus of utmost importance that a petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the material facts without concealment or suppression. It there is no frank and candid disclosure of the relevant and material facts or that the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed. In fact, the Courts have gone to the extent of saying that in such circumstances, a Court may refuse to enter into the merits of the case. A party whose hands are soiled cannot hold the writ of the Court. In such situations, the aid of the Court is denied in order to maintain respect for the law; in order to promote confidence in the administration of justice; in order to preserve the judicial process from contamination (Miscellany-at-Law by R.E. Megarry, 2nd Indian Reprint 2004 at page-144). The rule has evolved in public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid and in the light of the prayers in the petition, I am of the view that the petitioners are guilty of misleading the Court and have deliberately, intentionally and mischievously suppressed the order dated 28 January, 2011 passed in Misc. Case No.26/2009.[Para No.13]
Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to court must come with clean hands. Unfortunately, there is a section of society whether property grabbers, tax evaders, bank dodgers or other unscrupulous litigants from all walks of life who have little respect for the law. Such persons find the process of law as a convenient tool to pursue their ill designs. They have little or practically no interest in the truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. They are neither interested in ecclesiastical or temporal acts (Chief Justice Edward Coke) nor are they interested in "satya (truth) or "ahimsa" (non-violence) [Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114]. They only seek personal gain and self aggrandizement at any cost. Such is their quest for their private gain that they do not hesitate to resort to falsehood, misrepresentation, deceit, deception and suppression in Court proceedings. No litigant is entitled to obtain the aid of the law to protect him in carrying out a fraudulent act. Fraud, of course invalidates all. As was said by Lord Mansfield C.J. "Nothing is so silly as cunning".[Para No.17]
Calcutta High Court
Tilak Ratan Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation
Decided on 21/04/2021