Non-production/withholding a vital document in order to gain an advantage on the other side tantamounts to playing fraud on the Court

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]

Litigants who, with an intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiate proceedings without full disclosure of facts, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final

Further, the petitioner has concealed from this Court several orders passed by this Court as well as other Courts. She has not come to Court with clean hands. It is well settled that litigants who, with an intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiate proceedings without full disclosure of facts, such litigants have come with unclean hands and are not

entitled to relief. In 'Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors.' [(2010) 2 SCC 114] the Supreme Court observed that:

"In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final".[Page No.9]

Rule of natural justice need not be observed where fraud or misrepresentation is played

Petitioner was appointed as Distributor of LPG - Submission of "Residence Certificate" was essential eligibility criteria for awarding the distributorship - Distributorship awarded to him -  Unfettered power to the Oil Company were given in the Dealership Agreement for termination, in case, any information found to be untrue or incorrect - Upon a complaint made by one of the unsuccessful complainants it was discovered that the furnished "Residential Certificate" to be false and incorrect - Oil Company, without issuing show cause notice terminated his distributorship. Therefore he claimed that absence of show-cause notice tantamount to absence of the opportunity of being heard and hence termination hits the soul of justice violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India and on this ground alone the said termination letter deserves to be quashed.

Held:

   A Contract is like a written form of the law or like a private legislation that legally binds the parties, hence the aforementioned clause derives utmost sanctity from the agreement. The doctrine of 'Pacta sunt servinda' governs the contractual relationship and the clauses of the contract are the law between the parties. This doctrine presupposes strict compliance of the terms enumerated in the termination clauses of the agreement, otherwise it destroys the sanctity of the contract and eludes the future performance. [Para No.17]

   Fraud and justice cannot go together. It is a settled law that "Fraud" vitiates every solemn act. In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley, Lord Denning observed "No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything." In the same judgment Lord Parker LJ observed that fraud "vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity.