138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Revision Petition Due to Concealment of Vital Facts, Imposes Exemplary Costs of Rs. 1 Lakh

04 September 2024 11:03 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a judgement delivered on August 10, 2023, dismissed a revision petition challenging an eviction order. The petitioner's attempt to mislead the court by concealing vital facts played a pivotal role in the court's decision.

Justice Vikram Aggarwal, while pronouncing the judgement, highlighted the importance of full disclosure in legal proceedings. The court observed, "Litigants approaching the court must adhere to the principle of clean hands. Attempts to mislead and deceive the court by withholding vital information are not only frowned upon but are also against the very essence of justice."

The case centered around an eviction petition filed by the respondent-decree holder against the petitioner-judgment debtor, seeking possession of a shop. The court took note of the fact that the petitioner had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was later withdrawn. However, the petitioner failed to disclose this crucial aspect before both the executing court and the High Court during the revision proceedings.

Justice Aggarwal emphasized that the petitioner's concealment of facts amounted to an attempt to deceive the court and mislead the legal process. The court cited legal precedents, underscoring that litigants approaching the court must do so with the utmost transparency. The court's decision highlighted that those who initiate proceedings without full disclosure of facts and attempt to gain an advantage by withholding crucial information are not entitled to relief.

The judgement reiterated the well-established principle that courts expect litigants to approach them with clean hands. The court expressed that such principles are fundamental to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that justice is served in a fair and transparent manner.

In light of the petitioner's conduct, the court not only dismissed the revision petition but also imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the petitioner. This cost is to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within a specified timeframe. The court also directed that, in case of non-compliance, the costs would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

Date of Decision: 10.08.2023

Sukhdev Singh vs Mulkh Raj 

Latest Legal News