Attempts To Mislead Court Must Be Dealt With Deterrence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Party For Suppressing Facts

Observing that attempts made to conceal vital facts to mislead the Court must be dealt with firmly, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs.1 lakh on a petitioner.

The Court dismissed the plea for quashing an order debarring the petitioner from bidding. The plea was filed without any details like copy of tender, contract work order, show cause notices, etc. and about dismissal of civil suit filed for the same.

Division bench of Justice Arun Palli and Justice Vikram Aggarwal said, "...attempts concealing vital facts with a view to mislead the Court should be dealt with firmly so that it may serve as a sufficient deterrent to such unscrupulous litigants as the petitioner."

A writ for certiorari was filed for quashing the order, vide which the petitioner was debarred by the respondents from future bidding. The petitioner also sought initiation of an inquiry by the Vigilance for the complaints made by him as well as by the empanelled Architect against the State Bank of India.

The petitioner claimed to be a well established firm engaged in providing services as contractors and also claims to have executed various works assigned by the State Bank of India at different locations in India.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said, "It is well settled that every litigant, who approaches the Court, owes a duty that he does so with clean hands and is duty bound to disclose the complete facts to the Court."

A petition which lacks bona fide and conceals vital facts is an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be discarded at the very threshold, it added.

The Court noted that the petition is bereft of any details,"the notice inviting tender, the contract entered into between the parties, (if any), the work order, various show cause notices referred to in the debarment order...and the termination order dated 24.11.2023, have not been placed on record."

Most importantly, there is no mention of a civil suit having been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of termination and debarment and the factum of application for grant of ad interim injunction having been dismissed, it noted further.

Reliance was placed on Apex Court's decision in V. Chandrasekaran and another vs. Administrative Officer and others (2012), wherein it was held that a petition containing misleading and/or inaccurate statements, only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of process of the Court.

"It was held that whenever a person approaches a Court of equity, in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction, it is expected that such person will approach the said Court not only with clean hands, but also with a clean mind, clean heart and clean objectives," the bench noted.

Adding that it is, therefore, manifestly clear that there has been a clear attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court by concealing the vital and material facts, the bench said, "This attempt is strongly deprecated."

The Court dissuaded to advert to the merits of the case, "solely on the ground of concealment and not having approached the Court with clean hands, are inclined to dismiss the instant writ petition."

While dismissing the plea, the Court saddle the petitioner with exemplary costs of Rs.1 lakh.

Mr. Vikram Satpal Anand, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate, Ms. Kajal, Advocate and Mr. Mahesh, Advocate, for the respondent-State Bank of India.

Case Title: M/s Shivam Engineers and Fabricators v. SBI & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 253

Click here to read/download the order