Madras High Court
P.Nallarajan vs The Assistant Vice President on 8 January, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
W.P.No.36454 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.36454 of 2024
&
W.M.P.Nos.39320 & 39322 of 2024
P.Nallarajan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Assistant Vice President
DBS Bank India Limited
(Erstwhile Lakshmi Vilas Bank)
No.806, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Authorised Officer
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.
No.1-E, 1 st Floor
Nos.560-562, Century Plaza
Teynampet, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 018.
3. T.Madasamy
4. M.Maheswaran
5. P.Sivakumar
6. P.Kavitha
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.36454 of 2024
7. Umamaheswari
8. S.R.Janakiraman .. Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the e-auction notice dated 6.1.2024 and quash the same and
forbear the 2nd respondent from taking physical possession of the
petitioner's 1/6 th legitimate share of the property measuring 53 Are, 70
Santhiar 04 Ma 01 Kuzhi 27/64 or 5370 sq.mtrs or 57.781 sq.ft. situated at
Tirunallar Street, (Melaveli), Karaikal Town, Karaikal Municipality,
Puducherry State, comprised in Block No.1, T.S.No.6, R.S.No.11/2
O.S.No.27, Extension 44R 40S, Patta No.626, (II) Ward F, Block 1,
T.S.No.8, R.S.No.11/5, O.S.No.27, 27/1, 27/2, 27/3, 27/4, 28 extension
82R, Patta No.4050, except by following the due process of law against the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kamaran
For Respondents : Mrs.Anandha Gomathi
for Respondents 1 & 2
Ms.S.Vijayadharani
for Respondent-5
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.36454 of 2024
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made
by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
On 19.12.2024, an alternate Bench of this Court passed a conditional
order and paragraph 3 thereof reads as under:
“3. Since the dispute is only about the quantum of share in
the property, which is brought for sale, the matter is adjourned to
06.01.2025. If the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.1.00 Crore (Rupees
One Crore only) to show his bona fide, this Court will pass orders
on the application of the borrower for re-scheduling or for
accepting the one-time settlement proposal. The bank shall keep
the amount in “no lien account”.”
2. The amount of Rs.1.00 crore has not been deposited. Instead of
depositing the amount, petitioner has taken a fixed deposit receipt for
Rs.1.00 crore and the deposit is for a term of 45 days only. The fixed
deposit beneficiary is one M.Maheswaran, who is respondent No.4 and
counsel for petitioner, who is supported by counsel for respondent No.5
states that they have complied with the order of the Court. We disagree.
Therefore, the status quo stands vacated.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Ms.Vijayadharani, who is not even petitioner, states that alternate
Bench was moved because an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 was passed sometime in December, 2024. That order has not
even been challenged in this petition. This petition was filed in November,
2024. Therefore, without a petition, the Court has been misled in passing
the order on 19.12.2024 citing urgency.
4. In KML Estates Private Limited v. Zarine D'Monte and others1 , a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, after referring to the decisions of
the Apex Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath2 and Sciemed
Overseas Inc. v. BOC India Ltd3, held as under:
“27. In our view, this appeal has to be allowed. In our opinion the said
respondents, who are plaintiffs in the suit, should have come to the Court
with clean hands. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRS (Supra), that was relied
upon by Mr. Dada, are relevant in this context. The Court observed:
'The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the
parties. One who comes to the Court must come with clean
hands …… … We have no hesitation to say that a person
whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach
the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of
the litigation.'
1 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 558
2 (1994) 1 SCC 1
3 (2016) 3 SCC 70
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28. The Apex Court and this Court have, on many occasions, stated that
if a party comes to the Court with unclean hands, should be dealt with
very strongly and substantial costs also should be imposed on the party.
The conduct of such party intends to impede and prejudice the
administration of justice. Judiciary is the bedrock and handmaid of
orderly life and civilized society. In Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. BOC India
Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has lamented about the unhealthy trend in filing
of affidavits which are not truthful. Paragraph 2 of the said judgment reads
as under:
'2. A global search of cases pertaining to the filing of a false
affidavit indicates that the number of such cases that are reported
has shown an alarming increase in the last fifteen years as
compared to the number of such cases prior to that. This is
illustrative of the malaise that is slowly but surely creeping in.
This ‘trend’ is certainly an unhealthy one that should be strongly
discouraged, well before the filing of false affidavits gets to be
treated as a routine and normal affair.'”
[emphasis supplied]
5. The Apex Court in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India4, after
referring to a catena of decisions, held that 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 and it is
imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with
clean hands and 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
4 (2024) 5 SCC 481
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
threshold without considering the merits of the claim.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. It is open to
petitioner to challenge the order passed under Section 14 before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal. We express no opinion. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, the interim applications also stand disposed.
(K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ) (SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.)
08.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
To
1. The Assistant Vice President
DBS Bank India Limited
(Erstwhile Lakshmi Vilas Bank)
No.806, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Authorised Officer
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.
No.1-E, 1 st Floor
Nos.560-562, Century Plaza
Teynampet, Anna Salai
Chennai 600 018.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
(kpl)
08.01.2025
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
