Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Shivam Engineers And Fabricators vs State Bank Of India And Ors on 1 July, 2024
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080778-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.10450 of 2024
Reserved on :21.05.2024
Pronounced on: 01.07.2024
M/s Shivam Engineers and Fabricators ....Petitioner
V/s
State Bank of India and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: 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.
(Through hybrid mode)
*****
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
1. A certiorari is prayed for quashing the order dated 04.12.2023
(Annexure P-2), vide which the petitioner has been debarred by the
respondents from future bidding. The petitioner further prays that it be
allowed to continue with the work allotted vide letter dated 06.09.2023
(Annexure P-1), as no separate termination of contract has been issued and
no complaint had ever been submitted by anyone against the petitioner. The
petitioner also seeks initiation of an inquiry by the Vigilance for the
complaints made by the petitioner as well as by the empanelled Architect
against the respondents. The release of payment qua the work done by the
petitioner is also prayed for.
2. The petitioner claims 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.
3. Facts, as pleaded, are that tenders were floated by the
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080778-DB
respondents for electrical work of State Bank of India-Administrative
Office, Ludhiana for a total cost of Rs.13,51,000/- plus GST. In pursuance
of a bid having been submitted by the petitioner, the same was accepted and
the petitioner was engaged vide letter dated 06.09.2023 (Annexure P-1).
4. The petitioner immediately commenced the work and
completed almost 70/80 per cent of the same to the complete satisfaction of
the respondents and not a single complaint was conveyed to the petitioner
for the work done at the site at Ludhiana. However, despite the same, the
payments due to the petitioner were not released. The petitioner suddenly
received a communication dated 24.11.2023 vide which the contract of
Bathinda Zone was terminated without assigning any valid reason and
without providing any opportunity of hearing. Not only this, vide order
dated 04.12.2023 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was debarred for future
bidding as well.
5. It has been averred in this petition that these steps were taken at
the behest of one Malkhan Singh, AGM (P&E), SBI, LHO, Chandigarh
against whom the petitioner had submitted complaint dated 08.11.2023 for
demand of illegal gratification (Annexure P-3).
6. On 01.01.2024, the petitioner received an e-mail from the Local
Head Office, Chandigarh for stoppage of ongoing contracts (Annexure P-4).
The petitioner, therefore, issued a legal notice dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure
P-5). Instead of replying to the same, a legal notice dated 15.03.2024
(Annexure P-6) was issued by the respondents to the petitioner alleging that
the petitioner had not completed the work in time and, therefore, he had been
debarred for a period of two years. The petitioner submitted a reply to the
said legal notice on 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-7), mentioning the entire facts.
7. The case of the petitioner is that the order of termination and
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080778-DB
that of debarment were issued without following the principles of natural
justice and no show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner, forcing
him to knock the doors of this Court.
8. During the course of preliminary hearing, at the outset, learned
counsel representing the respondents, who was present on advance notice
having been served, submitted that the petitioner has not approached the
Court with clean hands and that he has suppressed vital facts from the Court
with a view to mislead the Court. It was submitted that a civil suit had been
filed by the petitioner, challenging the debarment order dated 04.12.2023
and the termination order dated 24.11.2023 and in the said suit, application
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioner for grant of
ad interim injunction had also been dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2024,
passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh.
Learned counsel also produced a copy of the plaint along with
application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, as also the order dated
06.03.2024, vide which the application for grant of ad interim injunction was
dismissed. The same were taken on record as Mark 'X' and 'Y'.
9. On a specific query having been put to learned counsel for the
petitioner, as to why the DNIT, the order of termination 24.11.2023, the
show cause notices referred to in the debarment order (Annexure P-2) and
the other important documents had not been placed on record and as to why
the factum of a civil suit having been instituted by the petitioner has been
concealed, learned counsel had no valid explanation to offer. As regards the
civil suit, it was simply submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed about
the same to him. With regard to other documents, no valid response was
forthcoming.
10. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner made
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080778-DB
a request that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. However,
keeping in view the blatant manner in which vital facts have been concealed
and a clear attempt has been made to mislead this Court, we declined the
request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the writ
petition.
11. Before proceeding further, it would be essential to examine
what would be the fall out of the conduct of the petitioner.
12. 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. In the case of Kishore Samrite vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2013 (2) SCC 398, the Supreme Court of India was dealing
with an appeal against an order dated 07.03.2011 passed by a Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) vide which, the High
Court had dismissed a writ petition filed by one Kishore Samrite which
contained wild allegations-insinuation against Sh. Rahul Gandhi with costs
of Rs.50 lakh. Apart from other issues which were discussed, the issue of
abuse of process of the Court was also dealt with by the Apex Court. The
broad principles emerging from decisions in various cases were recapitulated
by the Supreme Court and it was held as under:-
"29. Now, we shall deal with the question whether both or
any of the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 111/2011 and
125/2011 are guilty of suppression of material facts, not
approaching the Court with clean hands, and thereby abusing the
process of the Court. Before we dwell upon the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand, let us refer to some case laws
which would help us in dealing with the present situation with
greater precision. The cases of abuse of the process of court and
such allied matters have been arising before the Courts
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080778-DB
consistently. This Court has had many occasions where it dealt
with the cases of this kind and it has clearly stated the principles
that would govern the obligations of a litigant while approaching
the court for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of
abuse of the process of court. We may recapitulate and state some
of the principles. It is difficult to state such principles exhaustively
and with such accuracy that would uniformly apply to a variety of
cases. These are:
(i) Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants
who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated
proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the
courts with 'unclean hands'. Courts have held that such
litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the
case nor entitled to any relief.
(ii) The people, who approach the Court for relief on an ex
parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they
would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and
where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the
court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.
(iii) The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands
is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by
this Court.
(iv) Quests for personal gains have become so intense that
those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court
proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent
have over- shadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small
gains.
(v) 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.
(vi) The Court must ensure that its process is not abused
and in order to prevent abuse of the process the court, it would
be justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in
cases of serious abuse, the Court would be duty bound to
impose heavy costs.
(vii) Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must
examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine
public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be
allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
(vii) The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to
maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080778-DB
court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be
granted "visa". Many societal pollutants create new problems
of unredressed grievances and the Court should endure to take
cases where the justice of the lis well-justifies it.
[Refer Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114;
Amar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(5) RCR (Civil) 386:
(2011)7 SCC 69 and State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh
Chaufal & Ors., 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 842: 2010(1) R.A.J. 372:
2010(1) S.C.T. 607: (2010)3 SCC 402].
13. It was held that the Supreme Court had consistently stated that
the entire journey of a Judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings,
documents and arguments of the parties, as truth is the basis of the justice
delivery system. It was also held as under:-
"32. With the passage of time, it has been realised that people
used to feel proud to tell the truth in the Courts, irrespective of
the consequences but that practice no longer proves true, in all
cases. The Court does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest
between two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to
who has won and who has lost but it has a legal duty of its own,
independent of parties, to take active role in the proceedings
and reach at the truth, which is the foundation of
administration of justice. Therefore, the truth should become
the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved
by statutorily mandating the Courts to become active seekers of
truth. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference
in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like
perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood, must be
appropriately dealt with. The parties must state forthwith
sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability
to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must
approach the Court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of
the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass
the legal process must be effectively curbed and the Court must
ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to
anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court. One
way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive
costs.
33. The party not approaching the Court with clean hands
would be liable to be non-suited and such party, who has also
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080778-DB
succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently
false statements, cannot claim relief, especially under Article
136 of the Constitution. While approaching the court, a litigant
must state correct facts and come with clean hands. Where
such statement of facts is based on some information, the
source of such information must also be disclosed. Totally
misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the
court and such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly,
as a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if
filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the
process of the court. A litigant is bound to make "full and true
disclosure of facts". (Refer: Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & Ors.
v. Munshi & Anr., [1969(1) SCC 110]; A. Shanmugam v. Ariya
Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana
Paripalanai Sangam & Anr., 2012(3) RCR (Civil) 1: 2012(3)
Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 56: (2012)6 SCC 430; Chandra
Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, 1995(1) RCR (Criminal) 210:
(1995) SCC (1) 421; Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India & Ors.,
2012(1) S.C.T. 641: (2011)6 SCC 145; State of Madhya Pradesh
v. Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr., 2011(5) RCR (Civil) 397:
(2011) 7 SCC 639; Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India & Anr.,
2012(2) RCR (Civil) 626 2012(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.)
242: 2012(2) S.C.T. 551: (2011)3 SCC 287).
34. The person seeking equity must do equity. It is not just
the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean
objective that are the equi- fundamentals of judicious litigation.
The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum
alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, which means
that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the
loss or injury to another, is the percept for Courts. Wide
jurisdiction of the court should not become a source of abuse of
the process of law by the disgruntled litigant. Careful exercise
is also necessary to ensure that the litigation is genuine, not
motivated by extraneous considerations and imposes an
obligation upon the litigant to disclose the true facts and
approach the court with clean hands.
35. No litigant can play 'hide and seek' with the courts or adopt
'pick and choose'. True facts ought to be disclosed as the Court
knows law, but not facts. One, who does not come with candid
facts and clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court with
soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material facts is
impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy.
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080778-DB
In such cases, the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi
and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of
court for abusing the process of the court. (K.D. Sharma v. Steel
Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., [(2008)12 SCC 481].
14. While concluding the issue of abuse of process of law, it was
held as under:-
"45. From the above specific averments made in the
writ petitions, it is clear that both these petitioners
have approached the Court with falsehood, unclean
hands and have misled the courts by showing urgency
and exigencies in relation to an incident of 3rd
December, 2006 which, in fact, according to the three
petitioners and the police was false, have thus abused
the process of the court and misused the judicial
process. They maliciously and with ulterior motives
encroached upon the valuable time of the Court and
wasted public money. It is a settled canon that no
litigant has a right to unlimited drought upon the
court time and public money in order to get his affairs
settled in the manner as he wishes. The privilege of
easy access to justice has been abused by these
petitioners by filing frivolous and misconceived
petitions. On the basis of incorrect and incomplete
allegations, they had created urgency for expeditious
hearing of the petitions, which never existed. Even this
Court had to spend days to reach at the truth. Prima
facie it is clear that both these petitioners have mis-
stated facts, withheld true facts and even given false
and incorrect affidavits. They well knew that Courts
are going to rely upon their pleadings and affidavits
while passing appropriate orders. The Director
General of Police, U.P., was required to file an
affidavit and CBI directed to conduct investigation.
Truth being the basis of justice delivery system, it was
important for this Court to reach at the truth, which
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080778-DB
we were able to reach at with the able assistance of all
the counsel and have no hesitation in holding that the
case of both the petitioners suffered from falsehood,
was misconceived and was a patent misuse of judicial
process. Abuse of the process of the Court and not
approaching the Court with complete facts and clean
hands, has compelled this Court to impose heavy and
penal costs on the persons acting as next friends in the
writ petitions before the High Court. This Court
cannot permit the judicial process to become an
instrument of oppression or abuse or to subvert
justice by unscrupulous litigants like the petitioners in
the present case.
15. This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in
the case of V. Chandrasekaran and another vs. Administrative Officer and
others, 2012 (12) SCC 133, holding 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.
16. A perusal of the aforesaid clearly shows that such 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. 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
(Annexure P-2) and the termination order dated 24.11.2023, have not been
placed on record. Most importantly, there is no mention of a civil suit
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080778-DB
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.
17. 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. This attempt is strongly deprecated. We, therefore, are
dissuaded to advert to the merits of the case and solely on the ground of
concealment and not having approached the Court with clean hands, are
inclined to dismiss the instant writ petition.
18. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner as has been referred to above,
we saddle the petitioner with exemplary costs of Rs.1 lakh, which shall be
deposited by the petitioner with the High Court Legal Services Committee
within a period of two weeks from today, failing which the same shall be
recovered from the petitioner, in accordance with law.
(ARUN PALLI) (VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Reserved on : 21.05.2024
Pronounced on : 01.07.2024.
vcgarg
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
10 of 10
