Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Bombay Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar held that a writ petition marred by inaccurate statements and concealment of relevant facts cannot be examined on merits and must be rejected at the outset, as such conduct misuses the judicial process. In a dispute arising from recovery proceedings following default on mortgage-backed loans and the subsequent auction of secured properties, the judgment debtors sought to challenge the sale after a delay of more than twelve years. The Court determined that the record demonstrated their earlier knowledge of the auction, rendering their explanation untenable. Reiterating that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and anchored in fairness, equity and full disclosure, the Court declined relief, upheld the refusal to condone delay, and imposed costs.

The dispute concerns the challenge to the rejection of an application seeking condonation of delay in filing a revision against the confirmation of auction sale of mortgaged properties. The petitioners had availed two separate loans on 4 April 2005 by mortgaging two different properties. Certificates under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 were issued on 16 January 2007 for recovery of dues. Upon continued default in repayment by the petitioners, the Special Recovery Officer conducted an auction of the mortgaged properties on 17 August 2009, relating to Gat No. 183 and Gat No. 332.

After more than twelve years, the petitioners challenged the auction and the confirmation of sale by filing a revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act. The revision was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. The petitioners stated that they became aware of the auction only in November 2020 and that limitation should be computed accordingly.

Also Read: Withholding Without Returning Defies Federalism; Governor Cannot Keep Bill Pending Without Sending It Back To Assembly: Supreme Court In Presidential Reference

The auction purchasers and the Bank opposed the application, producing documentary evidence. They relied on the petitioners’ application dated 16 September 2011, in which the petitioners had sought and received account extracts clearly reflecting the deposit of auction proceeds. Reference was also made to a letter dated 16 April 2015 written by petitioner No. 1 acknowledging that the Bank had auctioned the mortgaged property and that the auction amount had been appropriated.

It was asserted that these documents contradicted the petitioners’ claim of gaining knowledge of the auction in 2020. The Revisional Authority rejected the plea for condonation of delay on 1 November 2021. The writ petition before the High Court challenged this rejection, arguing that the auction was void for alleged non-compliance with clauses (g) and (h) of Rule 107(11) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 and could therefore be questioned at any time.

The Court recorded that the foundation of the petitioners’ plea was untenable, noting that “the record, however, shows that such assertion patently false.” It stated that the documents placed on record “leave no doubt that they were aware about the auction at least on 16 September 2011.” Further, referring to the 2015 communication, the Court observed that “the contents of the letter leave no room for doubt. The petitioner was aware of the auction sale at least on 16 April 2015.”

Despite this documentary evidence, the petitioners had “made a categorical statement on oath in the delay condonation application and in the writ petition that he came to know about the auction only in November 2019.” The Court held that “this is not an inadvertent error. It is a conscious and deliberate assertion.” and that “the only conclusion possible is that a false statement has been knowingly made.”

In assessing the petitioners’ justification for delay, the Court recorded that “the explanation offered by the petitioner that he became aware of the auction only in 2020 is not only unacceptable, but it shows a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.” It added that “No litigant has a right to suppress facts and then seek relief. When the foundation of the plea itself is false, the entire case built on it falls.”

The Court stated that “Courts cannot act on statements which are proved to be untrue by the litigant’s own record.” and that “Writ jurisdiction stands on the principle of fairness.” It further observed that “If a litigant hides facts or makes a false statement, the Court cannot ignore such conduct.”

Highlighting the consequences of misleading the Court, Justice Borkar stated: “A person who seeks extraordinary relief must show complete honesty. Equity does not favour a person who acts unfairly. The Court cannot permit its process to be misused by suppression or deceit.”

The Court elaborated on the impact of such conduct, observing that “When a litigant hides material facts or knowingly makes a false statement to secure a favourable order, the Court cannot proceed to examine the merits of the case. The writ jurisdiction is extraordinary. It is meant to ensure justice. It cannot be used to gain advantage through deception.”

Reflecting more broadly, the Court stated: “There is an increasing trend of litigants approaching constitutional courts with incomplete facts or half-truths to secure interim or final relief. Such conduct undermines the dignity of judicial proceedings. It shakes public confidence in the justice delivery system.”

Regarding judicial discretion, the Court recorded that “Writ jurisdiction is discretionary. It is based on equity.” and “the moment it is shown that the party has concealed facts or made a false statement, the basis of the writ petition collapses.”

Reinforcing the centrality of truth, the Court noted: “Truth is the foundation of justice. A person who speaks untruth on oath loses the right to claim extraordinary relief.”

On costs, the Court stated that the petitioners’ plea “is based on falsehood.” and that “imposition of costs becomes necessary to ensure that such conduct does not repeat.” It further observed: “Court time is not private property. It belongs to every litigant waiting in the corridor of justice. Every minute spent on a matter built on falsehood results in genuine matters being delayed.”

Also Read: Bombay High Court Quashes ₹27.06 Crore Travel-Deposit Direction Against Former Stockbroker In SEBI Manipulation Case

The Court dismissed the writ petition and held that “the order dated 1 November 2021 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar refusing condonation of delay is upheld. The petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). The costs shall be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today. Proof of payment shall be filed in the Registry within one week thereafter.”

“If the petitioners fail to deposit the amount within the prescribed time, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.” A request to continue interim relief was refused as for the reasons stated in this judgment, request for continuation of ad-interim relief is rejected.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Shrishailya S. Deshmukh
For the Respondents: Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP; Mr. S.R. Nargolkar with Mr. Arjun Kadam and Ms. Neeta Patil; Mr. Abhishek Arote; Mr. Vijay D. Patil, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Yogesh V. Patil

Case Title: Ramrao Tukaram Patil & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:48823
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 7660 of 2021 with Writ Petition No. 7661 of 2021
Bench: Justice Amit Borkar