Wednesday, June 14, 2023

Concealment of material fact

 


  1. Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Bhriguram De v. State of W.B., 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 8141decided on 20.09.2018, the relevant paragraph is reproduced herein:

“15.     According to the Law Lexicon, Third Edition (2012), the Latin Maxim “Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi” defines that the suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of falsehood. The suppression or failure to disclose what one party is bound to disclose to another, may amount to fraud. Where a person is found to be guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi for having concealed material information from scrutiny of the Court, he is not entitled for any equitable relief under order 39 of CPC (5 of 1908). [Arbind Kumar Pal v. Hazi Md. Faizullah Khan, AIR 2007 (NOC) 1035 (Pat) : (2006) 1 BLJR 430].

 

16.      The maxim that one who comes to Court must come with “clean hands” is based on conscience and good faith. The maxim is confined to misconduct in regard to, or at all events connected with, the matter in litigation. “Clean hands” means a clean record with respect to the transaction with the defendant, and not with respect to any third person.

 

17.       As authored by Ruma Pal, J. in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 7 SCC 166 [Coram: Ruma Pal and P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.J.], suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. The relevant portion is provided below:

“13.      As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material from the consideration of the court, whatever view the court may have taken……..”



NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 864 OF 2020
1. LALIT KUMAR & ORS.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. E-HOMES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & 2 ORS.
...........Opp.Party(s)


Source https://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0%2F0%2FCC%2F864%2F2020&dtofhearing=2023-06-14 

No comments: