Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Anurag Farms Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad And ... vs Union Of India, Secretary, Law ... on 25 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)ALD209, 1999(1)ALT565
Author: J. Chelameswar
Bench: J. Chelameswar
ORDER Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in OA No.205 of 1995 on the file of the third respondent as invalid.
2. The second respondent-State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad has instituted a suit in OA No.205 of 1995 against the petitioners herein on the file of the third respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,16,58,000/-. The said suit was decreed on 11-7-1997 against the petitioners herein. Petitioners did not file any appeal against the judgment and decree in OA No.205 of 1995 before the appellate forum at Mutnbai, but instead approached this Court with a prayer as indicated above.
3. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 5-11-1997, has issued an interim direction on the same day in WPMP No.33882 of 1997 to the effect that in the event of any decree being passed in OA No.205 of 1995, the same shall not be executed until further orders. The second respondent-bank filed a vacate-petition in WVMP No.152 of 1998 seeking to vacate the interim stay order passed by this Court in WPMP No. 33882 of 1997.
4. Counsel for the vacale-petitioner second respondent in the writ petition states that the fact of passing the judgment and decree in the said OA No.205 of 1995 has been concealed by the petitioners herein from this Court and there is no whisper in this regard in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Counsel further states that though a statutory appeal is provided against the judgment and decree of the third respondent passed in OA No.205 of 1995, the petitioners instead of filing an appeal, has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition concealing the factum of passing the judgment and decree in OA No.205 of 1995 and therefore, prayed that the interim stay granted by this Court on 5-11-1997 be vacated and the writ petition be dismissed.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner also.
6. Having heard both the learned Counsel for the petitioner and 2nd respondent-Bank and on a consideration of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioners have suppressed the fact of passing the judgment and decree in OA No.205 of 1995 by the third respondent herein on 11-7-1997. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and as such, they are not entitled to seek the relief as prayed for. When the third respondent has passed a judgment and decree against these petitioners in OA No.205 of 1995, the proper course for the petitioners is to file an appeal against the same in appropriate appellate forum. Having not done so, the petitioners approached this Court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts. Therefore, no relief could be granted to a party who approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with unclean hands.
7. The writ petition is deviod of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. The interim stay granted by this Court on 5-11-1997 in WPMP No. 33882 of 1997 shall stand vacated.