Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

38. Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed on record written notes of argument running into 50 pages mainly addressing the conduct of the Bank in delaying disbursement of loan amount, which was sanctioned because of which the project in question got delayed. He has submitted that the pleading by the Bank in O.A. No. 283 of 2011 was based on falsehood inasmuch as the sanctioned loan amount was reduced to 92 lakhs by letter dated 19.04.2004 against original sanctioned loan of Rs. 153 lakhs, whereas the Bank sought recovery of a sum of Rs.1,53,38,333/-. He has submitted that there was no pleading by the Bank in its application as to what amount was disbursed and what was the rate of interest. He has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court to make out a case that it was obligatory on the part of the Bank to establish its case before the DRT that a particular sum of Rs.1,53,38,333/- was recoverable and further it was obligatory for the Bank to disclose clearly the amount actually disbursed and chargeable rate of interest. He has submitted that only on the ground that the petitioner Company failed to dispute the said amount, the Tribunal could not have recorded a finding that the Bank was entitled to receive from the Patna High Court CWJC No.1178 of 2020 dt. 09-08-2021 defendants jointly and severely (except defendant No.3) the loan and interest amounting to Rs.1,53,38,333/- with pendente lite interest and future at contractual rate of interest from 01.10.2011 till realization. He has relied on Supreme Court's decision in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 491, to submit that failure to prove evidence does not amount to an admission nor does it reverses or discharge the plaintiff's burden of proof. He has further submitted that the impugned order dated 17.09.2012 of the DRT does not contain reason as to how the Bank was entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.1,53,38,333/-, which is solely based on the consideration that the Bank officials were acting in public interest and they had no grudge/enmity/ill-will towards the defendants so as to create false evidence. He has contended that the finding recorded by the DRT is unsustainable on the ground also. He has also placed reliance on Supreme Court's decision in case of Sant Lal Gupta and Others vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and Others, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336), to bolster his contention that it is imperative for the Courts/Tribunals to record reasons and pass speaking orders.

47. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan has rightly relied on the Supreme Court's decision in case of Rajendra Singh (supra), which, in no uncertain terms, declares that fraud and justice never run together. The petitioners' conduct disentitles it from maintaining the application before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the basis of apparent falsehood.

48. Coming to the impugned order of the appellate Tribunal dated 13.02.2018, it is evident that the Tribunal did notice the fact that M.A. No. 482 of 2012 was not filed by the borrower with a request that the order passed in O.A. be reviewed. It was rather mentioned in the application that their account had been settled in view of the order passed by the High Court in the writ application. The appellate Tribunal has rightly recorded that the said application could not be treated to have been preferred for Patna High Court CWJC No.1178 of 2020 dt. 09-08-2021 review of the judgment passed in the O.A.. The appellate Tribunal has rightly pointed out that though wrong mentioning of the provisions has no bearing on the proceeding, but while reviewing of the order it is the duty of the Court to assign the reason and point out the apparent error, that was to be rectified, which was completely absent. The appellate Tribunal further noted, and rightly so, that if the order was to be changed or modified, the earlier order ought to have been set aside because the final order would have been the one passed in the review application. The appellate Tribunal accordingly held the order of the DRT passed in M.A. No. 150 of 2015 to be a nullity.

50. Before I conclude, I must take note of the consistent view of the Supreme Court that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation (see : (1994) 1 SCC 1, S.P. Chengalavaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRS vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRS and Others). In case of Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Supreme Court has observed that 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. In Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Others vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRS, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370, the Supreme Court, noticing the decision in case of Ramrameshwari Devi and Others vs. Nirmala Devi and Others, reported in (2011) 8 SCC 249, has held in paragraph 82 that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for Patna High Court CWJC No.1178 of 2020 dt. 09-08-2021 uncalled for litigation. It further observed that it is a matter of common experience that the court's otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. Such problem can be solved or at least can be minimized if exemplary costs is imposed for instituting frivolous litigations. The Court further observed that in appropriate cases, the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. For the benefit of quick reference paragraph 82 of the said decision is being reproduced hereinbelow : -