Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iii) Whether the licensee has been able to establish nexus between the erstwhile consumer and the petitioners, being the prospective consumers?

(iv) To what relief the petitioners are entitled on facts and in the circumstances?

This Court is of the considered view that non-disclosure of each and every fact in the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action does not per se amount to suppression. There may be non-disclosure of a fact by reason of human error, or there may be non-disclosure of a fact owing to a perception that disclosure of such fact may not be relevant for a decision. In all such cases, if by the non-disclosure a party concerned does not derive any unlawful gain or does not steal a march over the other party, the contention that a fact has been suppressed and therefore on such ground alone consequences must follow may not be accepted. It is only when a fact that is material for a decision of the case is not disclosed or a fact is not disclosed with ulterior motive of either deriving unlawful gain or for stealing a march over the other party that "suppression of fact" could be validly raised as a ground for disentitling a party to relief.