Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The case of the Department in W.P. (C) 1180 of 2017 9.1To turn to the version of the Department as far as W.P.(C) No.1180/2017 is concerned, it is stated at the outset that the Petitioners have suppressed material facts and ought not to be granted any relief. It is pointed out that from the documents seized and statements of persons recorded during the search and seizure and survey operations, it has emerged that "Mr.Mukkar was the key person controlling multiple companies through a complex web of holdings and cross holdings." According to the Department, this fact was corroborated by the statements recorded on oath by the key associates of Mr. Mukkar, who according to the Department are:

Suppression of material facts by the Petitioners

27.The first issue that the Court proceeds to address is whether there has been any suppression of material facts by the 8 Petitioners in W. P. (C) No. 1180 of 2017 and Ms. Veena Singh in W. P. (C) No. 2375of 2017. The relevant pleadings in both the writ petitions have been referred to extensively hereinabove.

28. In the first place, it requires to be noticed that both, the 8 Petitioners companies as well as Ms. Veena Singh have approached this Court claiming an identical relief viz., the restraint placed by the Department on their respective bank accounts should be lifted. This restraint, admittedly, was placed pursuant to the search, seizure and survey undertaken under Sections 132 and 133 of the Act on 11th January, 2017 and 4th February, 2017 at the various residences and business premises of Mr. Mohnish Mohan Mukkar and his associates, employees etc. It is not in dispute that the search authorization was issued in the name of Mr. Mukkar.

38. The fact that pursuant to the search authorization issued in the name of Mr. Mukkar, the bank accounts of the Petitioner companies were frozen necessitated them having to make a full and complete disclosure of all the material facts within their knowledge concerning Mr. Mukkar in the petition filed in this Court. However, the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 1180 of 2017 have miserably failed to do. They have deliberately suppressed material facts and have persisted in that conduct even after the facts were brought to light by the Department in its counter-affidavit.

48. In the present case, both Petitioners not only suppressed material facts in their petitions in the first place, but after this was pointed out in the Department‟s counter-affidavit, the Petitioners were most casual in their response thereto making no attempt to justify the suppression of such material facts. In fact, the length of the respective rejoinders in both petitions only serves to demonstrate the extent to which material facts within the knowledge of the Petitioners were not placed before the Court in the first instance.