Suppression of material facts bars Article 226 relief when SARFAESI remedies are already pending before the Tribunal.

A litigant seeking writ relief under Article 226 must approach the court with clean hands, and suppression of a material fact can bar exercise of equitable, discretionary jurisdiction. Here, the petitioner failed to disclose that a Section 17(1) SARFAESI application had already been filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal before the writ petition was instituted. The declaration that no other proceeding was pending and no other remedy was available was found incorrect, so writ relief was denied and the petition was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 despite suppressing the fact that an appeal had already been filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The petition sought interference against auction proceedings under the SARFAESI framework, but it emerged from the record produced by the Bank that an application under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 had already been filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal before the writ petition was instituted. The petitioner's declaration that no other proceedings had been initiated and that no other remedy was available was found to be incorrect. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is equitable and discretionary, and a litigant who suppresses a material fact does not come with clean hands and cannot claim relief on merits.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to writ relief and the petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant who suppresses a material fact while seeking equitable writ relief under Article 226 is barred from invoking the Court's discretionary jurisdiction.

---