TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition should be rejected on the ground that the petitioner suppressed material facts, including its participation in the auction and the handing over of possession to the auction purchaser, and whether the impleaded relief could still be granted despite implementation of the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Analysis: The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The decisive consideration was that, by the time the petition was filed, the secured asset had already been auctioned and possession had been delivered to the successful auction purchaser. The petitioner had not disclosed its participation in the auction or the creation of third-party rights. In writ jurisdiction, full and candid disclosure of material facts is mandatory, and suppression of facts going to the root of the matter permits refusal of discretionary relief. The earlier SARFAESI order had already been implemented, and the petitioner could not seek restoration of the status quo ante without challenging the auction proceedings themselves.
Conclusion: The petition was liable to be rejected for suppression of material facts and for seeking relief against consequences of an already implemented and concluded auction process.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition may be declined where the petitioner suppresses material facts that materially affect adjudication, especially when the impugned SARFAESI action has already been implemented and third-party rights have arisen through auction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
