Petitioner's Misleading Statements Lead to Dismissal

The High Court found that the petitioner's counsel misled the court by falsely stating that instalments were timely deposited as per court direction. It was revealed that only the initial instalment was paid, with subsequent ones missed. The court held that the petitioner, after defaulting on payments, could not challenge the one-time settlement terms. Emphasizing the prior order for instalment payments, the court dismissed the petition, advising the petitioner to pursue legal remedies if disputing the settlement terms.

---

---

Issues: Misleading the court by false statements, default in payment of instalments, challenging one-time settlement terms

In this judgment by the High Court, it was observed that the petitioner's counsel made a false statement regarding the timely deposit of instalments as directed by the court in a previous order. The court noted that only the initial deposit was made, and subsequent instalments were not deposited as scheduled. The court concluded that the petitioner attempted to mislead the court and cannot challenge the terms of a one-time settlement after defaulting on payment. The court emphasized that the petitioner, having previously obtained an order for payment in instalments to halt recovery proceedings, cannot contest the bank's one-time settlement terms now. The court held that if the petitioner has issues with the interest rate under the settlement, they should pursue legal avenues such as filing a suit or approaching the appropriate forum. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

---