Statutory remedy and clean hands principle bar writ relief where material facts were suppressed in auction challenge.

Writ jurisdiction was treated as inappropriate where the challenge lay to auction action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, because the Debt Recovery Tribunal was competent to examine the secured creditor's action under sections 13(2), 13(4) and the connected remedies under section 17. The petitioner was therefore relegated to the statutory forum. The Court also applied the clean hands principle and held that suppression of prior litigation and incomplete disclosure of material facts amounted to abuse of the writ process, justifying refusal of relief and dismissal with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (ii) Whether suppression and nondisclosure of prior litigation and material facts justified dismissal of the writ petition with costs.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: The reliefs sought challenged the auction action taken under section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. On a conjoint reading of section 17(2), section 17(3) and section 17(4), the Debt Recovery Tribunal was held to be competent to examine the validity of the secured creditor's action under section 13(2) and section 13(4). The Court also held that the petitioner could pursue the statutory forum against the impugned auction notice.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not fit for exercise of writ jurisdiction on this ground and the petitioner was relegated to the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether suppression and nondisclosure of prior litigation and material facts justified dismissal of the writ petition with costs.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is equitable and a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. It found that the petitioner had failed to disclose earlier rounds of litigation and had given an incomplete declaration despite the requirement of disclosure in the writ format. The Court treated such nondisclosure as suppression of material facts and an abuse of the writ process, warranting refusal of relief on that ground alone.

Conclusion: The petition was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs for suppression of material facts.

Final Conclusion: The writ remedy was declined, the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and the petition was dismissed with costs for nondisclosure of material facts.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may refuse relief and dismiss the petition where the petitioner suppresses material facts or fails to make a candid disclosure, because writ jurisdiction is equitable and is available only to a litigant who comes with clean hands.

---