2025 (1) TMI 1607 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal allowed; 1,378-day delay denied for failure to disclose finalized LRF proceeding, name changes, and parentage misrepresentation

M/s Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design (P) Ltd Versus Andappa (D) By LRs & Ors

SC held the writ appeals should be allowed and the impugned orders interfered with. The Court refused condonation of a 1,378-day delay because the ... Condonation of delay of 1378 days in filing the writ appeal - non-disclosure of relevant facts - non-appreciation of the position that LRF had attained finality and was not pending when the Deputy Commissioner passed the order - HELD THAT:- There can be no doubt that a ‘fact being in consequential’ and ‘nondisclosure of the said fact’ are different and distinct. The said submission itself would reveal the fact that respondent No. 1 did not disclose the said fact which was very crucial while filing an appeal against the order dated 25.03.2003 with an application to condone the inordinate delay of 1378 days. The respondent No. 1 cannot feign ignorance about such orders as he was a party to the order of the Tehsildar passed in compliance with the direction in the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 25.03.2003 and further on account of the fact that it was he who preferred an appeal against the said order of the special Tehsildar before the Asst. Commissioner. That apart, even after suffering such an adverse order he had not chosen to challenge the same and allowed that to become final. It is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India [2010 (11) TMI 936 - SUPREME COURT], wherein this Court held that if a litigant did not come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum - That apart on a careful scrutiny of the materials on record, certain alarming situation revealing the attempt of manipulation made by the first respondent were found. What was challenged before the High Court by Sreenivasa Rao in WP No. 34193/81 was the decision in LRF 1114/74-75. True that the High Court set aside the Land Tribunal’s order in that case on ground that it is not a speaking order. In such circumstances what was pending after the remand was nothing but LRF No. 1114/74-75 and not LRF No. 835/74-75. The application filed by respondent no. 1 for grant of occupancy rights in LRF No .835/74-75 was rejected as early as on 10.07.1981. If there was an order pertaining to the case in LRF 835/74-75 after 10.07.1981 after clubbing it with the order in LRF No. 1114/74-75 there was absolutely no necessity for the respondents to change the name as Andi @ Andappa and Krishna @ Krishnappa and also to change the name of their father as Lt. Muddanna @ Muniswamappa. The original proceedings in LRF No. 835/74-75 and in LRF No. 1114/74- 75 would reveal the fact that the respondents-Andappa and Krishnappa have not only made changes in their names but also changed the name of their father by showing that they are the sons of Mudanna @ Muniswamappa. The impugned order passed in the Writ Appeals are liable to be interfered with - Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an application to condone an inordinate delay in filing an appeal (1378 days) can be allowed where the appellant/respondent seeking condonation failed to disclose material facts demonstrating that consequential orders based on an earlier judgment had attained finality. 2. Whether non-disclosure of crucial facts and misleading or manipulative conduct by a litigant (including alteration/variation of party identities in prior proceedings) disentitles that litigant to equitable relief from the Court. 3. Whether a Land Tribunal order which had attained finality in 1981 could be reopened indirectly by subsequent administrative or appellate actions, and whether permitting remand/reconsideration in such circumstances amounts to impermissible revisiting of a final order. 4. Whether impleading a party in an appeal and reserving judgment without giving that party an opportunity to oppose the appeal on merits is a valid exercise of judicial discretion. 5. Relief issue: Whether the High Court's common judgment allowing/dismissing the assorted writ appeals should be interfered with where the condonation, non-disclosure and alleged manipulation materially affected the outcome. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Condonation of inordinate delay where material facts were not disclosed Legal framework: Courts exercise equitable discretion in condoning delay, guided by considerations such as explanation for delay, prejudice to opposite party, and conduct/clean hands of the applicant. Full and frank disclosure of material facts is a precondition for equitable relief. Precedent treatment: Followed the settled principle that a litigant who does not come with clean hands is not entitled to judicial relief; earlier authoritative decisions were applied to deny relief where nondisclosure or mala fide conduct is shown. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the application for condonation which accompanied the filing of the appeal after 1378 days and found that the applicant failed to disclose that consequent administrative and appellate orders flowing from an earlier High Court judgment had been obtained and left unchallenged, thereby attaining finality. The Court held that nondisclosure of such crucial facts, particularly where the applicant was a party to those consequential proceedings (having litigated and appealed), vitiated the application for condonation and rendered the exercise of discretion impermissible. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an applicant for condonation deliberately or negligently conceals material facts that bear on the finality of prior proceedings, the discretion to condone delay should not be exercised in their favour. Obiter - Observations on factors to be considered in other factual matrices. Conclusion: Condonation under the facts was improper; the omission to disclose decisive consequential orders warranted interference with the High Court's allowance of condonation. Issue 2 - Non-disclosure/misrepresentation and 'clean hands' doctrine Legal framework: Equitable relief is refused to parties who have acted inequitably, including by suppression of material facts or manipulation of proceedings; courts may deny remedy to those who have not come to court with clean hands. Precedent treatment: Applied the principle that lack of candour and attempts at manipulation disentitle a litigant to relief and may justify dismissal of an appeal or application. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found affirmative and material non-disclosure: the respondent who sought condonation and pursued an appeal had earlier contested and litigated in proceedings that produced final administrative/actionable orders in favour of the (later) purchaser; despite that, the respondent failed to disclose those facts in the condonation/application. The record showed attempts at manipulation, including changes in the names and parentage shown in earlier land-reform proceedings, reinforcing the conclusion of inequitable conduct. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Material nondisclosure and manipulation by a litigant justify denial of relief and may warrant reversal of orders founded upon such nondisclosure. Obiter - The Court's reference to indicia of manipulation (e.g., name changes) is explanatory of the factual finding, not a general rule. Conclusion: The party's nondisclosure and manipulative conduct disentitled it to relief; the High Court's order based on such nondisclosure is vitiated. Issue 3 - Finality of earlier Land Tribunal order and propriety of remand/reopening Legal framework: Finality of adjudicatory orders is a fundamental principle; reopening or permitting review/reconsideration is permissible only on valid legal grounds and not by permitting indirect routes to negate a final order. Precedent treatment: Followed established principle protecting finality and barring collateral attempts to re-litigate issues already conclusively decided. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court carefully analysed the sequence of proceedings and concluded that the Land Tribunal's order dismissing the tenancy claim had attained finality in 1981 and that subsequent administrative and appellate actions (Tehsildar, Asst. Commissioner orders) had been taken in light of a subsequent High Court direction; where those consequential orders were allowed to attain finality and acted upon (including a sale), permitting an appeal that effectively reopened the long-finalized Tribunal determination would be impermissible. The Single Judge's remand which led to fresh consideration was criticised where it permitted re-opening of matters which had been settled and where party conduct had contributed to that closure. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Finality of the Tribunal's order must be respected; indirect reopening through procedural lacunae or nondisclosure is impermissible. Obiter - Emphasis on careful scrutiny when remand may lead to revisiting final orders. Conclusion: The finality of the 1981 Tribunal order and subsequent affirming steps disfavoured reopening; remand/reconsideration that resulted from nondisclosure was not sustainable. Issue 4 - Impleadment without opportunity to oppose on merits Legal framework: Natural justice dictates that a party who is impleaded must be given a fair opportunity to be heard on the merits; impleadment cannot be used to deny procedural rights. Precedent treatment: Applied conventional principles of procedural fairness and opportunity to be heard. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the appellant was impleaded in an appeal after condonation of delay but was not afforded an opportunity to oppose the appeal on merits before judgment was reserved, thereby prejudicing its rights. This procedural lapse compounded the defect arising from the improper condonation and nondisclosure. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Impleadment followed by reservation of judgment without allowing the impleaded party to oppose on merits is procedurally impermissible and can vitiate the outcome. Obiter - None. Conclusion: The impleadment procedure as conducted offended principles of natural justice and contributed to the need for corrective relief. Issue 5 - Relief: Interference with High Court's common judgment Legal framework: Appellate courts may set aside judgments where fundamental defects in discretion, nondisclosure, manipulation, or denial of natural justice taint the impugned order and have materially affected the result. Precedent treatment: The Court invoked equitable and supervisory powers to set aside orders obtained or sustained by inequitable conduct. Interpretation and reasoning: Considering the cumulative effect of (a) condonation of inordinate delay obtained without disclosure of material final orders, (b) demonstrable manipulative conduct and changes in identities in prior land proceedings, (c) failure to give an impleaded party a hearing on merits, and (d) the finality of the earlier Tribunal order, the Court concluded that the High Court's common judgment must be interfered with. The Court applied the 'clean hands' doctrine and supervisory equity to restore the earlier writ petitions' outcomes which had been disturbed by the impugned appeals and orders. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where appellate relief is secured by material nondisclosure, manipulation or denial of natural justice, intervening appellate courts should set aside such orders and restore the prior stage; equitable doctrines concerning clean hands apply. Obiter - Observations on the factual indicia of manipulation and the sequence of administrative confirmations. Conclusion: The impugned common judgment was set aside; the judgments in the originating writ petitions were restored, and the appeals founded upon the improper condonation/implement procedures were quashed.