https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326761 A writ petition seeking mandamus to restrain sale proceedings was declined because the petitioner had not made full and fair disclosure of material facts. The petitioner failed to disclose that the securitisation application had already been dismissed and proceeded as if it were still pending, which amounted to suppression directly relevant to the relief sought. Since relief under Article 226 is discretionary and equitable, the Court held that a litigant who misstates the procedural status of the underlying proceedings is not entitled to extraordinary writ relief. The petition was therefore rejected, leaving the petitioner to pursue the available remedy before the Tribunal. en-us Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:11:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326761 A writ petition seeking mandamus to restrain sale proceedings was declined because the petitioner had not made full and fair disclosure of material facts. The petitioner failed to disclose that the securitisation application had already been dismissed and proceeded as if it were still pending, which amounted to suppression directly relevant to the relief sought. Since relief under Article 226 is discretionary and equitable, the Court held that a litigant who misstates the procedural status of the underlying proceedings is not entitled to extraordinary writ relief. The petition was therefore rejected, leaving the petitioner to pursue the available remedy before the Tribunal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326761