https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395641 Suppression of material facts in a writ petition bars discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227. The petitioners challenged resolution and share allotments as inconsistent with a sanctioned rehabilitation scheme and BIFR directions, but they failed to disclose material facts, including their resignations as directors, the prior appointment of the respondents as directors, and earlier shareholder arrangements. The Court held that a litigant seeking extraordinary equitable jurisdiction must make full and candid disclosure; because the suppression went to the determination of the lis, the petition was not maintainable in equity and was liable to be dismissed, with interim relief vacated. en-us Mon, 18 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 May 2020 19:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395641 Suppression of material facts in a writ petition bars discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227. The petitioners challenged resolution and share allotments as inconsistent with a sanctioned rehabilitation scheme and BIFR directions, but they failed to disclose material facts, including their resignations as directors, the prior appointment of the respondents as directors, and earlier shareholder arrangements. The Court held that a litigant seeking extraordinary equitable jurisdiction must make full and candid disclosure; because the suppression went to the determination of the lis, the petition was not maintainable in equity and was liable to be dismissed, with interim relief vacated. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 18 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395641