M/S PRESTIGE LIGHTS LTD. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 20-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS PRESTIGE LIGHTS LTD. 
v. 
STATE BANK OF INDIA 
AUGUST 20, 2007 
B 
[C.K. THAKKERANDALTAMASKABIJl,JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 226 and 136-Discretionary and extra-ordinary jurisdiction 
C and equitable remedy-Invoking of-Held: it is of utmost necessity that when 
a party approaches High Court, he must place all facts before the Court 
without any reservation-If there is suppression of material facts on the part 
of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ 
Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering 
D into merits of the matter-Writ petitioner having suppressed material facts, 
is not entitled to ask/or extra-ordinary remedy under Article 226 from High 
Court as also equitable remedy from Supreme Court under Article 136-
Equity. 
Securitization, Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcem(!flt of 
E Security Interest Act, 2002: 
ss. 13(2) and (4)(a)-Enforcement of security interest-Notice u/s 13(2) 
issued to borrower-company-Company neither made the payment nor did 
it give any representation-Bank exercising power u/s l 3(4)(a)-Writ petition 
before High Court by borrower stating that representation against notice u/ 
F s 13(2) was made but not considered-High Court accepting the stand of 
Bank that plea of representation was an afterthought-Besides, borrower 
suppressed material facts and created third party interest in property 
mortgaged to Bank-Writ petition dismissed i11 limine-He/d: A party whose 
hands are soiled cannot hold writ of Court-High Court was not in error in 
G refusing relief to borrower-Even on merits, no case made out/or interference 
with action taken by Bank or order passed by High Court-Constitution of 
India, 1950-Artic/es 226 and 136. 
The appellant-company obtained a loan of Rs. 85 lakhs from the 
respondent-Bank in the year 1992 on mortgage of its land and building, 
II 
112 
PRESTIGE LIGHTS LTD. v. STA TE BANK OF INDIA 
113 
~ 
creating security interest in favour of the Bank. After some time the appellant A 
defaulted in depositing instalments of repayment of the loan. On 19.10.2004, 
the Bank served a notice dated 16.10.2004 on the appellant-Company under 
sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Securiti7.ation, Reconstruction of Financial 
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 stating therein that 
the appellant failed to pay a sum of Rs.87,64,549.42 p. The appellant was B 
called upon to deposit the required amount with interest within 60 days failing 
which the Bank would exercise the power under sub-section (4) of Section 13 
of the Act. On 9~3.2005 the Bank issued a notice to take over possession of 
the residential house of the Director of the company. The Company filed a 
writ petition before the High Court which dismissed the same in limine. 
c 
In the instant appeal filed by the Company it was contended for the 
appellant that again~t the noti~e dated 16.10.2004, the Company made a 
representation dated 20.10.2004 and it was incumbent on the Bank to consider 
the same to extend an opportunity to the appellant to enable it to pay off the 
amount and, in case of rejection of the representation, to inform the appellant 
about such decision by recording reasons and, as the Bank failed to do so, its D 
action was unlawful and against the provisions of the Act as also in violation 
of the law laid down in Mardia Chemicals Case*. It was also submitted that 
the writ petition raised several questions which were required to be dealt with 
in a detailed judgment, but the High Court summarily dismissed the writ 
petition. 
E 
For the respondent-Bank it was contended that there was suppress.ion 
of material facts by the Company and it did not approach the Court with clean 
hands; that no representation dated 20.10.2004, said to have been made by 
the Company was received by the Bank and the plea ofrepresentation was an 
after-thought, which was raised only with a view to take benefit of observations F 
in Mardia Chemicals Case* It was also submitted that apart from failure to 
pay regular instalments, the company even did not comply with the terms of 
the interim order passed by the Supreme Court; and, therefore, it was not a 
fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the Company. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
~ 
HELD: 1. No case has been made out by the appellant-Company to claim 
any relief from this Court. It is not disputed even by the appellant that no 
r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.