M/S. S.J.S. BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 17-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. S.J .S. BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
MARCH 17, 2004 
B 
[MRS. RUMA PAL AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Writ petition-Suppression of material facts-Effect on 
C maintainability of-Petitioner filed a civil suit for certain reliefa-Thereafter, 
petitioner filed a writ petition seeking same reliefs without disclosing the fact 
of filing of the civil suit-High Court dislnissed the writ petition on the ground 
of suppression of material facts-Correctness of-Held: As a general rule, 
suppression of a material fact disqualified a litigant from obtaining any relief-
D But the suppressed fact must be a material one which, had it not been 
suppressed, would have had an effect on the merits of the case-Filing of a 
suit was not such a material fact, the suppression of which would have affected 
the final disposal of the writ petition on merits-Hence, High Court's order 
set aside. 
E 
Administrative law: 
Auction sale-Principles to be folfowed-Held: Adequate publicity to 
ensure maximum participation of bidders should be given unless the sale was 
of such a nature which required immediate disposal of the property. 
F 
The appellant was sanctioned a certain sum by the Bihar State Credit 
and Investment Corporation Ltd. (BICICO) for financing the construction 
of a hotel. The appellant committed default in re-payment of the loan and, 
therefore, procel!dings were initiated under Section 29 of the State 
Financial Corporations Act, 1951 for sale of the hotel. A sale notice was 
G published offering the hotel for sale on "As is where is basis". Under this 
notice offers were to be given within three days. 
On the same day the sale notice was published, respondent No. 6 
offered to purchase the hotel for a certain sum. The appellant and its two 
Directors were asked by the BICICO to match the offer made by 
H 
56 
.. 
) 
S.J.S. BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. v. STATE 
57 
... 
)'-
respondent No. 6, failing which the sale would be concluded in favour of A 
respondent No. 6. 
.. 
The appellant filed a civil suit challenging the aforesaid action of 
BICICO. The next day a writ petition was filed by the appellant before 
the High Court for the same reliefs as had been prayed for in the suit. 
The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the B 
appellant had materially suppressed the fact that it had filed a suit prior 
to the institution of the writ proceedings. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a c 
litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has 
been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing 
the process of Court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a 
material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have 
had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was D 
material for the consideration of the Court, whatever view the Court may 
have taken. [61-H; 62-Al 
'f 
State of Haryana v. The Karna/ Distillery Co. Ltd, AIR (1977) SC 781 
and Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P., AIR (1983) SC 1014, relied on. 
E 
The King v. The General Commissioners for the purposes of the Income 
Tax Act/or the District of Kensington, (1917) l KB 486, referred to. 
2.1. The existence of an adequate or suitable alternative remedy 
available to a litigant is merely a factor which a Court entertaining an 
application under Article 226 will consider for exercising the discretion F 
to issue a writ under Article 226. (62-E-F) 
,). 
A.N. Venkateswaran v. R.S. Wadhwani, AIR (1961) SC 1507, relied on. 
2.2. But the existence of such alternative remedy does not impinge 
upon the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with the matter itself if it G 
is in a position to do so on the basis of the affidavits filed. If, however, a 
party has already availed of the alternative remedy while invoking the 
jurisdiction under Article 226, it would not be appropriate for the Court 
¥. 
to entertain the writ petition. This Rule is based on public policy but the 
motivating factor is the existence of a parallel jurisdiction in another H 
Court. (62-F; 63-A] 
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20041 3 S.C.R. 
~ 
A 
C.B. Gosain Bhan v. State of Orissa, 119631 2 SCR 879, relied on. 
...¥' 
2.3. Therefore, the fact that a suit had already been filed by the 
appellant was not such a fact the suppression of which could
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.