Back
Dismisses Abida Banno's College Bank Plea: ₹1L Costs for Suppression of Facts
The
has dismissed a writ petition filed by Abida Banno, who claimed to be the Manager of
, seeking permission to operate the college's bank accounts. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary imposed a
of ₹1 lakh on the petitioners for deliberate
, terming the petition
"a
"
.
A Simple Plea with a Complex Background
At first glance, the petition appeared straightforward: Abida Banno sought a directing the respondent banks to allow her to operate the college's bank accounts and recognize her as the authorized signatory. When the court inquired about when the accounts became inoperative, her counsel stated they had been frozen since .
However, the petition contained no explanation for why the accounts were frozen. The only submission was that a representation dated seeking restoration had gone unacknowledged. This answer raised immediate doubts, prompting the court to delve deeper into the matter.
The Untold Story of a Bitter Sibling Rivalry
Upon scrutiny, a long-running management dispute in the society '', which runs the college, came to light. After the death of founder manager Dr. Ahmad Saeed in , his daughters Abida Banno and Uzma Faheen became locked in a battle for control.
The court noted a series of proceedings: Abida Banno's renewal of the society was cancelled by the Deputy Registrar, a challenge to that cancellation was dismissed, and elections were conducted under court direction. The approval of Uzma Faheen's group was challenged in multiple writ petitions and appeals, eventually culminating in a Division Bench order on , that upheld the election. The also dismissed a filed by Abida Banno.
Suppression of Truth Equals Falsehood
The court observed that the petitioner had
"deliberately withheld the intervening facts between the year
to 2023"
to keep the court in the dark. It found that the mention of
was not part of the original typed petition but was subsequently inserted by hand in paragraph 11.
"Even when directly questioned as to since when the Bank Accounts had been frozen, the petitioner did not disclose the true facts and continued to rely solely on the representation made to the Banks for restoration of access to the Bank Accounts,"
the court noted.
The bench concluded that Abida Banno had been an active participant in the management dispute and was arrayed as a respondent in a related pending writ petition – a fact she suppressed.
"A litigant invoking the
of this Court is expected to come with
, a clear mind, and complete candour,"
the court held.
Cleansing the Stream of Justice
The court relied on the landmark judgment in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010), which held that a litigant who attempts to is not entitled to any relief. It also cited Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI (2007), emphasizing that the and the applicant must disclose full facts.
"
from the Court of law is actually
,"
the bench observed, applying the maxim
—suppression of truth is equivalent to expression of falsehood.
Dismissal with
Dismissing the petition, the court imposed ₹1 lakh costs, to be deposited with the within one month, failing which it would be recoverable as . The court clarified it had not adjudicated on who is legitimately authorized to operate the bank accounts, leaving that to be determined by the Deputy Registrar and in the pending writ petition.
The decision underscores the high standard of candour required in writ proceedings and serves as a warning against litigants who attempt to camouflage contentious disputes as simple relief petitions.
