Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Amit Borkar, J.
Ramrao Tukaram Patil and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Cooperation and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.7660 of 2021, Writ Petition No.7661 of 2021
Decided On : 14-11-2025
Key Points: - Petitioners were judgment debtors challenging a 12-year delay condonation for revision against auction confirmation; delay rejected due to suppression of material facts. (!) (!) - Court held that false statements regarding knowledge of the auction undermine eligibility for writ relief; honesty in writ jurisdiction is mandatory. (!) (!) - Petitioners’ knowledge of the auction evidenced from 2011 and 2015 records; statements to the contrary found to be deliberate falsehoods; jurisdiction declined and costs imposed. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Writ petitions dismissed with costs; Divisional Joint Registrar’s order denying condonation upheld. (!) (!) (!) - Court emphasized that suppression of facts wastes judicial time and public resources; time of the Court is to be protected. (!) (!) (!) - References to Amar Singh v. Union of India and Shamrao Ramu Kamble illustrating the duty of full and fair disclosure in writ petitions. (!) (!) - Ad-interim relief request rejected in light of the final ruling. (!) - Costs amounted to Rs. 1,00,000, deposited with Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority; failure to deposit leads to recovery as land revenue arrears. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the loan and auction. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding false statements and delay. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's findings on petitioner's awareness of auction. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. importance of honesty and truthfulness in writ jurisdiction. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. legal expectations of disclosure in court. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. consequences of misleading the court. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. justification for imposing costs. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 8. final order of dismissal and costs. (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
JUDGMENT :
Amit Borkar, J.
1. The petitioners are the judgment debtors. They challenge the Judgment and Order dated 1 November 2021 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. By the said order, the Revisional Authority rejected their application seeking condonation of delay of twelve years in filing a revision against the order confirming the sale of their properties.
2. The relevant facts are as follows. On 4 April 2005, the petitioners took two separate loans by mortgaging two different properties. On 16 January 2007, the Registrar issued two certificates under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. One certificate was for an amount of Rs. 68,08,969. The other was for Rs. 83,47,098. The petitioners failed to pay the dues as per the certificates. The Special Recovery Officer then held an auction of the mortgaged properties, being Gat No. 183 and Gat No. 332. The auction took place on 17 August 2009. The petitioners allege that the auction purchaser did not deposit 15 percent and 85 percent of the bid amount within the period prescribed under clauses (g) and (h) of Rule 107(11) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. According to the petitioners, this non-compliance renders the auction void.
3. The petitioners initially filed Writ Petition (St.) No. 9104 of 2021 before this Court. This Court permitted them to withdraw the petition with liberty to take appropriate proceedings. Relying on the liberty granted by the Division Bench, the petitioners filed a revision application under Section 154 of the MCS Act challenging the auction proceedings and confirmation of sale. The revision was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of a delay of more than twelve years.
4. In the revision application as well as in the application seeking condonation of delay, the petitioners stated on oath that they were unaware of the auction sale. They claimed that they came to know about the auction for the first time in November 2020. They further stated that after obtaining information and documents, they filed the revision. According to them, the delay deserves to be condoned. They also stated that since they had no knowledge of the auction, the date of auction should be treated as 6 November 2020 for computing limitation.
5. The respondent Bank and the auction purchasers opposed the request for condonation of delay. They submitted that the delay is of more than twelve years. They denied that the petitioners learnt about the auction only on 6 November 2020. They pointed out that on 16 September 2011 the petitioners applied to the Bank for copies of the loan documents. On the same day, the Bank supplied the petitioners with account extracts which clearly reflected the entry of auction amount deposited by the auction purchasers on 1 October 2009. This, according to the respondents, shows that the petitioners were aware of the auction on 16 September 2011. The respondents also referred to a letter dated 16 April 2015 sent by the petitioners to the Bank which acknowledged the deposit and appropriation of the auction amount. According to the respondents, these documents show that the petitioners knew about the auction even in 2011 and again in2015. Hence, the claim that they came to know of the auction only on 6 November 2020 is false.
6. The Revisional Authority
A party invoking writ jurisdiction must disclose all material facts honestly, as suppression and falsehood invalidate claims for equitable relief.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and the consequences of suppression of material facts.
The sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay is the primary criterion, and the court's function is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and advance substantial justice.
The 'Henderson Principle', as a component of the abuse of process doctrine, bars parties from raising grounds of attack in subsequent litigation that could and should have been raised in earlier proc....
An aggrieved person may appeal against a judgment obtained through misrepresentation or concealment of facts, as such judgments are considered nullities.
Suppression of material facts disentitles a party to invoke equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
What would be a ‘material fact’ would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case.
An applicant for relief must disclose all material facts candidly; failure to do so results in dismissal of their claim, emphasizing the principle of clean hands.
A writ of mandamus requires evidence of a demand for public duty performance and refusal; without this, the petition cannot succeed.
Service of demand notice is valid if sent to the correct address, even with a name error; non-disclosure of encumbrances does not invalidate auction sale if it is with the same bank.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
