Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1373
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Tamil Nadu Bee-Keepers Welfare Association Rep.by its General Secretary
Versus
The Government of India Rep.by its Secretary to Govt. Ministry of Finance & Others
W.P.No.5377 of 2007 & W.P.(MD) Nos.9084 & 14491 to 14503 of 2010
Decided on: 16-03-2012
For Petitioner:Ms. Kanimozhi Mathi, M. Gnanagurunathan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 -K. Govi Ganesan, R3 - M. Sundar, R4 -P.N.Radhakrishnan, R3 - S. Renga Samy, R1 & R2 - S. Balasubramanian, Advocates.
The obligation to make truthful statements before the court and the consequences of suppressing material facts.
Headnote:
Loan Recovery - Tamil Nadu Bee-Keepers Welfare Association - SARFAESI Act, 2002, Section 13(4) - The court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the association seeking relief from loan recovery, citing suppression of vital information and abuse of the court process. The court referred to the State of M.P. Vs Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) (7) SCC 639@ 705 & 706, emphasizing the obligation to make truthful statements before the court and the consequences of suppressing material facts.
Fact of the Case:
The Tamil Nadu Bee-Keepers Welfare Association sought relief from loan recovery by the State Bank of Travancore, claiming that the members were unable to repay the loan due to natural calamities. The association also made a representation to the Government of India for redressal of their grievance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the association and its members had filed multiple Writ Petitions with different prayers, suppressing vital information about the earlier Writ Petition filed for the same relief. The court dismissed the Writ Petitions for abuse of the court process and lack of clean hands.
Issues: Suppression of vital information, abuse of court process, loan recovery, representation to the Government of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The obligation to make truthful statements before the court, consequences of suppressing material facts, and the court's authority to refuse to proceed further with a matter if the process of the court is being abused.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition filed by the association and the individual members were dismissed for suppression of vital information and abuse of the court process.
Common Order
1. The petitioner in W.P.5377 of 2007 is a Tamil Nadu Bee-Keepers Welfare Association claiming to have a registration No.22, atvVettuvenni, Marthandam in Kanyakumari District. In this Writ Petition, they have sought for a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to dispose of their representation dated 5.12.2005 and for a consequential direction to the 4th respondent Bank to forbear from resorting to any coercive action for recovery of money from the members of the petitioner association as per list enclosed to the typed set of papers. In the list enclosed at page 12 of the typed set, they have given the names of 21 members along with the name of the Village.
2. The grievance of the petitioner as projected in the affidavit was that the association has availed loan of Rs.30 Lakhs in the year 2003 from the 4th respondent Bank for the purpose of improving infrastructure for setting up apiary units and marketing the produce and for purchase of vehicle for the use. After sanction of the loan, the petitioner availed Rs.28.35 Lakhs as loan and Rs.1.65 Lakhs remain to be unutilized. It is claimed that 20% of the loan had to be treated as subsidy. Out of the loan availed from the bank, they have in turn advanced to 21 members of the association, whose names are furnished. The loan amount was to be cleared within a period of 7 years, namely on or before 2010. According to the petitioner association, they have discharged only Rs.2.75 Lakhs out of the said loan amount. The members were not able to clear the loan installments due to drought situation in the first year and due to floods in the second year.
3. The 4th respondent was reminding them of their obligation to discharge the loan. The petitioner association made representation dated 5.12.2005 to the Government of India and prayed for the redressal of their grievance. Their representation is yet to be considered. Under the circumstances, unless the representation is disposed of, the bank is likely to enforce through coercive proceedings for the recovery of the amounts due from the members of the petitioner association. Hence the Writ Petition.
4. It is not clear as to how the consequential prayer sought for by the petitioner association is in any way connected with the representation to be considered by the Government of India.
5. When this matter was listed before this Court on 6.3.2012, Mr.P.N.Radhakrishnan, Standing Counsel for the State Bank of Travancore mentioned that the members of the Association also moved the Madurai Bench with different prayers and hence the Bank is unable to take any decision and for a convenient disposal, the matters pending before the Madurai Bench also should be directed to be heard along with the Writ Petition filed by the Association. Accordingly, this Court directed the Registry to get appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice for posting the Madurai matters to be heard along with the 1st Writ Petition. The Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 9.3.2012 directed the Madurai matters to be transferred to this Court so as to be heard along with this Writ Petition. Accordingly, all these matters were listed today along with the 1st Writ Petition.
6. A perusal of the affidavit in W.P.(MD) Nos.14491 to 14503 of 2010 shows that the members of the very same association have filed the Writ Petitions seeking for a direction to consider the waiver of the loans availed by them in the year 2003 from the State Bank of Travancore under the scheme for Agriculture debt waiver and Debt relief scheme, 2009 and for a consequential direction to the bank to waive the loan payment by the petitioners. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petitions, there is no reference to the Writ Petition filed by the Association, namely W.P.5377 of 2007. Whereas in paragraph 8 of the affidavit, identical averments have been made stating that they have not filed any other Writ Petitions before any court for the relief sought for. Such an averment o
