Suppression of material facts in legal petitions can lead to dismissal, reaffirming the duty of full disclosure in exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellants are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.17972 of

2025, which is one filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 award dated 10.11.2020 in O.A.No.71 of 2018 of the 1^st respondent Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Kerala. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that Ext.P5 award is not binding on the petitioners. In the writ petition, at the admission stage, the learned Single Judge granted an interim order dated 09.05.2025, which reads thus;

“Admit.

Issue notice to the respondents by speed post. In view of the contentions raised that the 1^st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint leading to the issue of Ext.P5 award, there will be an interim stay as prayed for, for a period of six weeks.”

2. On receipt of notice, respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit dated 20.06.2025, producing therewith Exts.R3 and R3(1) to R3(4) documents. The document marked as Ext.R3 is a copy of the order dated 26.07.2023 of the First Additional Commercial Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, in O.P.(Arbitration)No.13 of 2022. The said petition was dismissed after taking note of the statutory requirement under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 , regarding pre-deposit of 75% of the award amount for preferring an application/appeal for setting aside the award. In the said order, the court has also referred to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Goodyear India Limited v. Norton Intech Rubbers Private Limited [(2012) 6 SCC 345]

3. By the order dated 13.11.2025, the learned Single Judge extended the interim order dated 09.05.2025 by one month, on condition that the petitioner remits 75% of the award amount within two weeks. The said order is under challenge in this writ appeal.

4. On 27.11.2025, when this writ appeal came up for consideration, this Court passed a detailed order. Paragraphs 3 to

7 of the said order read thus;

‘3. During the course of arguments, on a query made by this Court, as to whether a copy of Ext.R3 order dated 26.07.2023 of the First Additional Commercial Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, in O.P.(Arbitration)No.13 of 2022 was placed on record along with W.P.(C)No.17972 of 2025, the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners would submit that though a copy of that order was not placed on record along with the writ petition, the dismissal of that original petition by the order dated 26.07.2023 was mentioned in paragraph 12 of the statement of facts. Paragraph 12 of the statement of facts of W.P.(C)No.17972 of 2025 reads thus;

“12. It is submitted that Ext.P5 award is non est in law for reasons enumerated below. Since the award is non est in law, Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not applicable as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [2022 (1) KLT 141 (SC)]. The true copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [2022 (1) KLT 141 (SC)] is produced herewith and marked as Ext.P11. The 1^st petitioner mistakenly preferred O.P.(Arbitration)No.13 of 2022 challenging Ext.P5 award, which was dismissed on 26.07.2023 for failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act.” (underline supplied)

4. As stated by Scrutton, L.J, in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 K.B. 486], an applicant who does not come with candid facts and ‘clean breast’ cannot hold a writ of the court with ‘soiled hands’. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which ha