Bombay High Court
RANJIT MOHANDAS MIRCHANDANIversusBANK OF BARODA
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioners suppressed material facts, constituting an abuse of the process of law.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging a 2016 order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal that allowed the bank to recover amounts against several respondents. They claimed ownership of the subject property and alleged that the DRT proceedings were conducted without their knowledge. The bank pointed out that the petitioners had earlier filed an intervention application in the DRT execution proceeding, which was dismissed in November 2022, a fact the petitioners omitted in the writ petition. The court held that the omission amounted to suppression of material facts and an abuse of the legal process, citing Supreme Court precedents on clean hands and contempt for repeated frivolous writ filings. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and any pending applications were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition can be entertained when the petitioners have suppressed material facts.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief against the DRT order despite their prior dismissed intervention.
- Whether the petition constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Subjects
- writ petition
- suppression of facts
- abuse of process
- Debt Recovery Tribunal
- property ownership
- intervention application
- civil procedure
Judgment
2_WP_2907_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2907 OF 2026
Ranjit Mohandas Mirchandani and another … Petitioners
vs.
Bank of Baroda and others … Respondents
Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh for petitioners.
Mr. Anant R. Bamne, i/b. M/s. A. R. Bamne & Co. for respondent No.1 – bank.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 14th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :
. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, challenging an
order passed more than a decade ago i.e. on 25.02.2016 by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal – II, Mumbai (DRT), allowing Original Application
No.42 of 2014 filed by respondent No.1 – bank herein and directing
recovery of certain amounts due to the said respondent. In the said
proceeding, respondent Nos.2 to 5 were the respondents against
whom the said order was passed.
2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, claiming to be the
owners of the property in question and alleging that the proceedings
leading to the said order dated 25.02.2016 were conducted behind
their back.
3. The respondent No.1 – bank is represented by counsel, who
has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners herein had
filed an intervention application also before the Recovery Officer of
DRT (the said officer) in the execution proceeding initiated by the
said respondent. The very same contentions were raised in the
intervention application, which was dismissed by an order dated
25.11.2022 passed by the said officer. Copy of the said order is
tendered for perusal of this Court. It is also brought to our notice
Digitally signed
by PRIYA
PRIYA KAMBLI
Date:
KAMBLI 2026.08.14
15:11:52
+0530
1/2
2_WP_2907_26.doc
that the petitioners did not challenge the order of the said officer,
dismissing their intervention application. The aforesaid facts have
been suppressed in the present writ petition.
4. It is further brought to our notice by the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1 – bank that the subject property was
sold by way of auction on 13.01.2025 by the said officer. We are
further informed that another third party is claiming ownership and
title in the subject property, who has also approached the said officer.
5. We find that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed
on the sole ground of suppression of facts by the petitioners. Any
party approaching the Court, particularly the writ Court, where
discretionary relief is sought, is expected to come clean and place all
the relevant facts before the Court. Failing to do so amounts to abuse
of the process of law. Such a party does not deserve any relief from
the Court.
6. In the case of Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare
Sanstha and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , (2008) 1
SCC 560, the Supreme Court held as follows:
“16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person
approaching a superior court must come with a pair
of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any
material fact, but also should not take recourse to
the legal proceedings over and over again which
amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate
General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries
[(1980) 3 SCC 311 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 688], this
Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing
of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt.”
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending
applications, if any also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.