Case Law Details
Charu Kishor Mehta Vs Prakash Patel & Ors. (Supreme Court)
Apart from making a bald statement of collusion between Defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 4 and the secured creditor, i.e., M/s. Phoenix A.R.C. Pvt. Ltd. there is nothing substantial as to how and as to what precise fraud has been committed. The only case of the Petitioner for creating a case of fraud is that the Petitioner’s name was not registered as a member of the society and the reason for not registering the name of the Petitioner as a member of the society was that the society, i.e., Defendant No.3 was in collusion with the secured creditor as well as with the Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4. The fact of the matter is that even if the name of the Petitioner would have been registered as a member of the society, it would have hardly given any benefit to the Petitioner in the present case. Being registered as a member of the society would have only meant that the petitioner is a member of the society. It would not create ownership rights on a property. Moreover, and most importantly, not only is this just a bald allegation but the necessary party against whom fraud was alleged i.e., M/s. Phoenix A.R.C. Pvt. Ltd. was never made a party in the suit proceedings before the Civil Court.
At this stage, it was placed on record that the suit premises have been sold in favour of Defendant No.4 i.e., Acrynova Industries Pvt. Ltd. The challenge to the auction and sale, which was made at the hands of none other than the present petitioner before the Bombay High Court and as well as this Court has been dismissed and that as far as the sale auction in favour of the Defendant No.4 is concerned, that has attained a finality
We are totally in agreement with the above observations of the two courts and the order passed by the trial court allowing the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC the Bombay High Court dated 13.06.2022 and upholding that order and dismissing the appeal of the present Petitioner. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bombay High Court was absolutely justified in imposing the cost of Rs. 5 lakh, on the Petitioner. It is not only the proceedings before the Civil Court initiated by the Petitioner in the year 2022 which was on abuse of the law, but the entire conduct of the petitioner is a clear reflection of the fact that the petitioner has been doing so repeatedly, after being a signatory to the settlement as back as 01.10.2013.
We may record here that we were initially persuaded in this case, to initiate contempt proceedings against the Petitioner, considering that there has been a deliberate attempt on her part in the non-disclosure of absolutely relevant facts before this Court. We are not doing so purely due to the age of the Petitioner as she is a lady of 78 years of age. The present petition is no doubt an abuse of the process of law and has caused harm to the other parties to the litigation, some of whom may have been needlessly drawn into the litigation. We may refer here an observation given in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara Vs Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
