Nagpur: In a stern rebuke to litigants attempting to manipulate the judicial process, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has imposed a hefty penalty of Rs 25 lakh on two petrol pump operators for allegedly suppressing crucial facts and misleading the court in an attempt to secure relief.
The court not only dismissed their petition but also delivered a strong message that litigants who approach courts without clean hands and conceal material information cannot expect judicial protection.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Raj Wakode observed that preserving the sanctity and integrity of the judicial process requires strict action against those who abuse it through misrepresentation and suppression of facts.
Petitioners accused of hiding Supreme Court proceedings
The case involved petrol pump owners Sheikh Mohsinali Amin Bohri and Juzer Amin Sheikh Mohsinali Amin Bohri, whose fuel station on Wardha Road stood on land acquired in 2004 for the ambitious MIHAN Project.
Following the acquisition, Maharashtra Airport Development Company (MADC) initiated proceedings to remove structures, including the petrol pump, from the acquired land.
The operators challenged the action before various judicial forums, ultimately taking the matter to the Supreme Court of India. However, they failed to secure any relief from the apex court.
Despite their unsuccessful attempt before the Supreme Court, the petitioners later approached the High Court during the summer vacation period, seeking an interim stay on the proposed action.
What triggered the court’s ire was the allegation that while filing the fresh petition, the petitioners failed to disclose the earlier proceedings before the Supreme Court and the fact that they had already been denied relief.
As a result, the vacation bench initially granted a status quo order based on the documents and information placed before it.
Government exposes alleged misrepresentation
The matter took a dramatic turn when it came up before the regular bench. Senior Advocate Devendra Chavan, appearing for the government side, informed the court that the petitioners had deliberately withheld critical information regarding the Supreme Court proceedings.
He argued that the petitioners had abused the judicial process by approaching the High Court without disclosing material facts, thereby obtaining interim relief that they may not have otherwise secured.
After examining the records, the High Court concluded that the petitioners had failed in their duty to make a full and candid disclosure of all relevant facts.
The bench viewed the omission as a serious attempt to mislead the court and undermine the fairness of judicial proceedings.
Coming down heavily on the petitioners, the court dismissed the plea and imposed a punitive cost of Rs 25 lakh, signalling that judicial forums cannot be used as instruments to bypass adverse orders or conceal inconvenient facts.
Legal observers say the ruling sends a powerful warning against “forum shopping” and the practice of selectively disclosing facts to obtain favourable orders.
The judgment reinforces a fundamental principle of law: anyone seeking equitable relief from a court must do so with complete honesty, transparency and good faith.
By imposing a substantial financial penalty, the High Court has underscored that attempts to secure judicial orders through concealment or misrepresentation will attract serious consequences.
