# Iifl Home Finance Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 834
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 29658 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/iifl-home-finance-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53778
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Whether the earlier order dated 28.08.2025,
having been obtained by suppressing the
operative part of the DRT order, is liable to be
recalled?
9 All. Iifl Home Finance Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
835
HEADNOTE
SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Section 14; Constitution
of India - Article 226 - Suppression of
material facts - Fraud on the Court - Doctrine
of clean hands - Principles of suppressio veri
and suggestio falsi - Inherent power to recall
Held: Any petitioner seeking a writ of
mandamus has to approach the Court with clean
hands and place before the Court all material
facts relevant for adjudication of the matter. A
petitioner who does not bring on record the
relevant true facts does not deserve to get any
relief from the Court. Courts have inherent
power to set aside an order obtained by
practising fraud upon the Court, and where the
Court is misled by a party or the Court itself
commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the
Court has the inherent power to recall its order.
Suppression of the operative part of the DRT
order directing IIFL Home Finance Limited to
give 15 days' prior notice before taking
possession of the secured assets, and falsely
stating that the borrower has not challenged
any proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI
Act, 2002 before any forum, i.e., DRT, DRAT
and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad or
otherwise before any Court of law, clearly shows
that the writ petitioner had suppressed material
facts. The entire process of obtaining the
impugned order was an abuse of the process of
the Court as the petitioner had not come with
clean hands and failed to follow the principle of
uberrima fides - utmost good faith. The order
passed on 28.08.2025 was recalled in its
entirety.As respondents 6 & 7 were forcibly
dispossessed without notice, the Court ordered
immediate restoration of possession by IIFL
Home Finance Ltd. and District Magistrate,
Ghaziabad.[Paras 5, 6, 7] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Bhriguram De v. State of West Bengal, (2018) 6
WBLR (Cal) 78

List of Acts
SARFAESI Act, 2002;
Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Fraud on Court; Suppressio veri; Suggestio falsi;
Uberrima
fides;
Clean
hands
doctrine;
Suppression of material facts; Misstatement in
pleadings; Recall of order; DRT order; Abuse of
process; Illegal dispossession; Restoration of
possession; Compliance directions.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 28.08.2025 in Writ-C No. 29658 of
2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Ashish Malhotra
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Dr. Avneesh
Tripathi

## Text

834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present case, the value in the property
involved is more than hundred crores, and
therefore, there cannot be any transfer of
interest in favour of the intending buyer
merely on the basis of an agreement to sell.
In the facts of the present case, since the
suits
for
specific
performance
of
agreements to sell, are already pending,
therefore, there was no occasion for the
reference court to consider the entitlement
of
the petitioners
on
the basis
of
agreements to sell executed in their favour.
The rights of the parties will be dependent
on the outcome of the pending suits.

35. Learned counsel for the petitioner
lastly submitted that disbursement of
compensation should be stayed and the
amount may be directed to be deposit in a
fixed deposit till disposal of the suit filed
by the petitioners. It has further been
submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that in case, petitioner succeeds
in the suits filed by the petitioners, for
specific performance of agreements which
are pending till date and a decree for
damages is passed against the respondents,
if the money is not deposited, there is
likelihood that the respondents in order to
frustrate the decree passed against them
may dispose of the compensation amount.
The contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is misconceived. In case, the
petitioners succeed in the suits filed by the
petitioners, and are able to obtain a decree
for damages, the same will be the money
decree capable of being executed. At
present, it cannot be said that how much
time will be consumed in deciding the suits
filed by the petitioners and in case, the
money is directed to be deposited in fixed
deposit and be not paid to the recorded
owner of the property, may cause prejudice
to the recorded owner who is otherwise
entitled for the same. Further, in case, the
petitioners fail and their suits are dismissed,
irreparable loss will be caused to the
respondents as they will be entitled only for
the bank interest, in case, the money is
directed to be deposited which otherwise
can be used by them at present. In case, the
petitioners succeed, the decree will be a
money decree which is capable of being
executed. There is no likelihood of any
irreparable injury to the petitioners.

36. In view of the discussion made
above, I am of the view that no illegality
has
been
committed
by
the
Land
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Authority, Meerut, in passing
the order impugned.

37. Accordingly, this petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 834
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ C No. 29658 of 2025

Iifl Home Finance Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashish Malhotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S.C.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the earlier order dated 28.08.2025,
having been obtained by suppressing the
operative part of the DRT order, is liable to be
recalled?
9 All. Iifl Home Finance Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
835
HEADNOTE
SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Section 14; Constitution
of India - Article 226 - Suppression of
material facts - Fraud on the Court - Doctrine
of clean hands - Principles of suppressio veri
and suggestio falsi - Inherent power to recall
Held: Any petitioner seeking a writ of
mandamus has to approach the Court with clean
hands and place before the Court all material
facts relevant for adjudication of the matter. A
petitioner who does not bring on record the
relevant true facts does not deserve to get any
relief from the Court. Courts have inherent
power to set aside an order obtained by
practising fraud upon the Court, and where the
Court is misled by a party or the Court itself
commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the
Court has the inherent power to recall its order.
Suppression of the operative part of the DRT
order directing IIFL Home Finance Limited to
give 15 days' prior notice before taking
possession of the secured assets, and falsely
stating that the borrower has not challenged
any proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI
Act, 2002 before any forum, i.e., DRT, DRAT
and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad or
otherwise before any Court of law, clearly shows
that the writ petitioner had suppressed material
facts. The entire process of obtaining the
impugned order was an abuse of the process of
the Court as the petitioner had not come with
clean hands and failed to follow the principle of
uberrima fides - utmost good faith. The order
passed on 28.08.2025 was recalled in its
entirety.As respondents 6 & 7 were forcibly
dispossessed without notice, the Court ordered
immediate restoration of possession by IIFL
Home Finance Ltd. and District Magistrate,
Ghaziabad.[Paras 5, 6, 7] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Bhriguram De v. State of West Bengal, (2018) 6
WBLR (Cal) 78

List of Acts
SARFAESI Act, 2002;
Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Fraud on Court; Suppressio veri; Suggestio falsi;
Uberrima
fides;
Clean
hands
doctrine;
Suppression of material facts; Misstatement in
pleadings; Recall of order; DRT order; Abuse of
process; Illegal dispossession; Restoration of
possession; Compliance directions.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 28.08.2025 in Writ-C No. 29658 of
2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Ashish Malhotra
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Dr. Avneesh
Tripathi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.)

(Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 2
of 2025)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant/respondent and Dr. Avneesh
Tripathi, learned counsel for the writ
petitioner.

2. A recall application has been filed
with regard to an order that was passed on
August 28, 2025 in a writ petition filed by
IIFL Home Finance Limited in Writ-C No.
29658 of 2025 (IIFL Home Finance
Limited Versus State of U.P. and others).
For the sake of clarity, the entire order is
delineated below:-

"1.
Heard
learned
counsel
appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. In the present case, order
under Section 14 of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated
January 13, 2025 was passed by the
Additional District Magistrate (Finance
and Revenue), Ghaziabad for granting
possession to the petitioner who is the
auction purchaser.
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. In light of the same, the
District
Magistrate,
Ghaziabad
being
respondent No.2 and the Commissioner of
Police, Ghaziabad being respondent No.4
herein, are directed to act in accordance
with law and comply with the order passed
under Section 14 of the Act within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of this order, if there is no
other legal impediment.

4. With the above directions, the
writ petition is disposed of."

3. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the private respondents being
respondent nos. 6 and 7 has filed this
application
indicating
that
the
order
obtained by this Court on August 28, 2025
was obtained by suppression of relevant
material facts. He submits that the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow, had already
passed an order on 29.07.2025 specifically
directing the respondent (IIFL Home
Finance Limited) to give 15 days prior
notice before taking possession of the
secured assets. He further submits that due
to this order, a stay was continuing and this
fact was not brought to the knowledge of
this Court. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the applicant further submits that
paragraph no. 27 of the writ petition is
absolutely false and amounts to perjury.
The relevant paragraph is quoted below:

"27. That it is pertinent to
mention here that the borrower has not
challenged any proceedings initiated under
the SARFAESI Act, 2022 before and
Forum, D.R.T., D.R.A.T. and the Hon'ble
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad or
otherwise before and court of law."

4. The Calcutta High Court in
Bhriguram De v. State of West Bengal
and others; (2018) 6 WBLR (Cal) 78, a
judgment penned by one of us, after
examining a catena of judgments of the
Supreme Court, Allahabad High Court
(FB) and English Courts, has categorically
dealt
with
the
principles
of
fraud,
fraudulent concealment, suppressio veri,
suggestio falsi and the doctrine of clean
hands. The relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment are quoted below:

"13. 'Fraud', according to Black's
law Dictionary, 10th Edition, is a knowing
misrepresentation or knowing concealment
of a material fact made to induce another
to act to his or her detriment; a reckless
misrepresentation made without justified
belief in its truth to induce another person
to act; a tort arising from a knowing or
reckless misrepresentation or concealment
of material fact made to induce another to
act to his or her detriment.

14. "Fraudulent concealment" as
defined in Black's law Dictionary, 10th
Edition, is the affirmative suppression or
hiding, with the intent to

deceive or defraud, of a material
fact or circumstance that one is legally (or,
sometimes, morally) bound to reveal.

15.
According
to
the
Law
Lexicon, Third Edition (2012), the Latin
Maxim "Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi"
defines that the suppression of the truth is
equivalent to the suggestion of falsehood.
The suppression or failure to disclose what
one party is bound to disclose to another,
may amount to fraud. Where a person is
found to be guilty of suppressio veri
suggestio falsi for having concealed
material information from scrutiny of the
Court, he is not entitled for any equitable
relief under order 39 of CPC (5 of 1908).
[Arbind Kumar Pal v. Hazi Md. Faizullah
Khan, AIR 2007 (NOC) 1035 (Pat) : (2006)
1 BUR 430].
9 All. Iifl Home Finance Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
837

16. The maxim that one who
comes to Court must come with "clean
hands" is based on conscience and good
faith. The maxim is confined to misconduct
in regard to, or at all events connected
with, the matter in litigation. "Clean
hands" means a clean record with respect
to the transaction with the defendant, and
not with respect to any third person.

***

18. In S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu
(Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs
reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 (Coram :
Kuldip Singh and PB. Saiuani, JJ.j, the
Supreme Court came down heavily on
petitioners filing cases based on falsehood
and suppression and observed as follows:

"5 The Courts of law are meant
for imparting justice between the parties.
One, who comes to the Court, must come
with clean hands. We are constrained to
say that more often than not, process of the
Court is being abused. Property-grabbers,
tax-evaders, bank-loan dodgers and other
unscrupulous persons from a J1 walks of
life find the Court-process a convenient
lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely.
We have no hesitation to say that a person,
whose case is based on falsehood, has no
right to approach the Court. He can be
summarily thrown out at any stage of
litigation.

6....A fraud is an act of deliberate
deception with the design of securing
something by taking advantage of another.
It is a deception in order to gain by
another's loss. It is a cheating intended to
get an advantage of another..... A litigant,
who approaches the Court, is bound to
produce all the documents executed by him,
which are relevant to the litigation. If he
withholds a vital document in order to gain
advantage on the other side then he would
be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as
well as on the opposite party."

20. In Asiatic Engineering Co. v.
Achhru Ram reported in AIR 1951 All 746
(Full Bench) [Coram : Malik, C.J., Sapru
and V. Bharqaua, JJ., the Court observed
that no relief can be granted in a writ
petition under Article 226 which is based
on misstatement or suppression of material
facts. The Court observed in paragraph 51,
at page 767 as follows:

"51. In our opmion, the salutary
principle laid down in the cases quoted
above should appropriately be applied by
Courts in our country when parties seek the
aid of the extraordinary powers granted to
the
Court
under
Art.
226
of
the
Constitution. A person obtaining an ex
parte order or a rule nisi by means of a
petition for exercise of the extraordinary
powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution
must come with clean hands, must not
suppress any relevant facts from the Court,
must refrain from making misleading
statements and from giving incorrect
information to the Court. Courts, for their
own protection, should insist that persons
invoking
these
extraordinary
powers
should not attempt, in any manner, to
misuse this valuable right by obtaining ex
parte
orders
by
suppression,
misrepresentation
or
misstatement
of
facts."

21. In Indian Bank v. Satyam
Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in JT
(1996) 7 SC 135 [Coram : Kuldip Singh &
S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.], the Apex Court
further observed as follows:

"23. Since fraud affects the
solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the
proceedings of the Court, it also amounts
to an abuse of the process of the Court, that
the Courts have inherent power to set aside
an order obtained by practising fraud upon
the Court, and that where the Court is
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
misled by a party or the Court itself
commits a mistake which prejudices a
party, the Court has the inherent power to
recall its order."

***

26. Finally, upon examination
of the above mentioned judgments, it is
axiomatic that any petitioner seeking a
writ of mandamus, has to approach the
Court with clean hands and to produce
before the Court all material facts that
are relevant for adjudication of the
said matter. The principle of uberrima
fides -abundant good faith - as stated
in
The
King
v.
The
General
Commissioners for the purposes of the
Income Tax Acts for the District of
Kensington reported in [1917] 1 K.B.
486 applies in the present case. A
petitioner who does not bring on
record the relevant true facts before
the Court, does not deserve to get any
relief from the Court."

5.
Upon
going
through
the
application filed and perusing the order
passed by DRT, it is clear that the writ
petitioner had suppressed material facts.
The entire process of obtaining the
impugned order was an abuse of the
process of the Court as the petitioner had
not come with clean hands and failed to
follow the principle of uberrima fides -
utmost good faith.

6. Under these circumstances, we are
of the view that the order passed on August
28, 2025 is required to be recalled in its
entirety. Furthermore, we have been given
to understand by counsel appearing on
behalf of the private respondents that they
have been removed from their residence
without any notice whatsoever and are now
on the streets.

7. In light of the above order passed,
the order dated August 28, 2025 is hereby
recalled. We direct the IIFL Home Finance
Limited
and
the
District
Magistrate,
Ghaziabad to immediately restore the
possession of the respondent nos. 6 and 7
and their family members.

8. The recall application is allowed.

9. Registrar (Compliance) of this
Court is directed to send a copy of the order
passed in Court today, forthwith to the
District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the
Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad for
taking necessary steps in this matter.

(Order on Writ Petition)

9. List this matter on October 9, 2025.

10. On the next date, the petitioner is
directed to file an affidavit of compliance
of the order passed in Court today.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 838
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Writ C No. 31054 of 2025

Amir Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Meraj Ahmad Khan