DIPANKAR SEN Vs. ANITA PHALPHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the judgment reported as JT 1993 (6) SC 331 S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs & Ors., quoting Chief Justice Edward Coke of England: "fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal", the Supreme Court highlighted that Courts of Law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and one who comes to the Court must come with clean hands. The Court noted with distress that instances of process of the Court being abused were occurring with great frequency and that property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life were finding the Court process a convenient lever to retain illegal gains indefinitely. The Court expressed in no uncertain terms that Judges should not hesitate to even summarily throw out litigations based on falsehood.

(2.) SUFFICE would it be to state that a fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another?s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Thus, a litigating party has a duty to place all relevant materials in its possession.

(3.) ANITA Phalpher wife of Vikram Kumar, as plaintiff, alleged that she and the appellant had entered into a construction agreement dated September 23, 1999, as per which she had to complete the finishing work in the flat purchased by the defendant from M/s.Civcon Engineers, the sole proprietary firm of her husband Vikram Kumar. The work had to be executed on the flat which was at the rear of the second floor of property No.B-111, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi. She pleaded that she had to be paid Rs.38.50 lakhs for the works to be executed and that she completed the work and handed over possession of the flat to the appellant on October 11, 1999, but did not receive any payment. She pleaded that the appellant issued four cheques, dated April 04, 2000 totalling Rs.38.50 lakhs drawn on HDFC bank and six cheques each in sum of Rs.77,000/- drawn on HDFC bank, the cheques being dated 15.10.1999, 15.11.1999, 15.12.1999, 15.01.2000, 15.02.2000 and 15.03.2000 towards interest; all of which were dishonoured by the banker on whom the cheques were drawn. She alleged that she presented the cheques for payment on August 22, 2000 since appellant requested her to delay presenting the cheques. Alleging that under the agreement she was entitled to interest @ 2.5% per month, suit was filed claiming decree in sum of Rs.46,50,875/-.