USHA INFOTECH PVT LTD Vs. SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant had moved an interlocutory application in a pending suit seeking an injunction restraining the invocation of the bank guarantee. The plaintiff had suggested that the conduct of the defendant No. 1 had been fraudulent. Learned Single Judge after considering the entire matter in details has come to the conclusion that in fact it was the plaintiff who had not come before the Court with clean hands and had tried to overreach the Court. After examining the matter, the learned Single judge has observed as follows :

(2.) IN our opinion, these observations of the learned Single Judge are in accordance with the law settled by the Supreme Court in the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L. Rs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by L. Rs. and Ors. , reported in AIR 1994 SC 853. In the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court held as follows :

(3.) MR. Abhrajit Mitra, learned Counsel for the appellant, has submitted very strenuously that the learned Single Judge was not justified in imposing costs which have been assessed at 5000 G. Ms. Learned Counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge has not given any reason as to how such heavy cost had been imposed. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has correctly observed that there is a high degree of duty that is required from a party seeking an ex parte order. In our opinion, it is the bounden duty of a litigant to make a full and fair disclosure of all the materials touching the controversy involved in the proceedings. The party seeking discretionary relief is clearly under a duty to disclose even the material which may be apparently unfavourable. Upon disclosing the material it would always be open to the party seeking the ex parte order to make an effort to explain the material that may be apparently not in its favour. In the present case, no effort was made by the appellant either to disclose the entire material or to explain the material that was unfavourable. Therefore, we are entirely in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, on facts as well as law. The ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court as noticed above, would leave no manner of doubt that the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable.