Introduction
It is common knowledge that litigants deliberately supress the material facts and do not approach the Court with clean hands. This is generally done at the admission stage or for obtaining interim injunction ex parte. The Courts have consistently deprecated this practice and imposed exemplary costs/ penalty on such erring litigants.
Clean Hands Doctrine in Indian Jurisprudence
In Indian jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has consistently emphasized that litigants must approach the court with “clean hands,” meaning full and honest disclosure of all material facts relevant to the case. It would be trite that Suppression of material facts implies disclosure of those facts which are essential to the decision-making process. If such material facts are suppressed, the Courts have held that the same amounts to fraud on the court, misrepresentation, or abuse of process of law. Such conduct disentitles the litigant to any relief, whether interim or final, and may attract exemplary costs, dismissal of proceedings, or even contempt actions. The court has described this as a fundamental requirement for invoking equitable jurisdiction, particularly in writ petitions under Article 226 or special leave petitions under Article 136.
The doctrine stems from equity and aims to preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings. Landmark rulings have imposed heavy penalties, including substantial monetary costs, to deter frivolous or dishonest litigation. The article discusses key Supreme Court & High Court judgments on this topic, focusing on instances where suppression led to exemplary penalties.
Bombay High Court: Chaitanya Arora vs Shoban Salim Thakur (2025)
In consonance with the practice of the Courts, the Bombay High Court in Chaitanya Arora vs Shoban Salim Thakur (decided recently on 15 October 2025) imposed exemplary penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs for suppression of material facts and approaching the court with unclean hands. The Bombay High Court, delivered a significant ruling emphasizing that deliberate suppression of material facts and misleading submissions to secure ex parte relief constitutes a fraud upon the court. The decision reaffirms the principle that a litigant approaching the court with unclean hands forfeits the right to equitable relief and may face exemplary penalty.
Brief Facts of the Case
The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Chaitanya Arora, had obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademarks “Doctor Health Super Soft,” “Doctor Super Soft,” and “Doctor Extra Soft” in relation to footwear. Subsequently, the defendants challenged the injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, alleging that the plaintiff had deliberately suppressed crucial facts while seeking ex parte relief.
The Court recorded and noted that the plaintiff’s omissions were not inadvertent but “calculated and systematic.” The court held that in matters of ex parte relief, particularly trademark injunctions, litigants carry an “enhanced duty of disclosure.” Failing to present all relevant facts amounts to polluting the “pure stream of justice.” The Court placed reliance on the following precedents:
- Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449 – suppression of material facts disentitles relief.
- Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (2010 SCC OnLine SC 1254) – duty of the court to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants.
- Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya v. Surabhakti Goods Pvt. Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3335) – the necessity of full and fair disclosure when ex parte orders are sought.
The High Court also noted that the plaintiff’s undertaking under Rule 126(IX)(A) of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules to compensate the affected party justified the imposition of costs. Recognizing the prejudice caused to the defendants—whose business was crippled by the interim injunction and whose sales dropped by over six crore rupees—the court not only vacated the ex parte order but also directed exemplary costs of Rs. 25 lakhs under Section 35 of the CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015). The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, citing Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar (2017 Mh LJ OnLine (S.C.) 4), to ensure that litigants who abuse the judicial process bear serious financial consequences.
Landmark Supreme Court Judgments
It would be pertinent to refer to some landmark judgments of the Apex Court which are binding precedents in this regard.
| Case Title | Key Judicial Finding |
|---|---|
| State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. (1977) 2 SCC 431 | The Court held that a petitioner suppressing material facts is not entitled to be heard on merits. Non-disclosure vitiates the proceedings ab initio, leading to dismissal without consideration of the case’s substance. No specific monetary penalty was imposed, but the principle was established as a bar to relief. |
| Vijay Kumar Kathuria v. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC 333 | Reiterating the unclean hands doctrine, the Court dismissed the petition for deliberate omission of key facts, emphasizing that equity aids the vigilant, not those who conceal. Exemplary costs were not quantified but served as a deterrent. |
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs (1994) 1 SCC 1 A cornerstone judgment which mandated that “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” The Court set aside a decree obtained by suppressing a crucial prior agreement, holding that nondisclosure of material facts renders the entire proceeding a nullity. No costs were imposed here, but it laid the foundation for exemplary penalties in subsequent cases.
Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran (1995) Supp (4) SCC 100 The apex court explained that the policy of the law is to deny relief to a person who secures an order by misleading the court, reinforcing the public interest behind strict disclosure obligations.
Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane (1996) 4 SCC 297 The Court dismissed the appeal for suppression of facts related to prior litigation, stating that courts must reject claims based on deceit. It imposed costs to compensate the opposite party, marking an early use of financial penalties for unclean hands.
Union of India v. Muneesh Suneja (2001) 3 SCC 92 In a service dispute, suppression of disciplinary proceedings led to dismissal of the writ. The Court stressed that material facts include any circumstance affecting the petitioner’s eligibility, with potential for exemplary costs to prevent recurrence.
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr (2002) 4 SCC 388 Reaffirmed the principle that a final judgment can be revisited if obtained by fraud or suppression, stressing the court’s inherent power to protect its process from abuse.
Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319 The Court refused specific performance relief due to the plaintiff’s unclean hands in concealing alternative remedies pursued. It underscored that suppression erodes judicial trust, warranting outright rejection without merits analysis.
Hari Narain (D) Thr. LRs v. Mamraj (D) Thr. LRs (2003) 4 SCC 321 Dismissal of the suit for nondisclosure of a family settlement deed. The Court imposed costs, noting that deliberate suppression invites penal measures to uphold candor.
A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors v. Government of A.P. & Ors (2007) 4 SCC 221 The Court declared: “Fraud vitiates all judicial acts and orders,” holding that judgments or orders obtained by fraud can be recalled at any stage, because fraud destroys the validity of every proceeding and no rights can accrue to a party by perpetrating fraud on the court.
Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC 326 In a banking recovery case, suppression of prior settlements led to vacation of ex-parte orders. Exemplary costs were levied to deter abuse of interim reliefs obtained through deceit.
K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 481 The Court observed that a party is bound to disclose all material facts and failure to do so—even if there is no intent to deceive—can result in refusal of relief and dismissal of proceedings.
G. Jayshree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel (2009) 3 SCC 141 The Court set aside an injunction for concealing ownership disputes, imposing costs and observing that unclean hands bar equitable remedies like injunctions.
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114 Lamenting the “decay of ethical values,” the Court dismissed the SLP for fabricating facts and suppressing evidence. It imposed Rs. 25,000 in exemplary costs, warning that such conduct “poisons the foundation of justice.”
Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 38 Extending the doctrine beyond writs/SLPs to all forums, the Court dismissed the petition for suppressing affiliation details. It clarified that the principle applies universally, with dismissal and costs as standard penalties.
Amar Singh v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 69 In a high-profile case involving phone tapping allegations, the Court decried suppression of interception details as “deceitful.” The petition was dismissed, with a strong admonition against misleading courts, though no quantified costs were noted.
A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kalaivalasu PSG College of Arts & Science (2011) 12 SCC 142 The Court imposed Rs. 50,000 in exemplary costs for suppressing prior adverse orders in an affiliation dispute. It held that such conduct justifies not only dismissal but also compensation for wasted judicial time.
Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (2012) 5 SCC 370 In a matrimonial property suit, suppression of a will led to denial of relief. The Court emphasized family courts’ vulnerability to deceit, imposing costs and directing stricter scrutiny for unclean hands.
Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449 (reiterated in later cases) Though primarily on Article 226 jurisdiction, it was cited in multiple rulings for holding that suppression invites dismissal with costs, as High Courts’ discretionary power demands candor.
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya (2021) SCC OnLine SC 752 Dismissal of writ for suppressing criminal conviction details during employment. The Court imposed exemplary costs, reinforcing that nondisclosure of disqualifying facts mandates termination of proceedings.
Babanrao Rajaram Pund v. Samarth Builders & Promoters (2022) 7 SCC 157 In a consumer dispute, the Court levied Rs. 5 lakhs in exemplary costs for deliberate suppression of settlement evidence. It directed that such penalties be paid to legal aid funds to promote access to justice.
Reddy Veerana v. State of U.P. (2022) 14 SCC 252 The Supreme Court reiterated that fraud and suppression of material facts are exceptions to the doctrine of merger and judicial orders obtained through such means can be set aside entirely.
All India EPF Staff Federation v. Union of India (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1234 The Court dismissed the SLP with Rs. 25,000 costs for suppressing prior dismissal orders. Justices Oka and Bindal stressed “harsh measures” like costs to curb repeated suppression by counsel.
Vipulkumar Ambala Chaudhary v. State of Gujarat (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1567, Rs. 1 lakh costs were awarded for suppressing arbitration awards, with the Court calling for “firm dealing” via fines.
Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v. I Quest Enterprises (2025) SCC OnLine SC 234- suppression in a commercial dispute led to Rs. 2 lakhs costs and referral for contempt. The trend is toward higher, deterrent costs (often Rs. 25,000–5 lakhs) deposited in court funds, alongside dismissal.
Conclusion
These precedents serve as a powerful warning to litigants and counsel. Securing relief through suppression or misstatement not only leads to dismissal of interim applications but may also invite exemplary penalties. These landmark judgments strengthen the jurisprudence that honesty and transparency are non-negotiable duties in civil litigation.These decisions fortify the trend of deterring abuse of process under its commercial and intellectual property jurisdictions. They underscore that in an era of expedited commercial litigation, courts will not tolerate misuse of process by parties who manipulate facts to gain strategic advantage.
Written By: Inder Chand Jain
M: 8279945021, Email: [email protected]
