Filing Successive Writ Petitions by Concealing Material Facts and Non-Compliance with Interim Orders Constitutes Abuse of Process.

The Petitioner availed a Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 27.88 lacs from the Respondent-Bank, secured by hypothecation of stock and a mortgage of residential property in Shopian

Due to repayment failure, the accounts were declared Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on October 19, 2022

The Petitioner previously filed WP (C) No. 1804/2024 challenging these notices, where the Court granted an interim stay on coercive action conditioned upon the Petitioner depositing 50% of the outstanding dues—a condition the Petitioner failed to meet

The Petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition seeking to quash an order dated August 12, 2024, passed by the CJM Shopian under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, alleging procedural non-compliance and non-consideration of representations

1. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable given the pendency of a previous petition on the same cause of action and the Petitioner's failure to disclose subsequent legal proceedings

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to equitable relief under Article 226 despite non-compliance with prior court directions and suppression of material facts regarding proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary, requiring a party to approach the court with "clean hands"

The rule against concealing vital material to gain advantage (K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority (2022))

Dismissal of actions for misleading the court (K. D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008))

Prohibition against taking habitual recourse to legal proceedings as an abuse of process (Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of UP (2008))

Statutory compliance requirements under Section 14 and Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act and Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002

The Court found that the Petitioner suppressed several vital facts: (i) the existence of a prior pending writ petition [WP (C) No. 1804/2024] on the same cause of action; (ii) the failure to comply with the 50% pre-deposit condition imposed by the Court in the first petition; and (iii) the pendency of recovery proceedings (OA/1503/2024) before the DRT.

The Court observed that the Respondent-Bank had indeed complied with Section 14 requirements by filing the necessary affidavit and providing valuation and publication details, contrary to the Petitioner's wholesale assertions.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner adopted a "circuitous route" to evade the pre-deposit condition of the first interim order, which constitutes a fraud on the court and an abuse of process.

The Petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited in the Litigants Welfare Fund and all interim directions were vacated.