Litigant Not Entitled To Be Heard & Seek Any Relief If He Doesn’t Come To Court With Clean Hands: Apex Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that a litigant is not entitled to be heard and seek any relief if he/she does not come to the Court with clean hands.
The Court reiterated thus in Civil Appeals filed against the common Judgment of the Karnataka High Court by which it dismissed the Writ Appeals.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “In the contextual situation, it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, wherein this Court held that if a litigant did not come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum.”
In this case, the High Court had condoned the delay of 1378 days in filing the Writ Appeal and despite allowing the impleadment of the Appellant as Respondent No. 5 and reserving it for pronouncement of Judgment, it was claimed that the Appellant company was not provided an opportunity to oppose the Appeal on merits.
It was contended by the Appellant that it is the condonation of the inordinate delay on 1378 days in filing the said Appeal that convoluted the matters and ultimately created a situation calling for resolution in the cases involved in the bunch of six Appeals. The Appellant company was a 100% owned subsidiary of Maxim Integrated Products, USA, which claims to be the owner of a property.
The Apex Court in the above context of the case, noted, “True that the High Court set aside the Land Tribunal’s order in that case on ground that it is not a speaking order. In such circumstances what was pending after the remand was nothing but LRF No.1114/74-75 and not LRF No.835/74-75. The application filed by respondent no.1 for grant of occupancy rights in LRF No.835/74-75 was rejected as early as on 10.07.1981. If there was an order pertaining to the case in LRF 835/74-75 after 10.07.1981 after clubbing it with the order in LRF No.1114/74-75 there was absolutely no necessity for the respondents to change the name as Andi @ Andappa and Krishna @ Krishnappa and also to change the name of their father as Lt. Muddanna @ Muniswamappa.”
The Court further took note of the fact that the Respondents- Andappa and Krishnappa have not only made changes in their names but also changed the name of their father by Showing that they are the sons of Mudanna @ Muniswamappa.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the impugned Judgments in Writ Appeal, and restored the Judgment in the Writ Petitions.
Cause Title- M/s. Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design (P) Ltd. v. Andappa (D) By LRs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 17)
