Page 560 - IBC Orders us 7-CA Mukesh Mohan

Order Passed under Sec 7
By Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench
(c) 2016 (4) ALD — Page No. 291 Para-9)-Non Mention in Plaint about notices exchanged prior to suit-

And unexplained conduct in making claim for larger extent in Plaint than that mentioned by Plaintiff in
notice, in facts and circumstances of case, would disentitle Plaintiff to equitable relief of temporary inj
unction.

(d) AIR 1992 DELHI- Civil P.C. 0-39, Rules 1 & 2, S. 151 of CPC-Relief of Injunction-Suppression of

material Facts-Effect Suit liable to be dismissed without going into merits. (Paras-9, 10,11 & 12).

(e) AIR 1994 SC 853-CPV Sec.2 (2)-Evidence Act 544-Proceeding in Court- Fraud by Litigant-
Withholding vital document relevant to litigation-It is fraud on Court- Guilty party is liable to be thrown

out at any stage (Para-8).

(f) AIR 2002 DELHI 151- CPC Order39, Rules 1 &2- Discretionary Relief of Injunction- Grant of-Any
deliberate attempt on part of either party to suppress material fact would disentitle such party for granting

such relief- Plaintiff withholding vital documents vital to litigation in order to gain advantage on other
side- He would be guilty of playing fraud on court as well as on opposite party- Not entitled to
discretionary relief o injunction. (Paras-12,13,14 & 15)

21) The Learned counsel , therefore, submit that ratio as decided in the above cases, are squarely
applicable to the factual matrix of the instant case, wherein Corporate Debtor had deliberately withheld
and suppressed material facts and documents, particularly e-mails. He, therefore, prayed that the petition

is not only liable to be dismissed but it liable to be prosecuted for the offences of Cheating, Extortion, and
Breach of trust and Fabrication of false evidence.

4. I have heard Shri T, Surya Satish, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Shri S. Agasthya Sharma,

Learned Counsel for Respondent, and also perused the pleadings of both the parties along with material
papers filed in their support.

5. Both the learned counsels for parties, at the time of hearing of the case, have further reiterated their
contentions raised in their respective pleadings.

6. Shri T. Surya Satish, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that it is not in

dispute that the Financial Creditor had made available to the Corporate Debtor a short term loan of Rs. 2
50 crores for the repayment of OTS (One Time settlement) amount outstanding with M/s DHFL.

Accordingly, the Corporate Debtor has also executed a Promissory Note and issued a duly signed receipt
acknowledging the receipt of the said amount and promising to repay the same on or before 30.06,2016

560