2_WP_2907_26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2907 OF 2026 Ranjit Mohandas Mirchandani and another … Petitioners vs. Bank of Baroda and others … Respondents Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh for petitioners. Mr. Anant R. Bamne, i/b. M/s. A. R. Bamne & Co. for respondent No.1 – bank. CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ DATE : 14th AUGUST, 2026 P.C. : . The petitioners have filed this writ petition, challenging an order passed more than a decade ago i.e. on 25.02.2016 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Mumbai (DRT), allowing Original Application No.42 of 2014 filed by respondent No.1 – bank herein and directing recovery of certain amounts due to the said respondent. In the said proceeding, respondent Nos.2 to 5 were the respondents against whom the said order was passed. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, claiming to be the owners of the property in question and alleging that the proceedings leading to the said order dated 25.02.2016 were conducted behind their back. 3. The respondent No.1 – bank is represented by counsel, who has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners herein had filed an intervention application also before the Recovery Officer of DRT (the said officer) in the execution proceeding initiated by the said respondent. The very same contentions were raised in the intervention application, which was dismissed by an order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the said officer. Copy of the said order is tendered for perusal of this Court. It is also brought to our notice 1/2 PRIYA KAMBLI Digitally signed by PRIYA KAMBLI Date: 2026.08.14 15:11:52 +0530 2_WP_2907_26.doc that the petitioners did not challenge the order of the said officer, dismissing their intervention application. The aforesaid facts have been suppressed in the present writ petition. 4. It is further brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 – bank that the subject property was sold by way of auction on 13.01.2025 by the said officer. We are further informed that another third party is claiming ownership and title in the subject property, who has also approached the said officer. 5. We find that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the sole ground of suppression of facts by the petitioners. Any party approaching the Court, particularly the writ Court, where discretionary relief is sought, is expected to come clean and place all the relevant facts before the Court. Failing to do so amounts to abuse of the process of law. Such a party does not deserve any relief from the Court. 6. In the case of Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 1 SCC 560, the Supreme Court held as follows: “16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries [(1980) 3 SCC 311 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 688], this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt.” 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any also stand disposed of. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) 2/2 Priya Kambli