HC dismisses writ plea over Rs. 24 lakh recovery claim, imposes Rs. 10,000 costs for non-disclosure

18/09/2026

SRINAGAR, Sep 17: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition seeking recovery of an outstanding amount of over Rs. 24 lakh, holding that the petitioner had already approached a Commercial Court over the same claim but failed to disclose the pending proceedings while invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal passed the judgment on September 17 in WP(C) No. 898/2024, filed by Nazir Ahmad Mir, proprietor of M/S Mir Electricals, against the Union Territory of Jam-mu and Kashmir and other authorities, including the Kashmir Power Development Cor-poration Limited (KPDCL). The petitioner had sought a direction to the respondents to pay the admitted outstanding am-ount along with 12 per cent interest from the date the amount became due. The respondents, however, informed the court that the petitioner had already instituted a recovery suit before the Additional District Judge, Bank Cases, designated as Co-mmercial Court, Sr-inagar, concerning the same subject matter and substantially the same relief. The court noted that the recovery suit sought, among other reliefs, a decree for recovery of Rs. 24,06,722 along with interest and attachment of the salary accounts of the defendants for realisation of the contractual amount and interest.
After examining the record, Justice Nargal ob-served that the petitioner had instituted the recovery proceedings before filing the writ petition and that the pendency of those proceedings had not been disclosed in the writ petition.
The court held that a litigant invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is required to place all material facts having a direct bearing on the matter fairly and candidly before the court. It observed that pendency of a civil suit involving substantially the same subject matter and relief was a material fact relevant to the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey, reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 556, regarding the doctrine of clean hands and non-suppression of material facts. It also referred to earlier judgments of the High Court in Farooq Ahmad Shiekh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Satpal Sharma v. State of J&K and others on disclosure of material facts and the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.
Justice Nargal observed that allowing parallel proceedings concerning the same claim, particularly when the earlier proceedings had not been disclosed, could result in multiplicity of proceedings and permit adjudication of the same claim before two different forums.
The court further held that a litigant invoking extraordinary jurisdiction must approach the court with "clean hands, a clear mind and complete candour" and disclose material facts, including those adverse to the claim.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as amounting to an abuse of the process of the court and imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner, directing that the amount be deposited with the Registry within two weeks.
The court made it clear that it was expressing no opinion on the merits of the claim pending before the Commercial Court, Srinagar. The Registry has been directed to list the matter on October 5, 2026, for the limited purpose of compliance if the costs are not deposited within the stipulated period.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty