Concealing matterial facts
Ramkrishna
(Querist) 10 January 2013
This query is : Resolved
Can Concealing the matterial fact in the O.S unintentionally would constitute prejury
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 10 January 2013
state full facts.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 10 January 2013
No. If just facts have been concealed unintentionally then there is no scope for prejury.
Ramkrishna
(Querist) 11 January 2013
The facts being one of the owner of a duplex apartment has expanded his duplex apartment by encroaching into the set back area and some owners complained to the muncipal corporation which issued notices to them.
As the work was still continuing some of the owners approached the High Court and obtained a Stay of construction, but still the work was not stopped.
The complaints to this regard was made to the muncipal corporation who did not initiate any action at that time and a contempt case was filed against the owner and the corporation.
The owner who has made this illegal encroachment approached the City Civil Courts against the Muncipal Corporation and obtained a stay not to demolish by concealing the fact that there are cases pending in the High Court.
In their counter affadavit they say that it was not intentionally done as they have filed the OS against the corporation not to demolish.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 11 January 2013
Why had you yourself suppressed these material facts while raising your initial query?
Ramkrishna
(Querist) 11 January 2013
Sir,
I have raised this query in 2011 along with the details of the case but the query was not answered.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 11 January 2013
I am not talking about 2011 rather this query raised in separate thread but you have not put the entire facts of your query which you have subsequently put and this is also a concealment of facts.
Ramkrishna
(Querist) 12 January 2013
IN A COMMON TERRACE TWO DUPLEX UNITS WERE BUILT ILLEGALLY BY THE BUILDER AND SOLD, WHICH WERE REGULARIZED LATTER, AFTER GETTING REGULARIZED ONE OF THE UNIT OWNER CITING VASTHU DEFECT AFTER SIX YEARS OF PURCHASE WANTED TO EXTEND THE DUPLEX HOUSE TO THE SOUTH AND WEST WHICH WERE LEFT AS SET BACKS AD MEASURING 275 SQUARE FEET AND WHICH IS SHOWN IN THEIR SALE DEED AS OPEN TO SKY.
THE OWNER ASKED THE OTHER UNIT OWNERS FOR PERMISSION TO DO SO, SOME OF THE OWNERS OBJECTED TO IT; BUT THAT OWNER STARTED CONSTRUCTION WHICH WAS REPORTED TO THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
THE CORPORATION ISSUED A NOTICE TO THE OWNER ASKING WHY THE SAID CONSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT BE DEMOLISHED AS IT WAS BEING BUILT UNAUTHORIZED AND ASKED THEM TO REPLY WITHIN TEN DAYS.
THE OWNER CONTINUED THE CONSTRUCTION AND LATTER REPLIED TO THE CORPORATION THAT IT WAS DONE FOR VASTHU PURPOSE AND THEY WERE UNDER IMPRESSION THAT RAISING A SMALL WALL DOES NOT NEED ANY PERMISSION.
SOME OWNERS APPROACHED THE HIGH COURT AND SECURED AN INTERIM STAY OF CONSTRUCTION PENDING FURTHER ORDERS, WHICH WAS WIRED TO THE PARTY.
MEANWHILE,THE OWNER APPLIED FOR REGULARIZATION OF THE UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION CITING A RULE THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE DEVIATION BUILT IN DEVIATION OF THE SANCTIONED PLAN.
THE OWNER CONTINUED THE CONSTRUCTION IN SPITE OF THE STAY ORDERS WHICH WAS REPORTED TO THE CORPORATION AUTHORITIES AND AS THE CORPORATION DID NOT ACT UPON THE COMPLAINTS A CONTEMPT CASE WAS FILED.
THE CORPORATION REJECTED THERE PROPOSAL FOR REGULARIZATION AS THEY WERE VIOLATING THE RULES IN FORCE.THE CORPORATION ALSO ISSUED A FINAL NOTICE TO THE OWNER TO PULL DOWN THE STRUCTURE WITHIN THREE DAYS.
THEN THE OWNER APPROACHED THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURTS AND OBTAINED A INTERIM INJUNCTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY HIDING THE FACT THAT THERE IS A W.P AND A C.C PENDING IN THE HIGH COURT.
THE STANDING COUNSEL IN HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT AND COUNTER AFFIDAVIT BROUGHT THIS TO THE NOTICE OF THE JUDGE AND ALSO ABOUT THE REJECTION OF THEIR REGULARIZATION. THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE VACATED THE STAY.
WHEN THE CONTEMPT CASE CAME UP FOR HEARING THE OWNER SAID HE HAS ALREADY COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION BEFORE THE ORDERS OF THE COURT.
THE CORPORATION IN THEIR AFFIDAVIT TOLD THE COURT THAT EVEN AFTER THEIR REGULARIZATION WAS REJECTED AND EVEN AFTER GIVING A FINAL NOTICE TO WHICH THE OWNER DID NOT COMPLY WITH APPROACHED THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURTS BY SUPPRESSING THE FACTS AND THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION GOT THE STAY VACATED AND THE CORPORATION WOULD IMMEDIATELY TAKE STEPS TO DEMOLISH THE CONSTRUCTION.
THEN THE OWNER APPROACHED THE IIIrd Addl. CHIEF JUDGE IN A C.M.A AND AGAIN TOOK A STAY AGAINST DEMOLITION BY THE CORPORATION.
EVEN THE IIIrd Addl. CHIEF JUDGE DISMISSED THE STAY STATING THAT THE PETITIONER EVEN AFTER THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION ASKING WHY THE UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT BE DEMOLISHED CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION AND LATTER APPLIED FOR REGULARIZATION, AND THE COURT CANNOT DIRECT THE CORPORATION TO REGULARIZE THE DEVIATIONS, THE COURT ALSO DISCUSSED ABOUT NOT DISCLOSING THE FACT THAT AN W.P AND C.C WERE PENDING IN THE HIGH COURT AND WHERE THE PETITIONER ARGUMENT THEY WERE UNDER BONA FIDE IMPRESSION THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE WHEN THE CORPORATION ISSUED THE FINAL NOTICE DOES NOT STAND GROUND AS IN SPITE HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORDERS OF THE HIGH COURT THEY WERE SILENT AND THUS SUPPRESSED THE FACT.
WHEN THE CORPORATION ISSUED A NOTICE FOR DEMOLITION WITHIN ONE DAY AS THE CONSTRUCTION MADE IN THE COMMON AREA WAS DISMISSED BY THE IIIrd Addl. CHIEF JUDGE, THE OWNER OBTAINED ANOTHER STAY AGAINST THE CORPORATION IN A C.R.P IN THE HIGH COURT.
Saket Saurav
(Expert) 13 January 2013
Dear Sir,
Concealing material facts may amount to fraud.
Perjury means Lying on oath.
Saket Saurav
New Delhi
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 13 January 2013
To me in your case,if the encroach-er was duly served of the notice of the writ,then concealment of pendency of writ in his suit is his deliberate action and in view of presence of his affidavit where he must have
sworn to the best of his personal knowledge and no material fact concealed he is accused of perjury.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 13 January 2013
well advised by experts
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 13 January 2013
This is also a prejury and contempt of court.
