‘Suppression of Facts’: Not a Weapon of Technicality; No Suppression, if the Facts are ‘Known to Each Other’.

Jojy George Koduvath.

Abstract

The intent and purport of the ‘Doctrine of Suppression of Facts’, articulated by our Apex Court (through various decisions), can be foreshowed as under:

  • It is not to arm one party with a weapon of technicality over its adversary. It is to serve as a crucial safeguard against the abuse of the judicial process. It is to ensure that a party approaches Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation.
  • It must be a material suppression; that is, it must have a crucial role to play in determination of the lis, or the merits of the case.
  • The suppression could only be where a fact is known to the particular person; and it was intentionally/deliberately withheld by him, to cause injury or prejudice to another.
  • And, there will be no “suppression” if the facts are “known” to the opposite side. But, in proper cases ‘suppressio veri’ and ‘suggestio falsi’ itself may bring adverse results.

Part I

Suppression of Facts – Only a Safeguard

This principle is not designed to provide one party with an advantage based on technicalities over its opponent.

In Government of NCT of Delhi v. BSK Realtors LLP, 2024-7 SCC 370, relying on S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd v. State of Bihar and others, (2004) 7 SCC 166 and Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and others, (2007) 6 SCC 120, it is held as under:

  • “30. Law is well settled that the fact suppressed must be material in the sense that it would have an effect on the merits of the case. The concept of suppression or non-disclosure of facts transcends mere concealment; it necessitates the deliberate withholding of material facts — those of such critical import that their absence would render any decision unjust. Material facts, in this context, refer to those facts that possess the potential to significantly influence the decision-making process or alter its trajectory. This principle is not intended to arm one party with a weapon of technicality over its adversary but rather serves as a crucial safeguard against the abuse of the judicial process.”

CONCEALMENT – There must be a Direct Attempt to Hide

In T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, 2007-7 SCC 162, (S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ.) while dealing with ‘concealment’ of income as provided in Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,  it is pointed out that ‘Concealment refers to deliberate act on the part of the assessee. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi’. The Court said further as under:

  • “14. In Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai delivered today, this Court (2007-6 SCC 329, S.B. Sinha & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.) observed:
  • “The expression “conceal” is of great importance. According to Law Lexicon, the word “conceal” means: “to hide or keep secret. The word “conceal” is con plus celare which implies to hide. It means to hide or withdraw from observation; to cover or keep from sight; to prevent the discovery of; to withhold knowledge of. The offence of concealment is, thus, a direct attempt to hide an item of income or a portion thereof from the knowledge of the income tax authorities.”

Suppression of Material Facts – Disqualifies litigants from obtaining any Relief

In SJS Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 2421, it is pointed out – as a general rule, suppression of material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief.

Suppression of Material Facts – Evolved to deter Abusing the Process of court

In the recent decision, The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey (17th March, 2025; Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 348), it is held that this rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it; and pointed out that similar view has been taken in General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Jai Bhagwan, (2008) 4 SCC 127,  in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449.

Suppression of Material Facts – Writ Court may Refuse to Entertain Petition

In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, 2007- 8 SCC 449 (C.K. Thakker, Altamas Kabir, JJ.), it was held as under:

  • “The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.”(Quoted in G. M. Haryana Roadways v. Jai Bhagwan, S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ., 2008-4 SCC 127)

SUPPRESSION Must be one that is Material for Determination of the Lis

In Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and others, (2007) 6 SCC 120 (S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.), it was held that it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to disclose the fact that the writ petition was filed only when no order of interim injunction was passed in a civil suit. It was held thus:

  • “12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question.” (Referred to in Sardar Associates v. Punjab & Sind Bank, S.B. Sinha  & Deepak Verma, AIR 2010 SC 218; 2009-8 SCC 257; G. M. Haryana Roadways v. Jai Bhagwan, S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ., 2008-4 SCC 127)

In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, the Apex Court held as under:

  • “The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.” (Quoted in:  G. M. Haryana Roadways v. Jai Bhagwan, S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ., 2008-4 SCC 127)

SUPPRESSION – Material One That Affects Merits of the case.

In S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd v. State of Bihar, (2004) 7 SCC 166 it is held that a fact suppressed must be material; that is, if it had not been suppressed, that would have influenced the merits of the case. It was held thus:

  • “13. As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the court, whatever view the court may have taken ……
  • 14. Assuming that the explanation given by the appellant that the suit had been filed by one of the Directors of the Company without the knowledge of the Director who almost simultaneously approached the High Court under Article 226 is unbelievable (sic), the question still remains whether the filing of the suit can be said to be a fact material to the disposal of the writ petition on merits. We think not…… the fact that a suit had already been filed by the appellant was not such a fact the suppression of which could have affected the final disposal of the writ petition on merits.” (Referred to in:  Mayar (H. K. ) LTD.  v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express, AIR 2006 SC 1828; 2006 3 SCC 100)

CONCEALMENT – Implicit a Deliberate Act to Injure or Prejudice Another

In K. C. Builders v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2004-2 SCC 731, our Apex Court considered the what is ‘concealment’, while dealing with Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which lays down the effect of ‘failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.’ The supreme Court said as under:

  • “15. One of the amendments made to the abovementioned provisions is the omission of the word “deliberately” from the expression “deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. It is implicit in the word “concealed” that there has been a deliberate act on the part of the assessee. The meaning of the word “concealment” as found in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edition, Volume I, is as follows:-
  • “In law, the intentional suppression of truth or fact known, to the injury or prejudice of another.”
  • The word “concealment” inherently carried with it the element of mens rea. Therefore, the mere fact that some figure or some particulars have been disclosed by itself, even if takes out the case from the purview of non-disclosure, it cannot by itself take out the case from the purview of furnishing inaccurate particulars.”
  • Quoted in: T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, 2007-7 SCC 162
  • Hemant Mahipatray Shah v.  Anand Upadhyay, 2024 0 BHC(AS) 32589
  • Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow v.  Bhawani Paper Mills Ltd. 2006-2 ADJ 204
  • Northland Development and Hotel Corp. v. Commr. of Income-tax, 2006-285 ITR 265;
  • Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Someshwar Saran Kothiwal, 2006 205 CTR 448
  • Bharat Rice Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2006 200 CTR 481; 2005 278 ITR 599)

Merely for some figures  were not disclosed, by itself, not Concealment

In Shri T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, 2007-7 SCC 162,it is observed as under:

  • “It is implicit in the word ‘concealed’ that there has been a deliberate act on the part of the assessee. The meaning of the word ‘concealment’ as found in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, third edition, Volume I, is as follows: ‘In law, the intentional suppression of truth or fact known, to the injury or prejudice of another.’ The word ‘concealment’ inherently carried with it the element of mens rea. Therefore, the mere fact that some figure or some particulars have been disclosed by itself, even if it takes out the case from the purview of non-disclosure, it cannot by itself, even if it takes out the case from the purview of non-disclosure, it cannot by itself take out the case from the purview of non-disclosure, it cannot by itself take out the case from the purview of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Mere omission from the return of an item of receipt does neither amount to concealment nor deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unless and until there is some evidence to show or some circumstances found from which it can be gathered that the omission was attributable to an intention or desire on the part of the assessee to hide or conceal the income so as to avoid the imposition of tax thereon. In order that a penalty under Section 271 (1) (iii) may be imposed, it has to be proved that the assessee has consciously made the concealment or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income.”

When a fact is not known to the concerned person, No Suppression

In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manju Sharma, 2003-2 CLT 700; 2003-2 CPC 91; 2003-1 CPJ 620; 2003-2 CPR 175, it is held as under:

  • “The insured did not know about the disease and he cannot be said to have suppressed the material fact. The suppression could only be where a fact is known to a particular person. When a fact is not known to that person how could he be said that the fact has been suppressed.”

Recently, in Bhushan Sadashiv Raut v. Priyanka Ravindra Ghatage, 27 January, 2025, our Apex Court expunged certain adverse comments of the High Court against an advocate saying as under:

  • “We find that the High Court was not justified in making the observations against the appellant herein, inasmuch as the order of the Family court was very much on record. As such, there could be no question of suppression of facts. We, therefore, expunge the observations made in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment and order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.”

Part II

No “Suppression” if the facts are “Known” to the Court or Opposite Side

In a taxation matter, in Pushpam Pharmaceutical Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 462, it is held as under:

  •  “Where facts are known to both the parties the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression.”
  • Quoted in: Anand Nishikawa Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, AIR 2005 SC 3660, 2005-7 SCC 749.
  • Uniworth Textiles Ltd.  v. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raipur, 2013-9 SCC 753.

In Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE, A.P. 2008 (9) STR 314 (SC). Supreme Court held as under:

  • “9. Allegation of suppression of facts against the appellant cannot be sustained. When the first SCN was issued all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of the authorities. Later on, while issuing the second and third show cause notices the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression of facts on the part of the assessee as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgments and respectfully following the same hold that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee/appellant.”

In Prakash Singh Thakur v. Bharti, AIR 2001 MP 1; 2000 2 DMC 368, it is held as under:

  • “19. Moreover, it may be noted that the parties were known to each other from much prior to their marriage. In the circumstances, it is inconceivable that the appellant would not have come to know about the earlier marriage or divorce of the respondent and would have come to know of the said fact on the next day, immediately after their marriage on 4.5.94. As noticed earlier, the statement of appellant is not only unsubstantiated, but appears to be unnatural and untrustworthy.”

In State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad, AIR 2017 SC 630; 2017 2 SCC 178, it is held as under:     

  • Statement of Principal Additional Advocate General that the State had no objection for the consideration of the bail application by the said Court has been recorded in the beginning of the order itself and, therefore, question of suppression thereof does not arise. This fact was known to this Court when the SLP was entertained and notice was issued. Therefore, the question of misleading the Court on this count does not arise.”

In Virinder Nayar v. Jatinder Singh, 19 Sep 2023, 2023 Supreme (P&H) 351, it is held as under:

  • “10. In terms of the above discussion, in the present set of facts wherein the petitioner himself was party-tenant to the previous litigation qua the same premises, having complete knowledge of its outcome, the non-disclosure thereof merely in the eviction petition though the same having been acknowledged in their rejoinder by the respondents as well as in her cross-examination by respondent No.2 (PW-5) can’t be taken to be an act of concealment or suppression of material fact, the same being not an information exclusively known to respondents. Besides it, nothing has been pointed out from the side of petitioner about any prejudice having been caused to him on account of non-disclosure of filing or dismissal of previous ejectment petition. ….. Thus the non-disclosure of the previous eviction petition was rightly not considered to be a material concealment by the Authorities below as the outcome of the previous eviction petition in no manner affected or impacted the rights of the parties in the present eviction petition, the same being based on entirely a fresh and new cause of action with material change in circumstances.

In P. S. Agarwal v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2003 3 CPJ 579, it is observed that there would be  no suppression of material facts, if every fact was known to the Insurance.

In National Insurance Co. Ltd.  v. Kusum Devi Mishra, 1998 1 MPLJ 676, 1999(2) ACJ 1213, it is held as under:

  • “In view of the above, the contention that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation and the policy is void due to suppression of material fact, has no merit. Even otherwise, there was no suppression of material fact. The agent of the Insurance Company knew full well that the owner is a minor. He accepted the premium and the policy of insurance covering third party risks was issued in the name of the minor by the appellant. The said policy was never repudiated or cancelled.” (Referred to in: Gaurav Sharma v. National Insurance Company Limited, 2018-5 LawHerald 4064; 2018-3 PLR 106)

Suppressio Veri and Suggestio Falsi – Gravity Differs in “Material”or “Trivial Matter”

Though it is definite – no “suppression” if the facts are

  • (i) Not Material and
  • (ii) “Known” to the opposite side.

But, in proper cases ‘suppressio veri’ and ‘suggestio falsi’ itself may bring adverse results. Still, gravity of it is depended upon the nature of suppression – whether it is on a “material” matter or on a “technical or trivial” matter.In Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, (in a case of information given to the employer by a candidate) it is held as under:

  • “34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.
  • 35. Suppression of “material” information presupposes that what is suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.
  • 36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.
  • 38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
  • 38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
  • 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
  • 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
  • 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:
  • 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
  • 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
  • 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
  • 38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
  • 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
  • 38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
  • 38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
  • 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
  • 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
  • 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”

Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, is referred to in:

  • Union of India v. Shishu Pal, AIR 2024  SC 3652
  • Ravindra Kumar v. State of U. P., 2024 5 SCC 264
  • State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023-14 SCC 719
  • Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union Of India, AIR 2023 SC 482
  • Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union Of India, 2023-7 SCC 536
  • Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 AIR SC 2829; 2023-12 SCC 317
  • State of Madhya Pradesh v. Abhijit Singh Pawar, 2018-18 SCC 733

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment