Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. BOC India Limited and Ors. - (11 Jan 2016)

Supreme Court cracks the whip on false affidavits

MANU/SC/0020/2016

Civil

The Supreme Court upheld Rs. 10 lakhs of costs imposed by the High Court in deploring the filing of a false and misleading affidavit. Petitioner had disputed before the High Court rejection of its bid to install a centralised liquid medical oxygen system; while the suit was in pendency it was granted tender, though such was considered improper by court. However, upon Petitioner’s submission that the work was nearing completion, dismantling the same was considered infeasible. On appeal against the order, the Division Bench ordered an investigation into the work completed and found that major aspects of the installation were not complete, in fact, the main oxygen gas tank itself was at the only in transit. Before the Supreme Court, Petitioner justified the affidavit extensively, before tendering an unconditional and unqualified apology. However, sympathetic the Court was not, holding, “There was no need for the proprietor to have tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology unless there was an admission that the statement made before this Court was false or misleading”.

Bewilderingly the Supreme Court considered the ‘unhealthy trend’ of false affidavits was “slowly but surely creeping in”. Some might say that the trend crept in decades ago, probably not too long after the judicial system first stepped into the country. What may be slowly creeping is the new trend of courts baring their teeth when confronted with the “routine and normal affair” of filing false or falsified documents and claims. A Delhi District Court recently ordered the initiation of proceedings against a prosecutrix who falsely alleged rape and caused the accused to spend time in jail.

Relevant : Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors. MANU/SC/0707/1995 Re: Suo Moto Proceedings against Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate MANU/SC/0338/2001 Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi MANU/SC/0418/2011

Tags : FALSE AFFIDAVIT   UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved