Karnataka HC: A Neighbour Cannot be Charged With Matrimonial Cruelty under Section 498A IPC  ||  Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is Supervisory; HC Cannot Revisit Facts  ||  Poverty Cannot Bar Parole; Rajasthan HC Waives Surety For Indigent Life Convict, Sets Guidelines  ||  Delhi High Court: Late Payment of TDS Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability under the Income Tax Act  ||  NCLT Kochi: Avoidance Provisions under Insolvency Code Aim to Restore, Not Punish, Parties  ||  Bombay High Court: In IBC Cases, High Courts Lack Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction over the NCLT  ||  Supreme Court: Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Invite Higher Bids at a Later Stage  ||  SC: In Customs Classification, Statutory Tariff Headings and HSN Notes Prevail over Common Parlance  ||  SC: Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Notice U/S 10(5) Must be Served on the Person in Possession  ||  Supreme Court: Only Courts May Condone Delay; Tribunals Lack Power Unless Statute Allows    

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