Unhealthy trend of filing False Affidavits should be strongly discouraged before it gets to be treated as a routine and normal affair; SC [Read Judgment]

Unhealthy trend of filing False Affidavits should be strongly discouraged before it gets to be treated as a routine and normal affair; SC [Read Judgment]


This is illustrative of the malaise that is slowly but surely creeping in. This ‘trend’ is certainly an unhealthy one that should be strongly discouraged, well before the filing of false affidavits gets to be treated as a routine and normal affair, the Court said.


Supreme Court, on Monday, in M/s Sciemed Overseas Inc vs. BOC India Limited has upheld the imposition of costs of Rs. 10 Lakhs by Jharkhand High Court on Sciemed Overseas Inc. for filing false and misleading affidavits. Apex Court Bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal said there is no merit in the Special Leave Petition and it deserves to be dismissed.

Context

In this case, the High Court observed, with the help of Advocate commissioner report that Sciemed had given a false affidavit in this Court to the effect that the work was near completion. In this view of the matter, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sciemed and imposed costs of Rs. 10 Lakhs to be deposited with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority.

Unhealthy trend of filing false affidavits should be strongly discouraged

The Court observed ”A global search of cases pertaining to the filing of a false affidavit indicates that the number of such cases that are reported has shown an alarming increase in the last fifteen years as compared to the number of such cases prior to that. This ' is illustrative of the malaise that is slowly but surely creeping in. This ‘trend’ is certainly an unhealthy one that should be strongly discouraged, well before the filing of false affidavits gets to be treated as a routine and normal affair”

Upholding the High Court view which had refused to accept unconditional apology, the Bench said “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. It would have been a different matter if Sciemed had tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology without tendering a justification”.

Read the Judgment here.