Supreme Court of India on False Affidavits in Sciemed Overseas v. BOC India Limited

Sample Affidavit

Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Sciemed Overseas Inc. v.  BOC India Limited & Ors. decided the question as to whether the High Court was correct in imposing costs of ₹10 lakhs on the petitioner for filing a false or misleading affidavit in this Court. The court answered in affirmative and held that the High Court was fully justified in imposing such costs as there is an alarming increase in the number of false affidavits being filed worldwide which is illustrative of the malaise that is slowly but surely creeping in.

The dispute in the present case pertains to Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent. These tenders were to be processed by Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi. In the instant case, the affidavit in question contained the following submission by Sciemed (Petitioner) through its proprietor Shailendra Prasad Singh:

“It is submitted that the NIT, after having been relaxed and technical and financial bids having been opened, the respondent No.5 was declared as the lowest bidder by a margin of Rs.1.12 crores as compared to the petitioner and the work order has already been acted upon and the project is almost near completion and 85% of the amount has already been released to the answering respondent, rendering the present SLP, in any case, infructuous and liable to be rejected.”

Thus we see that the Petitioner submitted that the Work Order has already commenced and is about to get complete. The single judge of the High Court held that even though the decision making process by which the Petitioner was held to be qualified was improper, nevertheless since the Petitioner has already commenced the work and is about to complete, the Petitioner may be allowed to continue with the work in the interest of the exchequer and of the parties.

A Letters Patent Appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of the High Court (hereinafter to be referred to as “DB”). The DB observed that:

“The reason why the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the award of the contract to Sciemed was because of its statement made before this Court on affidavit that the work was almost near completion.”

However, the DB decided to verify the veracity of the statements made in the affidavit and to see whether the work was actually near completion. In this respect, the DB appointed a One Man Committee to visit the work site and submit a report.

The report found out that there were serious deficiencies in the commissioning of the project and many important equipments have not been installed. The High Court held that:

“On a consideration of the Report, the High Court took the view 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.”

The Petitioner tried to justify its stand by stating that the affidavit filed in the Court was due to some misconception and was not with a view to mislead the Court. An unconditional and unqualified apology in this respect was also given. It was also submitted that the allegedly false or misleading statement had no impact on the decision taken by this Court and should, therefore, be ignored. The High Court did not accept the said apology.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that Petitioner tried to justify the false or misleading affidavit filed in the Court. After giving the justification, Sciemed tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology. The Court observed that 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 (Petitioner) had tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology without tendering a justification.

Lastly, in its judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited various case laws that dealt with the menace of false affidavits. In the case of Suo Moto Proceedings Against R. Karuppan, Advocate[1] this Court had observed that the sanctity of affidavits filed by parties has to be preserved and protected and at the same time the filing of irresponsible statements without any regard to accuracy has to be discouraged.

Similarly, in Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi[2], the Court expressed the view that:

“Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent, but there must be a prima facie case of “deliberate falsehood” on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge.”

I feel that this is a welcome judgment as filing of false affidavits is indeed increasing at an alarming rate. However, before imposing such exemplary costs, the courts must make themselves sure as to whether the affidavit indeed reeked of mala fide and is deliberate in nature or it just contains an innocuous unintended statement that turns out to be false. Due care in this respect must be taken otherwise it would become difficult for both the advocates as well as the litigants to express themselves freely in the court. Nevertheless, unscrupulous elements who engage in such malpractice must be duly dealt with by the courts by imposing costs.

---

[1] (2001) 5 SCC 289.

[2]  (2011) 5 SCC 496