Appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Sciemed Overseas Inc. Versus BOC India Limited & Ors. SLA (C) NO. 29125 OF 2008.
The matter relates to a tender issued by Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi to which Sciemed Overseas Inc. & BOC India responded. Subsequently BOC filed a representation to RIMS and then to the High Court complaining that Sciemed Overseas had not fulfilled the conditions of the technical bid. has been awarded the contract when they have not fulfilled the required terms. While the matter was pending before the Hon'ble court, the tender was awarded to Sciemed Overseas. Thereafter when BOC went before the High Court objecting to the award, the same was initially dismissed by the Hon'ble Court. BOC then appealed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending the petitioner informed the court the among other things more than 85% of the work has been completed. Due to this submission of Sciemed Overseas, the High Court refused to interfere with the award of the contract to Sciemed but left it open to BOC to file a suit for damages against Sciemed. This time Sciemed appealed before the court objecting to the permission accorded to the respondent to sue for damage once again stating that the work has been mostly completed. However, the High Court, on the submission of BOC decided to verify the statement of Sciemed and for this purpose, appointed an advocate as a one-man committee to visit the work site and submit a report with regard to the extent of work completed or at the stage of completion.
Based on 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.
Subsequently Sciemed submitted an apology which was not accepted by the Hon'ble High Court.
On appealing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Ld Court while rejecting the appeal stated that :-
2. 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.
….
30. In the case of Suo Moto Proceedings Against R. Karuppan, Advocate[2] 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. It was observed by this Court as follows: “Courts are entrusted with the powers of dispensation and adjudication of justice of the rival claims of the parties besides determining the criminal liability of the offenders for offences committed against the society. The courts are further expected to do justice quickly and impartially not being biased by any extraneous considerations. Justice dispensation system would be wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposed upon the litigants, who attempt to mislead the court by filing and relying upon false evidence particularly in cases, the adjudication of which is dependent upon the statement of facts……..
31. Similarly, in Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi[3] this Court expressed the view that the filing of a false affidavit should be effectively curbed with a strong hand. It is true that the observation was made in the context of contempt of Court proceedings, but the view expressed must be generally endorsed to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings. This is what was said:
“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.”
The matter relates to a tender issued by Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi to which Sciemed Overseas Inc. & BOC India responded. Subsequently BOC filed a representation to RIMS and then to the High Court complaining that Sciemed Overseas had not fulfilled the conditions of the technical bid. has been awarded the contract when they have not fulfilled the required terms. While the matter was pending before the Hon'ble court, the tender was awarded to Sciemed Overseas. Thereafter when BOC went before the High Court objecting to the award, the same was initially dismissed by the Hon'ble Court. BOC then appealed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending the petitioner informed the court the among other things more than 85% of the work has been completed. Due to this submission of Sciemed Overseas, the High Court refused to interfere with the award of the contract to Sciemed but left it open to BOC to file a suit for damages against Sciemed. This time Sciemed appealed before the court objecting to the permission accorded to the respondent to sue for damage once again stating that the work has been mostly completed. However, the High Court, on the submission of BOC decided to verify the statement of Sciemed and for this purpose, appointed an advocate as a one-man committee to visit the work site and submit a report with regard to the extent of work completed or at the stage of completion.
Based on 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.
Subsequently Sciemed submitted an apology which was not accepted by the Hon'ble High Court.
On appealing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Ld Court while rejecting the appeal stated that :-
2. 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.
….
30. In the case of Suo Moto Proceedings Against R. Karuppan, Advocate[2] 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. It was observed by this Court as follows: “Courts are entrusted with the powers of dispensation and adjudication of justice of the rival claims of the parties besides determining the criminal liability of the offenders for offences committed against the society. The courts are further expected to do justice quickly and impartially not being biased by any extraneous considerations. Justice dispensation system would be wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposed upon the litigants, who attempt to mislead the court by filing and relying upon false evidence particularly in cases, the adjudication of which is dependent upon the statement of facts……..
31. Similarly, in Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi[3] this Court expressed the view that the filing of a false affidavit should be effectively curbed with a strong hand. It is true that the observation was made in the context of contempt of Court proceedings, but the view expressed must be generally endorsed to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings. This is what was said:
“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.”
Comments
Post a Comment