MIS. SCIEMED OVERSEAS INC. versus BOC INDIA LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 11-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] l S.C.R. 151 
MIS. SCIEMED OVERSEAS INC. 
v. 
BOC INDIA LIMITED & ORS. 
(Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 29125 of 2008) 
JANUARY 11, 2016 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND R, K, AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Cost - Imposition of - For filing a false or misleading affidavit 
- Writ Petition challenging award of works contract - Dismissed 
A 
B 
on the ground of its maintainability - In appeal to Supreme Court, 
contractor filing affidavit that work was nearing completion -
Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the case on merits 
C 
- Single Judge of High Court , in view of the affidavit, did not set 
aside the award of contract and giving liberty to the party who 
challenged the award of contract, to file a suit for damages - In 
intra-court appeal by the contractor, the Division Bench on 
verification found that statement given on affidavit was wrong -
D 
The contractor initially justified its affidavit and then filed 
unconditional apology - Division Bench rejecting the apology held 
that the contractor had filed false affidavit before Supreme Court 
and imposed costs of Rs. I 0 lakhs on the Contractor - On appeal, 
held: In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the affidavit was 
bonafide and not a deliberate attempt to mislead the court - The 
very fact that a false or misleading statement was made, by itself is 
enough to invite adverse reaction - The imposition of the cost, though 
somewhat sweep, was fully justified - Affidavit. 
E 
Affidavit - Filing of false affidavits before Courts - Held: 
There is alarming increase in filing of false affidavits and the same 
needs to be strongly discouraged. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. It cannot be said that the statement made in the 
affidavit filed in this Court was not a false statement but was 
bonafide and not a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court. The 
correctness of the statement made by the contractor was 
examined threadbare not only by the Single Judge but also by 
the Division Bench and it was found that a considerable amount 
of work had still to be completed by it and it was not as if the 
work was nearing completion as represented to this Court. 
151 
F 
G 
H 
152 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] l S.C.R. 
Additionally, the Report independently given by the advocate 
appointed to make an assessment, also clearly indicated that a 
considerable amount of work had still to be performed by the 
contractor. 
After the Report was filed in the High Court, the 
contractor also realized that it had in fact misled this Court. 
Nevertheless, the contractor tried to justify the false or misleading 
affidavit. After giving the justification, it tendered an unconditional 
and unqualified apology. There was no need for an unconditional 
and unqualified apology unless there was an admission that the 
statement made before this Court was false or misleading. [paras 
23, 25 and 27] [157-F-G, H; 158-A; 159-B]] 
2. It also cannot be said that the allegedly false or 
misleading statement had no impact on the decision taken by 
this Court and should, therefore, be ignored. The work order 
was issued to the contractor during pendency of the writ petition 
(filed by the respondent-Company challenging invitation to the 
contractor for opening the price bid) without informing the High 
Court. Furthermore, to ensure that work order goes through, a 
false or misleading statement was made before this Court on 
affidavit. The fact of the matter is that a false or misleading 
statement was made before this Court, and that by itself is enough 
to invite an adverse reaction. [paras 23 and 29] [157-G; 159-E, 
F··G] 
Suo Moto Proceedings Against R. Karuppan, Advocate 
2001 (3) SCR 750 = 2001 (5) sec 289; Muthu 
Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi 2011 (5) SCR 329 = 
2011 (5) sec 496 - relied on. 
3. 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 'trend' 
is certainly an unhealthy one that should be strongly discouraged, 
G well before the filing of false affidavits gets to be treated as a 
routine and normal affair. [para 2] [153-F-G] 
4. On the basis of material before this Court and the 
material considered by the High Court, the imposition of costs 
by the High Court was justified. The imposition of costs, although 
H 
somewhat steep, was fully j

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.