A company by name Sciemed Overseas tried to mislead the High Court by falsely saying in their affidavit that a certain said contract work is nearing completion whereas in reality it was not so, as assessed by a court-appointed advocate, as a one-man committee.
Hon’ble 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.”
After this the said company pushes it’s proprietor to state one more ‘justification’ affidavit saying what was said earlier was about just one piece of work and not ‘whole’ piece of work. The deponent after giving the above explanation, tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology to the High Court for the statement regarding the near completion of the project.
And then another twist in this companies averments came in as in fact the statement made in the affidavit filed in this Court was not a false statement but was bona fide and not a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court. 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.
After all these flip flops, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as below in Para 23,
Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs BOC India Limited & Ors on 11 January, 2016
The correctness of the statement made by Sciemed was examined threadbare not only by the learned Single Judge but also by the Division Bench and it was found that a considerable amount of work had still to be completed by Sciemed and it was not as if the work was nearing completion as represented to this Court. Additionally, the Report independently given by the learned advocate appointed to make an assessment, also clearly indicated that a considerable amount of work had still to be performed by Sciemed. The Report was not ex parte but was carefully prepared after an inspection of the site and discussing the matter with Shailendra Prasad Singh the proprietor of Sciemed and an engineer of Sciemed as well as officers from the RIMS.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in