Pulipati Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 14 Feb 2024

Posted on March 5, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court imposed ‘exemplary costs on petitioner as well as learned counsel, to be quantified at Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs only) so as to prohibit them, in future, from filing cases which result in taxing the judicial time.’

From Paras 4-7,

4. Concealing / suppression of material facts would amount to abuse of process of law, playing fraud with Court as well as opposite party. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that petitioner approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state the facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he / she withholds some vital / relevant material, in order to gain advantage over the other side, then he / she would be guilty of playing fraud which cannot be countenanced. The parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigation either past or present concerning any part of the subject matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the lis, no legal proceedings or court litigation were or are pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.
5. Alas, our judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation, hence, ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. Litigation like the present one is contributing fuel to fire in mounting pendency, disabling the Courts to discharge the prime duty of justice dissemination. One needs to keep in mind that there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim.
6. This Court expresses its dissatisfaction on the unbecoming conduct of a legal practitioner such as the counsel for petitioner in this case for wasting judicial time by filing cases suppressing the facts. It is a well-known fact that there is huge pendency of cases and pressure on Judges in disposing of such cases is enormous. Genuine litigation is not getting the attention of this Court by this type of frivolous litigation. Earlier, on couple of occasions, this Court cautioned learned counsel to refrain from filing such type of cases which benefit no citizen. Learned counsel filed Writ Petition No. 37851 of 2022 wherein, for suppression of material events, this Court imposed Rs.1,00,000/- to petitioner. Thereafter, in Writ Petition No. 2666 of 2004, for the very same reason, this Court imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/-, however, at the request of his junior colleagues, the said order was recalled. On the next occasion, on the same ground, when this Court warned the learned counsel, he sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. Keeping in view the financial status of the litigant, this Court has shown lenience and disposed of the Writ Petition. Still, learned counsel has been exhibiting the same attitude which forces this Court to impose exemplary costs on petitioner as well as learned counsel, to be quantified at Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs only) so as to prohibit them, in future, from filing cases which result in taxing the judicial time.
7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs only) to be deposited with Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today. In default, needless to say, Registry shall list the Writ Petition before the Court.

Pulipati Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 14 Feb 2024

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin on 27 May 2015

Posted on November 2, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Saket Court, New Delhi passed this order.

From Para 41,

41. In light of the above discussion, the Application U/s 12 PWDV Act filed by the complainant is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to be deposited by the complainant in the account of Blind Relief Association. The imposition of cost is in furtherance of the principle that wrongdoers should not get benefits out of frivolous litigations. Needless to say, all interim orders stand canceled.

Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin on 27 May 2015

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165927699/

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/sumana-bhasin-vs-neeraj-bhasin-9863

https://menkibaat.in/one-lakh-fine-on-wife-for-filing-fake-domestic-violence-case/

Parekh Jaisalkumar Vinodbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 29 Apr 2022

Posted on May 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Division bench of Gujarat High Court levied costs of 10000 on the delusioned wife who doesn’t want to cohabit with her husband because of different sub-castes, after living with him for 4 years. Most probably, a case of illegal affair taking shape here!

From paras 2 to 4,

2. Today when she is called, she has chosen not to change her mind. She reiteratively stated that the petitioner has no fault, she has no complaint against him, however, she does not want to continue this relationship and she is completely guided by her parents in her decision. She is no wrong in being influenced and guided by the parents in this matter although, they had courtship for about four years.
3. We find it extremely unfortunate that the educated couple needs to end the relationship in such a fashion just because there is a strong resistance on the part of the parents and taken in exert this kind of influence. We could notice that the petitioner inconsolably cried & is desolated because of this decision, however, it is for the parties to respectively chose their own forum for their respective rights. We have no answer for certain unfairness in the relationship.
4. We were unable to fathom anything from the repeated queries raised by us as to why she has chosen not to continue this relationship. The petitioner with all his hopes, aspirations and dreams had approached this Court and when he has met this destiny of his, we are of the firm opinion that that this is on account of unreasonable premise and unsubstantiated reason, we are constrained to award the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the petitioner from the private respondent, to be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If not paid within a stipulated time period, consequences shall follow.

Parekh Jaisalkumar Vinodbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 29 Apr 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

Veerabhadraiah Swamy and Ors Vs Veerupakshi and Ors on 23 Jun 2021

Posted on July 4, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on Landmark Chengalvaraya Naidu case here, the division bench of Karnataka High Court dismissed the case with heavy cost of Rs1,00,000/-!!!

From Para 4,

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the original TCR, we decline to grant indulgence in the matter and anguishingly impose heavy costs on the claimant for the following reasons:
(a) The accident allegedly happened on 30.08.2014 at 7.30 a.m. when the offending motorbike bearing Registration No.KA-34/U-1161 had dashed claimant’s motorcycle from behind and as a result thereof he suffered some injuries; all this may be taken to be true, of course with reluctance,
since there is no formal challenge to this finding by the insurer by way of appeal or cross-objection; had it been otherwise, we are not sure that we would have sustained this finding; be that as it may.
(b) Admittedly, claimant had the medical history of coronary problem when the accident happened; because of the alleged injuries caused by the accident, he was treated at the Government College & Hospital i.e., VIMS-Ballari, as an out-patient; the Wound Certificate, dated 30.08.2014, issued by the General Duty Medical Officer at Ex.P.5specifically states that the “injuries are simple in nature”; this opinion was formed by the said Medical Officer after examination & on the basis of radiological tests, as is stated in the very Certificate itself; there being no reason to doubt the same, the said opinion has to be treated as the expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore, carries a lot of weight, nothing emerging from the record for discounting it’s probative value.
(c) Later, the claimant moved to Narayana Institute of Cardiac Sciences at Bengaluru wherein he had admittedly undergone coronary related operation & treatment in a long hospitalization; in his affidavit-evidence, at para 2, 3 & 4, he has stated that the said accident resulted in “severe
injuries over chest, head, forehead, nose, face, abdomen, hands & legs” and that all this happened only because of the accident which has “decreased his life span due to heart injury”; all this is false, to say the least; neither in his claim petition nor in his affidavit evidence, he has mentioned anything about his pre-existing heart ailment; as already mentioned above, he had not suffered any injury to the chest, much less heart nor to any vital organ; had it been otherwise, the Wound Certificate at Ex.P.5 would have mentioned the same; there is no reason for the Government Doctor in VIMS to write a false or wrong certificate; that is not the case of claimant, either;
(d) Even in the cross-examination, dated 09.06.2016, he falsely asserts that he suffered the heart ailment only because of the accident though the medical records of the Heart Hospital even remotely do not whisper about it; on the contrary, Dr. Lakshmi Narayana K., whom he had examined as P.W.3 himself has stated that the heart ailment of the kind i.e., blockages do not occur abruptly; this apart, by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that blockages in the heart could happen by the kind of the vehicular accident. A perusal of deposition of the claimant given as P.W.1 not only does not generate confidence but appears to have been designed for extracting huge money from the insurer; this is nothing short of perjury.
(e) The claimant has also suppressed the reimbursement of huge expenses incurred by him for the heart treatment under “Yashashvini Co-operative Health Care for Farmers” a welfare Scheme of the Government, both in his claim petition & affidavit evidence; in his cross-examination, he has not denied the receipt of money but he only feigns ignorance as to the same having been not mentioned in the claim petition; it is said that, truth somewhere & somehow trickles out, and that has happened in this case; Ex.P.9A is the final bill issued by the Heart Hospital; it mentions the Corporate Sponsorship as “Yashashvini Co-operative Farmers Health Care Trust” with Account No.1043; thus, the claimant being a “clandestine liar” cannot be believed at all; he has designed his case on fraud, fabrication & duplicity and therefore, he is liable to be non-suited vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. V. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, AIR 1994 SC 853.

And the Medical Witness turned out to be a ‘regular liar’ in the Courts!!!

5. As to Dr. Lakshmi Narayana K., of Prakash Clinic, Ballari, & his evidence vide P.W.3 being unworthy of credence,
a) the claimant had examined this doctor as P.W.3 in support of his case; it is submitted at the Bar that his ‘Sanad’ has been suspended on the ground of malpractice; it is also there in his cross-examination; we have noticed several other cases, huge in number wherein he has deposed as a Medical Witness in accident cases; in his cross-examination, dated 07.01.2017, he contradicts the version of the claimant-P.W.1 that the claimant had not visited his hospital personally; he also admits claimant having undergone the operation/treatment for coronary blocks; he also admits having not stated the factors based on which he has issued the Disability Certificate at Ex.P.8; any prudent Medical Practitioner would have mentioned these things including the coronary disease; he has prepared his Disability Certificate dated 17.03.2016 in such a clandestine way that the alleged disability of the claimant is occasioned by the injuries sustained by him in the accident; this is nothing short of perjury, to which claimant is also a party.

So, the High Court said…

(c) We are pained to see cases of the kind coming in considerable numbers nowadays; something has to be done to eradicate the evil of perjury, fraud & fabrication; a mere non-suiting of the unscrupulous litigants by throwing their case papers out through the court window would be militantly insufficient; something more drastic needs to be devised, so that message reaches out loudly to the unscrupulous class; in this case, we are made to spend more than an hour of valuable time in turning every page of the original Trial Court Record that runs into 656 pages, keeping other older cases at a bay; it is a sheer waste of huge public time & money occasioned by this perjured case of the appellant; this is not a happy thing to happen; we are of the considered view that this appeal should be dismissed with exemplary & penal cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Also the cherry on top of the cake…

Liberty is reserved to the insurer to take up civil and criminal proceedings for the act of perjury perpetrated by the claimant i.e. P.W.1 and Dr.Lakshmi Narayan K., i.e. P.W.3, who had issued the Disability Certificate at Ex.P.8, in accordance with law; it hardly needs to be stated that the delay brooked in taking such proceedings is liable to be discounted because of pendency of this appeal for all these years.

Veerabhadraiah Swamy and Ors Vs Veerupakshi and Ors on

Citations :

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury Decision here.

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath on 27 Oct 1993

Posted on July 4, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Landmark judgment by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India around perjury/fraud committed upon the Courts. Just read the below line to understand how far the frauds take the Courts for a ride.

This Civil Appeal was numbered 994 of 1972, but got decided on October 27, 1993!

Twenty One (21) years lost at Supreme Court itself!!!

From Para 5,

5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that “there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence”. The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

From Para 6,

6. The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Ex. B-15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is tantamount to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants- defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Ex. B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath on 27 Oct 1993 (Original)

Citations : [1994 AIR SC 853], [1993 SCALE 4 277], [1994 UJ SC 1 1], [1993 BC SC 2 546], [1994 BLJR 1 216], [1994 OLR SC 1 201], [1995 PLR 109 293], [1993 SUPP SCR 3 422], [1994 SCC 1 1], [1994 PLJR 1 39], [1994 APLJ SC 1 66], [1994 LW 1 21], [1994 GLH 1 81], [1993 JT SC 6 331]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1151521/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac8fe4b014971140f23f

Bhriguram De Vs State of West Bengal and others on 20 September, 2018

Posted on March 26, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

In this order from Calcutta High Court(appellate side),

Para 15,

According to the Law Lexicon, Third Edition (2012), the Latin Maxim “Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi” defines that the suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of falsehood. The suppression or failure to disclose what one party is bound to disclose to another, may amount to fraud. Where a person is found to be guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi for having concealed material information from scrutiny of the Court, he is not entitled for any equitable relief under order 39 of CPC (5 of 1908). [Arbind Kumar Pal v. Hazi Md. Faizullah Khan, AIR 2007 (NOC) 1035 (Pat) : (2006) 1 BLJR 430].

From Para 25,

I have no hesitation in saying that the doors of justice would be closed for a litigant whose case is based on falsehood or suppression of material facts. Fraud and justice never dwell together. They are alien to each other. Fraud pollutes the sanctity, regularity, orderliness and solemnity of the judicial proceedings. It is the bounden duty of the Court to keep the stream of justice absolutely clean.

Finally, from Para 29,

Before finally pronouncing my decision, I must state that this court, in all fairness gave an opportunity, after hearing and going through the documents produced by the respondents, to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition (with liberty to file afresh with better particulars). However, Mr. Saktipada Jana appearing on behalf of the petitioner, refused and pressed the writ petition unabated. One is reminded of the saying, “you can take a horse to the well, but cannot force it to drink”. In view of the same, I dismiss the writ petition in limine. I am of the view that exemplary costs should be awarded. However, on a compassionate plea made by Mr. Jana, the order as to costs is limited to Rs.5,000/- only, payable to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority, Kolkata, within two weeks from date.

Bhriguram De Vs State of West Bengal and others on 20 September, 2018

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

Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors Vs Nirmala Devi and Ors on 4 July, 2011

Posted on March 24, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Dalveer Bhandari at Supreme Court, held that,

From Para 4,

This is a classic example which abundantly depicts the picture of how the civil litigation moves in our courts and how unscrupulous litigants (appellants in this case) can till eternity harass the respondents and their children by abusing the judicial system.

From Para 14,

According to Dr. Arun Mohan, twenty minutes spent at that time would have saved several years in court proceedings.

From Para 21,

The learned Single Judge observed that the present appellants belong to that category of litigants whose only motive is to create obstacles during the course of trial and not to let the trial conclude. Applications after applications are being filed by the appellants at every stage, even though orders of the trial court are based on sound reasoning. Moreover, the appellants have tried to mislead the court also by filing wrong synopsis and incorrect dates of events.

From Para 22,

Those litigants or their advocates who mislead the courts by filing wrong and incorrect particulars (the list of dates and events) must be dealt with heavy hands.

From Para 26,

It may be pertinent to mention that the appellants also moved transfer application apprehending adverse order from the trial judge, which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge. This conduct of the appellants demonstratesthat they are determined not to allow the trial court to proceed with the suit. They are creating all kinds of hurdles andobstacles at every stage of the proceedings.

From Para 30,

It is abundantly clear from the facts and circumstances of this case that the appellants have seriously created obstacles at every stage during the course of trial and virtually prevented the court from proceeding with the suit. This is a typical example of how an ordinary suit moves in our courts. Some cantankerous and unscrupulous litigants on one ground or the other do not permit the courts to proceed further in the matter.

From Para 34,

According to Dr. Mohan, in our legal system, uncalled for litigation gets encouragement because our courts do notimpose realistic costs. The parties raise unwarranted claims and defences and also adopt obstructionist and delaying tactics because the courts do not impose actual or realistic costs. Ordinarily, the successful party usually remains uncompensated in our courts and that operates as the main motivating factor for unscrupulous litigants. Unless the courts, by appropriate orders or directions remove the cause for motivation or the incentives, uncalled for litigation will continue to accrue, and there will be expansion and obstruction of the litigation. Court time and resources will be consumed and justice will be both delayed and denied.

From Para 44,

In the instant case when the entire question of title has been determined by the High Court and the Special Leave Petition against that judgment has been dismissed by this court, thereafter the trial court ought not to have framed such an issue on a point which has been finally determined upto this Court. In any case, the same was exclusively barred by the principles of res judicata. That clearly demonstrates total non-application of mind.

From Para 48,

48. It is also a matter of common experience that once an ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff or the petitioner would make all efforts to ensure that injunction continues indefinitely. The other appropriate order can be to limit the life of the ex-parte injunction or stay order for a week or so because in such cases the usual tendency of unnecessarily prolonging the matters by the plaintiffs or the petitioners after obtaining ex-parte injunction orders or stay orders may not find encouragement. We have to dispel the common impression that a party by obtaining an injunction based on even false averments and forged documents will tire out the true owner and ultimately the true owner will have to give up to the wrongdoer his legitimate profit. It is also a matter of common experience that to achieve clandestine objects, false pleas are often taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminately in our courts because they have hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the courts or even pay heavy costs. In Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668 this court was constrained to observe that perjury has become a way of life in our courts.

From Para 56,

These appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). We are imposing the costs not out of anguish but by following the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation.

Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors Vs Nirmala Devi and Ors on 4 July, 2011

Shriram Munjaji Raut Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011

Posted on March 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court has given 1 month imprisonment for a person for giving false evidence in a case. And maximum fine allowed under 344 CrPC, which is paltry Rs.500/- And if Rs.500/- not paid, 1 more week of imprisonment.

So 1 week of imprisonment = Rs.500/- ???

Shriram Munjaji Raut Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011

Babubhai Mervanbhai Patel Vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary and Anr on 26 August, 2010

Posted on March 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

A fine of Rs.40,000/- was levied on the pejurer for lying repeatedly on affidavits as well as under oath by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court.

Babubhai Mervanbhai Patel Vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary and Anr on 26 August, 2010

Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs BOC India Limited & Ors on 11 January, 2016

Posted on August 11, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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,

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.

Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs BOC India Limited & Ors on 11 January, 2016

Index of all Perjury case laws is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Perjury – Costs Levied or Imprisonment For Perjury

Pulipati Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 14 Feb 2024

Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin on 27 May 2015

Parekh Jaisalkumar Vinodbhai Vs State of Gujarat on 29 Apr 2022

Veerabhadraiah Swamy and Ors Vs Veerupakshi and Ors on 23 Jun 2021

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath on 27 Oct 1993

This Civil Appeal was numbered 994 of 1972, but got decided on October 27, 1993!

Twenty One (21) years lost at Supreme Court itself!!!

Bhriguram De Vs State of West Bengal and others on 20 September, 2018

Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors Vs Nirmala Devi and Ors on 4 July, 2011

Shriram Munjaji Raut Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011

Babubhai Mervanbhai Patel Vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary and Anr on 26 August, 2010

Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs BOC India Limited & Ors on 11 January, 2016