Ravi Prakash Saxena Vs Priyanka Rani on 04 Sep 2025

A single judge of Patna High Court held as follows,

From Para 3, (Gold Digger looking for next bakra)

3. The petitioner has alleged that the opposite party/wife is in the habit of duping different young men with the sole motive of earning huge amounts of money after marriage, either by way of alimony or claiming maintenance allowance. Even during the strained relation with the petitioner, the opposite party started to find out another person as a groom to whom she could marry.

From Para 7,

7. The petitioner medically treated her and came to know that the opposite party was suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) leading to suicidal tendencies.

From Para 28,

28. While Section 125 proceedings are summary, courts consider conduct and financial disclosures critically. If a wife conceals her actual income or alimony, it may disentitle her as the court relies on bona fide disclosures to decide maintenance amount. Reference in this regard may be made to a Punjab & Haryana High Court case of Jaspreet Singh v. Gurleen Kaur, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 55

From Paras 29 and 30,

29. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that before passing a final order of maintenance, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra is under statutory obligation to direct the parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities. Only on due consideration of such affidavits of assets and liabilities, it will be possible for the Court to consider the status of the parties, their assets, respective needs, capability of earning and on the basis of such documents, Court can come to a conclusive decision with regard to amount of maintenance.
30. In view of such circumstances, this Court does not have any other alternative but to hold that the impugned order suffers from impropriety and illegality in over looking suppression of material facts, income of the parties, their source of income, their assets and liabilities and other similar factors, which are required to be considered for determination of maintenance allowance.

Finally, from Paras 33 and 34,

33. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra for information with a direction that he shall direct both the parties to file their affidavits of assets and liabilities as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnish (supara) within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.
34. After receiving the affidavits of assets and liabilities from both the parties, the learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by passing a fresh judgement within four weeks thereafter.

Ravi Prakash Saxena Vs Priyanka Rani on 04 Sep 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10821398/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/68b9b4b3f964826458fefb71

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/patna-high-court/ravi-prakash-saxena-v-priyanka-rani-patna-high-court-divorce-proceedings-maintenance-section-125-crpc-1590606

Family Law September 2025 | Important Case Law and Judicial Updates

Patna High Court Sets Aside ₹20K Monthly Maintenance, Affidavits of Assets & Liabilities Must Be Filed Before Deciding Maintenance Rajnish v. Neha

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Section 144 BNSS is here.

Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd on 26 Mar 2025

Posted on November 23, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held (again!) as follows,

From Para 11,

11. It is settled law that a litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court. The facts suppressed must be material and relevant to the controversy, which may have a bearing on the decision making. Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court.

From Para 15,

15. It is pertinent to note that in the counter to the present appeal, the respondent has not denied the receipt of the letters dated 28th November 2016 and 13th December 2016. The complaint and affidavit in support of the complaint only refer to the notice dated 15th November 2016 issued by the advocate for the appellant to the respondent. What is stated in the complaint reads thus:
“……………………………………………………..
[D] The notice sent on the first address has been received on 15.11.2016. However, from the second address, envelope has been returned on 15.11.2016 with the postal remark as ‘left’.”
However, the respondent suppressed the letters dated 28th November 2016 and 13th December 2016 in the complaint and its statement on oath.

From Para 18 and 19,

18. The fact remains that in the complaint, the respondent has suppressed the reply dated 28th November 2016 and the letter dated 13th December 2016 sent by the appellant’s advocate. These two documents have also been suppressed in the statement on oath. The respondent made out a false case that the appellant did not reply to the demand notice. Moreover, the case that the documents as demanded were supplied is not pleaded in the complaint and statement under Section 200 of CrPC.
19. If these two letters were disclosed in the complaint, the learned Magistrate while recording the statement under Section 200 of CrPC, could have always questioned the respondent on the supply of documents to the appellant. What is important is that in the reply dated 28th November 2016, the appellant had reserved her right to give a reply to the demand notice after receiving the documents. It was the respondent’s duty to supply documents to the appellant or her advocate to enable the appellant to properly reply to the demand notice. At least, the inspection of documents could have been provided to the appellant. After noticing the fact that notwithstanding service of two letters written by the appellant, relied upon documents were not provided to the appellant, the learned Magistrate could have dismissed the complaint by exercising power under Section 203 of CrPC, as the appellant could not have replied to the statutory notice without looking at the documents relied upon.

From Para 21,

21. While filing a complaint under Section 200 of CrPC and recording his statement on oath in support of the complaint, as the complainant suppresses material facts and documents, he cannot be allowed to set criminal law in motion based on the complaint. Setting criminal law in motion by suppressing material facts and documents is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd on 26 Mar 2025

Citations: [2025 INSC 399], [2025 SCC OnLine SC641]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120031673/

Index of Perjury Judgments is here.

Geeta and Anr Vs State and Anr on 10 Sep 2025

Posted on September 13, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Delhi High Court that, concealing actual income and withholding the most relevant documents which alone could establish her present financial incapacity should lead to adverse inference against wife.

From Paras 9-11,

9. At the outset, it will be apposite to note that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C is a beneficial provision, premised on a moral obligation of husband and father, and intended to prevent, inter alia, the wife and children from being subjected to the adversities of vagrancy and destitution. It is also trite that proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and the Court has to take a prima facie view of the dispute between the parties.
10. In the above context, this Court has carefully examined the evidence on record as well as the findings recorded by the learned Family Court. Insofar as the wife’s claim for maintenance is concerned, it emerges that she had admitted in her cross-examination that she is employed in the Education Department at Khekra, Baghpat, though on a temporary basis. She further admitted that her salary slip of December 2016 reflected her salary as Rs. 33,052/- and her income tax return for the year 2017-2018 also disclosed an annual income of Rs. 4,00,724/-, though it is her case that thereafter, her services were terminated by way of judgment dated 25.07.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after which she was working on a temporary basis. While she claimed that her current salary is only Rs. 10,000/- per month, she failed to produce any recent salary slip or Form-16 to substantiate the same, and thus, no recent salary certificate was placed before the learned Family Court despite opportunities given by the learned Trial Court. She also did not offer any plausible explanation in the evidence for withholding recent salary details.
11. The learned Family Court, thus rightly reached to a conclusion that such omission, without any cogent explanation, casts a doubt on the genuineness of her claim and justifies an adverse inference against her. The learned Family Court, therefore, rightly held that the wife had concealed her actual income and withheld the most relevant documents which alone could establish her present financial incapacity. This Court concurs with that view, as the primary ingredient for grant of maintenance to a wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – i.e. her inability to maintain herself – has not been satisfactorily proved, in absence of clear and reliable evidence of financial hardship, the claim of the wife becomes speculative and cannot be sustained.

Geeta and Anr Vs State and Anr on 10 Sep 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs Union Territory of J&K and Ors on 11 Jan 2023

Posted on July 9, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

The Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh punished a perjuror with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- for suppressing material facts.

Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs Union Territory of J&K and Ors on 11 Jan 2023

The Division Bench also dismissed the LPA filed against the above Order.

Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs Union Territory of J&K and Ors on 3 Apr 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97229237/

https://www.latestlaws.com/case-analysis/suppression-of-material-facts-amounts-to-manipulation-of-judiciary-won-t-be-tolerated-cost-of-rs-1-lakh-imposed-198120

Index of Perjury cases here.

Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs Mr. K.Parasaran and Ors on 13 Aug 1996

Posted on January 17, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows towards end of the judgment,

The course adopted by the applicant is impermissible and his application is based on misconception of law and facts. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions. After giving our careful consideration to the submissions made at the bar as well as those contained in the memorandum of the application, we are of the opinion that this application is misconceived, untenable and has no merits whatsoever. It is accordingly dismissed.

Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs Mr. K.Parasaran and Ors on 13 Aug 1996

Citations : [1996 SUPREME 6 120], [1996 AIR SC 2687], [1996 SCC 5 530], [1997 BOMCR SC 2 150], [1996 CRLJ SC 3983], [1996 CRIMES SC 3 143], [1996 SCC CRI 1038], [1996 SCALE 5 797], [1996 AD SC 6 133], [1997 ALD CRI 1 134], [1997 ALT CRI 1 271], [1997 LW CRL 1 164], [1997 RCR CRIMINAL 3 62], [1996 SUPP SCR 4 574], [1996 JT SC 7 265]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/455188/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ace6e4b014971141001a

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Dr-Buddhi-Kota-Subbarao-Versus-Mr-K-Parasaran-and-Others-1996-08-13

Index of Perjury Judgments is here.

Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022

Posted on January 15, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that there is nothing wrong in initiating the Perjury proceedings against the Assistant Professor when she was caught lying about her job and income, just before filing the maintenance case.

From Para 10 and 11,

10. Admittedly, the petitioner joined as an Assistant Professor in Chitkara University, Rajpura on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/- on 3.7.2017. Her petition under Section 125 Cr.PC was filed on 26.07.2017. During the entire litigation including when her application for interim maintenance was decided she did not disclose information about her job and her earnings and infact deliberately and intentionally to grab maintenance, submitted wrong information to the Court that she was unemployed. The only explanation offered by the petitioner is that she had given the documents to her counsel in the month of May 2017 to file the petition under Section 125 Cr.PC which was filed on 26.07.2017 because of which her joining on 3.7.2017 is not disclosed.
11. In my opinion, this explanation is completely falacious. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor and a highly educated person. At no stage of proceedings uptill her cross examination did she disclose that she was employed including when her application for interim maintenance was decided and Rs.5000/- was awarded to her. Assuming that the said fact was missing in her petition under Section 125 Cr.PC, the Court could have been informed during the course of proceedings that there had been change of circumstances regarding her obtaining employment. However, as has already been mentioned above, no such information was furnished and only the cross examination revealed her job and consequent salary. Thus it can safely be said that the possibility of her conviction was high and her actions were certainly deliberate and conscious to obtain maintenance.

Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022

Index of Perjury decisions is here.

Swaran Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 Apr 2000

Posted on June 26, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

From the decision of the division bench of Supreme Court, this is the concurring opinion of Justice D.P. Wadhwa. Wonderful, indeed!

D.P Wadhwa, J. (concurring)— I agree with the judgment pronounced by my noble and learned sister Ruma Pal, J. I, however, wish to add a few lines.
35. The first information report was lodged within 2-1/2 hours of the occurrence and the case registered against four persons, namely, Shamsher Singh, Jagjit Singh, Amrik Singh and Mittar Pal Singh alias Lovely. These four accused were named in the FIR. While Shamsher Singh surrendered a day following the lodging of the FIR, no steps were taken to apprehend the other named accused. The case was not only investigated by Sub-Inspector Karnail Singh, SHO of the police station concerned but also by Mohinder Singh, DSP, Baldev Sharma, DSP, Sanjeev Gupta, SP (Detective) and B.P Tiwari, DIG (Crime). When challan was put up, it was only against Shamsher Singh. A criminal complaint was filed by the complainant and all the accused were committed to stand their trial in the Court of Session for various offences. In the course of the trial, more than 50 prosecution witnesses were given up having been won over and the case hinged on the statements of seven witnesses which led to the conviction of Shamsher Singh and Jagjit Singh by the trial court, upheld by the High Court and now affirmed by this Court. The questions that arise for consideration are as to why the police did not challan the accused Jagjit Singh and why over 50 witnesses should have been given up. It only shows that the criminal justice system is in doldrums. There has to be honest investigation uninfluenced by any political or other pressure.
36. A criminal case is built on the edifice of evidence, evidence that is admissible in law. For that, witnesses are required whether it is direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Here are the witnesses who are a harassed lot. A witness in a criminal trial may come from a far-off place to find the case adjourned. He has to come to the court many times and at what cost to his own self and his family is not difficult to fathom. It has become more or less a fashion to have a criminal case adjourned again and again till the witness tires and gives up. It is the game of unscrupulous lawyers to get adjournments for one excuse or the other till a witness is won over or is tired. Not only is a witness threatened, he is abducted, he is maimed, he is done away with, or even bribed. There is no protection for him. In adjourning the matter without any valid cause a court unwittingly becomes party to miscarriage of justice. A witness is then not treated with respect in the court. He is pushed out from the crowded courtroom by the peon. He waits for the whole day and then he finds that the matter is adjourned. He has no place to sit and no place even to have a glass of water. And when he does appear in court, he is subjected to unchecked and prolonged examination and cross-examination and finds himself in a hapless situation. For all these reasons and others a person abhors becoming a witness. It is the administration of justice that suffers. Then appropriate diet money for a witness is a far cry. Here again the process of harassment starts and he decides not to get the diet money at all. High Courts have to be vigilant in these matters. Proper diet money must be paid immediately to the witness (not only when he is examined but for every adjourned hearing) and even sent to him and he should not be left to be harassed by the subordinate staff. If the criminal justice system is to be put on a proper pedestal, the system cannot be left in the hands of unscrupulous lawyers and the sluggish State machinery. Each trial should be properly monitored. Time has come that all the courts, district courts, subordinate courts are linked to the High Court with a computer and a proper check is made on the adjournments and recording of evidence. The Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils must play their part and lend their support to put the criminal system back on its trail. Perjury has also become a way of life in the law courts. A trial Judge knows that the witness is telling a lie and is going back on his previous statement, yet he does not wish to punish him or even file a complaint against him. He is required to sign the complaint himself which deters him from filing the complaint. Perhaps law needs amendment to clause (b) of Section 340(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this respect as the High Court can direct any officer to file a complaint. To get rid of the evil of perjury, the court should resort to the use of the provisions of law as contained in Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Swaran Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 Apr 2000

Citations : [2000 ACR SC 2 1648], [2000 AIR SC 2017], [2000 CRI LJ 2780], [2000 JT SC 6 623], [2000 RCR CRIMINAL 2 762], [2000 SCALE 4 153], [2000 SCC 5 668], [2001 SCC CRI 190], [2000 CRLJ 0 2780], [2001 SCC CR 0 190], [2000 AIR SC 1895], [2000 CRIMES SC 3 12], [2000 SUPREME 4 364], [2000 CRLJ 106 2780], [2000 CCR 2 149], [2000 SLT 4 138], [2000 SRJ 5 487], [2000 JCC SC 2 694], [2000 JT 6 623], [2000 CRIMES 3 12], [2000 RECENTCR 2 762], [2000 AIR SCW 1895], [2000 CRILJ 2780]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/489802/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad6ae4b0149711411587

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

Index of Perjury related judgments is here.

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

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 – Wilful Omission or Supression of Material Information

Ravi Prakash Saxena Vs Priyanka Rani on 04 Sep 2025

Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd on 26 Mar 2025

Geeta and Anr Vs State and Anr on 10 Sep 2025

Fayaz Ahmad Rather Vs Union Territory of J&K and Ors on 11 Jan 2023

Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs Mr. K.Parasaran and Ors on 13 Aug 1996

Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022

Swaran Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 Apr 2000

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

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