Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 29125 OF 2008

M/s Sciemed Overseas Inc.         ….Petitioner

Versus

BOC India Limited & Ors.              …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The  only  question  for  our  consideration  is  whether  the  High  Court  was  

correct in imposing costs of Rs.  10 lakhs on the petitioner for filing a false or  

misleading affidavit in this Court. In our opinion, the imposition of costs, although  

somewhat steep, was fully justified given that the High Court also held that the  

contract  in  favour  of  the  petitioner  was  awarded  improperly  and  was  of  a  

commercial nature, the last two findings not being under challenge.

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  

SLP (C) No. 29125 of 2008 Page 1 of 13

Page 2

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.  

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 22nd September,  

2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No.  

212 of 2008 only to the extent of imposition of costs.1  In our opinion, there is no  

merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.

4. The Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, (for short “the RIMS”)  

issued  a  notice  inviting  tender  on  10th February,  2007.   The  tender  was  for  

installation  and  supply  of  a  complete  system  of  Centralized  Liquid  Medical  

Oxygen with medical gas pipe line for Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide  

and compressed air, etc.  The work was to be executed on a turnkey basis within  

150 days in the 1000 bedded departments and wards of the RIMS.

5. Responses  to  the  notice  inviting  tender  were  submitted  by the  petitioner  

(Sciemed  Overseas)  and  respondent  No.1  (BOC  India).   Their  tenders  were  

processed by the RIMS and a memorandum dated 25th June, 2007 was issued by its  

Director  informing  Sciemed  and  BOC  regarding  opening  of  the  price  bid  of  

commercially and technically successful bidders.    

6. According to BOC, the conditions of the technical bid were not fulfilled by  

Sciemed and, therefore, there was no reason to invite it for opening the price bid.  

1

BOC India Limited v. State of Jharkhand, MANU/JH/0938/2008

SLP (C) No. 29125 of 2008 Page 2 of 13

Page 3

A representation was made in this regard by BOC to the RIMS but that was not  

considered and, therefore, BOC filed W.P.(C) No. 4203 of 2007 in the High Court  

of Jharkhand in respect of its grievance against  Sciemed and the RIMS.   

7. The High Court considered the writ petition filed by BOC and by an order  

dated 31st July, 2007 the writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to BOC to file  

another representation in continuation of its earlier representation to the RIMS. It  

was directed that both the representations should be considered by the Director of  

the RIMS and an appropriate reasoned order be passed thereon.  

8. It is important to note that when the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of  

on 31st July, 2007 no intimation was given to the High Court by the RIMS or by  

Sciemed to the effect that about a week earlier, that is, on 25 th July, 2007 a work  

order had already been issued to Sciemed in respect of the notice inviting tender.  

9. This fact was first brought to the notice of BOC when the Director of the  

RIMS in his letter dated 8th September, 2007 informed BOC, in response to the  

representations, that the work order had already been issued to Sciemed on 25 th  

July, 2007.  

10. Under these circumstances, BOC preferred yet another petition being W.P.  

(C) No. 4830 of 2007 challenging the issuance of the work order in favour of  

Sciemed.

11. By an order dated 10th September, 2007 the High Court dismissed the second  

SLP (C) No. 29125 of 2008 Page 3 of 13

Page 4

writ petition filed by BOC holding that the question whether the work order had or  

had not been issued to Sciemed was a question of fact. That apart, BOC had also  

raised several other questions of fact.  The High Court was of the opinion that since  

the factual  controversies  could not  be adjudicated upon in its  writ  jurisdiction,  

there  was  no  reason  to  entertain  the  writ  petition  and  it  was,  accordingly,  

dismissed.

12. Feeling aggrieved, BOC preferred L.P.A. No. 319 of 2007 which was heard  

and  dismissed  by  a  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  on  10 th October,  2007  

thereby upholding the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the second writ  

petition filed by BOC raised disputed questions of fact.  

13. Feeling  dissatisfied  with  the  order  passed  by  the  Division  Bench,  BOC  

preferred a petition for Special Leave to Appeal to this Court in which leave was  

granted on 14th March, 2008.  This Court disposed of the appeal being Civil Appeal  

No.2028  of  2008  on  that  day  itself  holding  that  there  is  hardly  any  disputed  

question of  fact.   On the contrary,  the facts of  the case were evident from the  

documents  already  on  record  and  oral  evidence  was  required  to  be  led.  

Accordingly, this Court was of the view that the matter ought to be heard on merits  

by the High Court and an appropriate direction was given in this regard.   

14. During the  pendency  of  the  Civil  Appeal,  an  affidavit  was  filed  on  20 th  

February,  2008  by  Sciemed  through  its  proprietor  Shailendra  Prasad  Singh  in  

SLP (C) No. 29125 of 2008 Page 4 of 13

Page 5

which it was stated as follows:-

“It is submitted that the NIT, after having been relaxed and technical and  financial bids having been opened, the respondent No.5 was declared as the  lowest bidder by a margin of Rs.1.12 crores as compared to the petitioner  and the work order has already been acted upon and the project is almost  near completion and 85%  of the amount has already been released to the  answering respondent, rendering the present SLP, in any case, infructuous  and liable to be rejected.”  

15. It is this passage in the affidavit that has given rise to the controversy before  

us.

16. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the writ petition filed by BOC  

was taken up for consideration by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.  By an  

order dated 14th May, 2008, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.  

While disposing of the writ petition, it was held that though the decision making  

process by which Sciemed was declared to be qualified was improper, it could not  

be  held  that  the  RIMS had  acted  in  an  arbitrary,  mala  fide or  discriminatory  

manner. The learned Single Judge noted that Sciemed had stated before this Court  

that the work was almost complete. The High Court observed that since the work  

awarded to Sciemed had progressed to a considerable extent and a major portion of  

money had been advanced or paid to Sciemed, therefore if the work order were to  

be set aside it would involve dismantling and uprooting the system that had so far  

been fixed which would not be in the interest of the patients or the exchequer.  

Accordingly, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the award of the  

SLP (C) No. 29125 of 2008 Page 5 of 13

Page 6

contract  to Sciemed but left  it  open to BOC to file a suit  for  damages against  

Sciemed.

17. Feeling  aggrieved,  Sciemed preferred  a  Letters  Patent  Appeal  before  the  

Division Bench of the High Court which came to be dismissed by the impugned  

judgment and order dated 22nd September, 2008.  While doing so,  the Division  

Bench of the High Court noted that the reason why the learned Single Judge did  

not  interfere  with  the  award  of  the  contract  to  Sciemed  was  because  of  its  

statement  made  before  this  Court  on  affidavit  that  the  work  was  almost  near  

completion.   It was also noted that cancellation of the award of contract at his  

stage would entail a heavy administrative and financial burden on the Government  

and lead to increase and double expenditure to the tune of crores of rupees.

18. However, the High Court, on the submission of learned counsel for BOC  

decided to verify whether the installation and supply of the complete system as per  

the notice of tender was near completion as stated by Sciemed in its affidavit filed  

in this Court.  For this purpose, the High Court appointed a respected advocate of  

that Court 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.   

19. The learned advocate so appointed by the High Court submitted his Report  

on 3rd July, 2008.  It was stated in the Report, which was accepted by the High  

Court, that the originating point/inlet of the main Liquid Oxygen Gas Tank of the  

SLP (C) No. 29125 of 2008 Page 6 of 13

Page 7

required specification had not yet been installed.  It was also found that a separate  

3-Phase Electric Supply System for commissioning the project had not yet been  

installed.   In  view of  these  two major  deficiencies,  the  commissioning  of  the  

complete system was being delayed.  Additionally, it was noted that the Oxygen  

Gas Tank was in transit from Bangalore at that time.   

20. On a consideration of 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.

21. At this stage, it is important to mention that Sciemed through its proprietor  

Shailendra Prasad Singh son of Rameshwar Prasad Singh, had filed an affidavit on  

or  about  10th July,  2008 in the  High Court  in  which it  was explained that  the  

statement made in this Court on affidavit was because the deponent was of the  

view that the installation of the complete system of gas pipeline is one part of the  

award and installation of liquid oxygen tank is a separate work.   It was stated that  

the affidavit filed in this Court was due to some misconception and was not with a  

view to  mislead this  Court.  In  other  words,  the deponent  sought  to  justify  his  

affidavit in this Court notwithstanding the Report of the learned advocate.  The  

deponent  after  giving  the  above  explanation,  tendered  an  unconditional  and  

SLP (C) No. 29125 of 2008 Page 7 of 13

Page 8

unqualified  apology  to  the  High  Court  for  the  statement  regarding  the  near  

completion of the project.

22. The  High  Court  did  not  accept  the  apology  given  by  the  proprietor  of  

Sciemed and, therefore, imposed costs of Rs.10 lakhs on Sciemed.   

23. While impugning the order passed by the High Court, it was submitted by  

the learned counsel for Sciemed that 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.  

24. We are unable to accept either contention raised by learned counsel.

25. 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  

SLP (C) No. 29125 of 2008 Page 8 of 13

Page 9

well as officers from the RIMS.

26. The conclusion drawn by the learned advocate after a thorough inspection  

and discussion of the issues is as follows:-

“From a detailed inspection of the entire Liquid Oxygen Gas System as  required to be installed under the tender conditions land the work Order, I  was  able  to  gather  that  at  the  originating  point/inlet  the  main  Liquid  Oxygen Gas Tank of the required specification has not yet been installed.  I   also  found  that  a  separate  3-Phase  Electric  Supply  System  for  commissioning of the project has not yet been installed and is reportedly in  the process.  I was informed by the hospital authorities that the 3-Phase  electricity connection is to be supplied by the hospital authorities and are  not required under the tender conditions or work order to be done on the  part of the Contractor i.e. M/s Sciemed Overseas Inc.  On the part of the  Contractor i.e. respondent no.5 I was repeatedly informed that the delay in  the execution of the work has occasioned primarily due to repeated thefts of  the costly Copper pipes, whitewashing and distemper work underway in the  RIMS and also the operational and practical difficulties in installation in the  ICU’s,  OT’s,  Labour Rooms in the Gynae Department  which had to be  vacated  by  the  hospital  authorities  completely  after  much  persuasion,  before any installation could be carried out.  

It  appears  that  on  account  of  delay  in  installation  of  the  Main  Liquid  Oxygen Tank and the 3 Phase electrical connection, the commissioning of  the complete system of Liquid Medical Oxygen Gas together with other  gases. Vacuum and Air are being delayed.  The entire outlet system upto the  individual outlets have been put in place as already stated above.  I also  noticed that at the point of the final outlets at the end of the Branch pipeline  at the Bed heads wherever they are specified by the Work Order, the double  lockout with parking facility has been installed but the electrical switches  for which space is left in the panel has not yet been fixed.”  

27. After the Report was filed in the High Court, Sciemed also realized that it  

had in fact misled this Court.  Nevertheless, Sciemed tried to justify the false or  

misleading affidavit  filed in this Court.   After  giving the justification, Sciemed  

tendered  an  unconditional  and  unqualified  apology  through  Shailendra  Prasad  

SLP (C) No. 29125 of 2008 Page 9 of 13

Page 10

Singh,  proprietor  of  Sciemed.   There  was  no  need  for  the  proprietor  to  have  

tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology unless there was an admission  

that the statement made before this Court was false or misleading.  It would have  

been a different matter if Sciemed had tendered an unconditional and unqualified  

apology without tendering a justification.

28. As far as the alternative submission of the learned counsel is concerned, we  

are not in a position to accept this submission also particularly if the entire matter  

is looked at in a broad conspectus.  

29. In the first instance, the work order was issued to Sciemed on 25th July, 2007  

but this was not disclosed to the High Court when it disposed of W.P.(C) No.4203  

of 2007 on 31st July, 2007.  Had the factual position been disclosed to the High  

Court, perhaps the outcome of the writ petition filed by BOC would have been  

different  and  the  issue  might  not  have  even  travelled  up  to  this  Court.  

Furthermore,  apparently  to  ensure  that  work  order  goes  through,  a  false  or  

misleading statement was made before this Court on affidavit when the matter was  

taken up on 14th March, 2008 to the effect that the work was nearing completion.  It  

is not possible to accept the view canvassed by learned counsel that the false or  

misleading statement had no impact on the decision rendered by this Court on 14 th  

March, 2008.  We cannot hypothesize on what transpired in the proceedings before  

this Court nor can we imagine what could or could not have weighed with this  

SLP (C) No. 29125 of 2008 Page 10 of 13

Page 11

Court when it rendered its decision on 14th March, 2008.  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.  

30. In the case of Suo Moto Proceedings Against R. Karuppan, Advocate2 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.  If the result of the proceedings are to be respected,  these issues before the courts must be resolved to the extent possible in  accordance with the truth.  The purity of proceedings of the court cannot be  permitted to be sullied by a party on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient  grounds  or  relying  upon  false  evidence  inspired  by  extraneous  considerations or revengeful desire to harass or spite his opponent.  Sanctity  of the affidavits has to be preserved and protected discouraging the filing of  irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy.”  

31. Similarly,  in  Muthu  Karuppan  v.  Parithi  Ilamvazhuthi3 this  Court  

expressed the view that the filing of a false affidavit should be effectively curbed  

2

(2001) 5 SCC 289  3

(2011) 5 SCC 496

SLP (C) No. 29125 of 2008 Page 11 of 13

Page 12

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.”

32. On the material before us and the material considered by the High Court, we  

are satisfied that the imposition of costs by the High Court was justified. We find  

no  reason  to  interfere  with  the  impugned  judgment  and  order.  The  petition  is  

dismissed.

33. However, we grant six weeks to the petitioner to make the deposit of costs as  

directed  by  the  High  Court  with  the  Jharkhand  Legal  Services  Authority  

(JHALSA). On the deposit being made, the JHALSA should forward the amount to  

BOC India. The matter should be listed in the High Court after eight weeks for  

compliance.  

 .....…………………….J                                                                        (Madan B. Lokur)

                   .....

…………………….J                                               (R.K. Agrawal)

SLP (C) No. 29125 of 2008 Page 12 of 13

Page 13

New Delhi; January 11, 2016

SLP (C) No. 29125 of 2008 Page 13 of 13