• Affidavit  -  False affidavit  Costs - Unconditional and unqualified apology  - After the Report was filed in the High Court, S also realized that it had in fact misled this Court -  Nevertheless, S tried to justify the false or misleading affidavit filed in this Court - After giving the justification, S tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology through SP, proprietor of S - 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  Costs upheld. (2016)3 P.L.R.SC 28
  •         Affidavit  False Affidavit  - 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 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 - High Court was correct in imposing costs of Rs. 10 lakhs on the petitioner for filing a false or misleading affidavit  - 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. (2016)3 P.L.R.SC 28
  •         Affidavit - Calling on for an affidavit to waive valuable rights at the insistence of the organ of the State is neither a fair nor is the right thing to do as that would be an inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction clearly in abuse of authority to appoint - The petitioner had no option but to sign on the dotted line to accept the appointment or forsake it - Fundamental rights are not open to waiver - Once the petitioner was appointed she was protected by Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India and rules of service governing the conditions of service in the cadre - The action of the respondents in demanding the affidavit is held to be unconstitutional, contrary to public policy, illegal and thus the unlawful demand should not be countenanced coming from the State which is expected to be a model employer - Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 311. (183) P.L.R.

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.