Skip to main content

False statement made in affidavit: Contempt of court

 False statement made in affidavit: Contempt of court

By Shagun Mahendroo


In 1981, the society assigned A to a flat. B (A's wife) swore an affidavit in 1983

claiming that neither she nor her husband had been assigned a flat in Noida.

According to the rules, the society assigned her a flat.

According to the rules, no member of the society can be assigned more than one

flat. B filed a deceleration suit against society, which was granted by the trial

court, and confirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court overturned the

same ruling that there was a breach of contract because B swore a false affidavit

by hiding her husband's allotment of a Noida flat.

This Court was evaluating an affidavit sworn by an Advocate under Section

3(2) of the Oaths Act, 1969 in M. Veerabhadra Rao Vs. Tek Chand 1984(Supp)

SCC 571: The term "affidavit" has long been used to refer to a sworn statement

in writing given under oath or on affirmation before an authorised Magistrate or

authority. Affidavit is defined as "affirmation and declaration in the instance of

a person by law entitled to affirm or declare instead of swearing" under sub-

clause (3) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

The main parts of an affidavit are that the deponent makes important assertions

or declarations, and to add sanctity to it, he swears or affirms the truth of the

statements made in the presence of a person who is legally authorised to

administer oath or accept the affirmation.

As a result, the cancellation of a plot allotment obtained after filing a fraudulent

affidavit is a valid reason for terminating a lease. All decisions taken by this

Court are void because of fraud.

As a result, affidavits submitted were more than just a piece of paper; they were

a serious declaration made in front of a person authorised to administer oaths or

receive affirmations. The plaintiff had broken an oath-based solemn statement.

The definition of “criminal contempt” within the meaning of Section 2 of the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, includes the doing of any act which “interferes

or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of

justice” in any manner. Making of a false statement on oath may interfere with

the administration of justice and may thus amount to contempt.


In the case of Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia, (2000) 2 SCC 367 : AIR

2000 SC 833, the Supreme Court held that a false statement deliberately made

in an affidavit before the court amounted to contempt of court.

Likewise, in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 376: 2003

Cri LJ 2045: AIR 2003 SC 3469, the Supreme Court held that filing a false

statement or false affidavit is contempt of court [relying upon the aforesaid

Murray case, and also on Bank of India v. Vijay Transport, (2000) 8 SCC 512;

Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC 757].

Thus, it should be clear that making of a false statement in an affidavit filed

before the court may also amount to contempt of court, in addition to the

offence of perjury.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more