Perjury Allegations in Civil Dispute: Supreme Court Dismisses Application Against Respondent

The case of Deepak Chandrakant Jhaveri & Ors. vs. Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. involved a civil dispute concerning tenancy rights and possession of a suit property in Mumbai. The primary contention arose when M/s New Era Fabrics Ltd. (the Applicant) filed an application under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against Respondent No. 3, Nikhilesh Keshrichand Jhaveri, alleging perjury.

The dispute dates back to a long-standing legal battle over the ownership and tenancy rights of a commercial property situated at Mahim, Mumbai. Multiple suits were filed before the Court of Small Causes, with different parties claiming ownership and leasehold rights over the premises.

Background of the Dispute

The legal battle began when twelve members of the Jhaveri family, including the petitioners and Respondent Nos. 3-5, claimed to be lessors of the suit property. M/s New Era Fabrics Ltd., a tenant of the property, was served a termination notice in 2009. In response, two separate eviction suits were filed:

• The first suit was filed by the Jhaveri family members for possession and injunction against Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) and M/s New Era Fabrics Ltd.
• The second suit was filed by Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. against the Jhaveri family members, claiming ownership and stating that the Jhaveris were merely sub-lessees.

Clubbed Proceedings and Subsequent Controversy

In 2016, six members of the Jhaveri family sought to consolidate both suits, arguing that they involved overlapping issues. However, Respondent Nos. 3-5 opposed this request, contending that such an action was intended to delay proceedings and render the first suit infructuous. They also cited a Supreme Court directive requiring the first suit to be concluded by January 2017.

Despite the opposition, the Supreme Court allowed the consolidation of the suits on May 4, 2017. However, Respondent No. 3 later filed an application (M.A. No. 782 of 2017) seeking to undo the clubbing, arguing that the two suits were at different stages—while the first suit had progressed substantially, even the issues had not been framed in the second suit.

The Supreme Court, upon reviewing this claim, reversed its earlier order and reinstated the two suits as separate matters.

Perjury Allegations Against Respondent No. 3

Following this, the Applicant (M/s New Era Fabrics Ltd.) filed the present application under Section 340 CrPC, arguing that Respondent No. 3 had intentionally misled the court by falsely claiming that issues had not been framed in the second suit. The Applicant contended that this misrepresentation influenced the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse the clubbing order, thereby affecting the proceedings unfairly.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Applicant, represented by Senior Counsel Shri Vikas Singh, made the following key arguments:

• Respondent No. 3 had knowingly made false statements before the Supreme Court.
• His claim that issues had not been framed in the second suit was incorrect, as the Court of Small Causes had already framed issues on April 3, 2014.
• Since Respondent No. 3 was a party to the suit, he was well aware of the procedural developments and could not claim oversight.
• Making false statements in judicial proceedings constitutes perjury, necessitating criminal action under Section 340 CrPC.

Respondent’s Defense

Senior Counsel Shri Amit Sibal, representing Respondent No. 3, countered the allegations with the following arguments:

• Any incorrect statement made in the earlier application was an inadvertent oversight, not a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.
• Respondent No. 3 clarified his error in a rejoinder and tendered an unconditional apology.
• The confusion arose because M/s New Era Fabrics Ltd. had itself filed an application on October 28, 2014, seeking modification of the issues framed in the second suit.
• Given the pending application for recasting, deletion, and reframing of issues, Respondent No. 3 mistakenly believed that the issues had not been finalized.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments from both sides, made the following observations:

• Respondent No. 3 had, in his rejoinder, admitted to the incorrect statement and had already brought this to the Court’s attention.
• The explanation offered for the misstatement—that there was ongoing litigation regarding the modification of framed issues—was reasonable.
• There was no clear intent on the part of Respondent No. 3 to deceive the Court or obtain an unfair advantage.
• Given the lack of evidence suggesting deliberate falsehood and the unconditional apology tendered by Respondent No. 3, the matter did not warrant criminal proceedings.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court concluded that no prima facie case for perjury was made out and dismissed the application under Section 340 CrPC. The Court held:

“We are also of the view that the explanation offered by Respondent No. 3 in his rejoinder seems reasonable inasmuch as the pendency of the application seeking framing, recasting, and deletion of issues, filed by the Applicant, could have caused some confusion in the mind of Respondent No. 3 regarding the stage at which the 2nd suit was pending.”

Thus, the Court declined to initiate criminal proceedings against Respondent No. 3.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces key legal principles regarding perjury and judicial proceedings:

• Intent Matters: The Court emphasized that incorrect statements made inadvertently do not constitute perjury unless there is an intent to deceive.
• Unconditional Apology and Admission: Respondent No. 3’s admission and apology played a crucial role in avoiding criminal prosecution.
• Judicial Caution in Perjury Cases: Courts must exercise restraint in initiating perjury proceedings, ensuring that only deliberate and malicious falsehoods are penalized.

This case serves as a cautionary tale for litigants, highlighting the importance of accuracy in court submissions while also ensuring that genuine mistakes do not lead to unnecessary criminal liability.

Petitioner Name: Deepak Chandrakant Jhaveri & Ors..
Respondent Name: Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Place Of Incident: Mumbai.
Judgment Date: 03-03-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Deepak Chandrakant J vs Johnson Dye Works Pv Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-03-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category