MIS. SCIEMED OVERSEAS INC. versus BOC INDIA LIMITED & ORS.
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 151, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
[2016] l S.C.R. 151 
MIS. SCIEMED OVERSEAS INC. 
v. 
BOC INDIA LIMITED & ORS. 
(Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No. 29125 of 2008) 
JANUARY 11, 2016 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND R, K, AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Cost - Imposition of - For filing a false or misleading affidavit 
- Writ Petition challenging award of works contract - Dismissed 
A 
B 
on the ground of its maintainability - In appeal to Supreme Court, 
contractor filing affidavit that work was nearing completion -
Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the case on merits 
C 
- Single Judge of High Court , in view of the affidavit, did not set 
aside the award of contract and giving liberty to the party who 
challenged the award of contract, to file a suit for damages - In 
intra-court appeal by the contractor, the Division Bench on 
verification found that statement given on affidavit was wrong -
D 
The contractor initially justified its affidavit and then filed 
unconditional apology - Division Bench rejecting the apology held 
that the contractor had filed false affidavit before Supreme Court 
and imposed costs of Rs. I 0 lakhs on the Contractor - On appeal, 
held: In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the affidavit was 
bonafide and not a deliberate attempt to mislead the court - The 
very fact that a false or misleading statement was made, by itself is 
enough to invite adverse reaction - The imposition of the cost, though 
somewhat sweep, was fully justified - Affidavit. 
E 
Affidavit - Filing of
false affidavits before Courts - Held: 
There is alarming increase in filing of false affidavits and the same 
needs to be strongly discouraged. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. It cannot be said that the statement made in the 
affidavit filed in this Court was not a false statement but was 
bonafide and not a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court. The 
correctness of the statement made by the contractor was 
examined threadbare not only by the Single Judge but also by 
the Division Bench and it was found that a considerable amount 
of work had still to be completed by it and it was not as if the 
work was nearing completion as represented to this Court. 
151 
F 
G 
H
152 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] l S.C.R. 
Additionally, the Report independently given by the advocate 
appointed to make an assessment, also clearly indicated that a 
considerable amount of work had still to be performed by the 
contractor. 
After the Report was filed in the High Court, the 
contractor also realized that it had in fact misled this Court. 
Nevertheless, the contractor tried to justify the false or misleading 
affidavit. After giving the justification, it tendered an unconditional 
and unqualified apology. There was no need for an unconditional 
and unqualified apology unless there was an admission that the 
statement made before this Court was false or misleading. [paras 
23, 25 and 27] [157-F-G, H; 158-A; 159-B]] 
2. It also cannot be said that the allegedly false or 
misleading statement had no impact on the decision taken by 
this Court and should, therefore, be ignored. The work order 
was issued to the contractor during pendency of the writ petition 
(filed by the respondent-Company challenging invitation to the 
contractor for opening the price bid) without informing the High 
Court. Furthermore, to ensure that work order goes through, a 
false or misleading statement was made before this Court on 
affidavit. 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. [paras 23 and 29] [157-G; 159-E, 
F··G] 
Suo Moto Proceedings Against R.
Karuppan, Advocate 
2001 (3) SCR 750 = 2001 (5) sec 289; Muthu 
Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi 2011 (5) SCR 329 = 
2011 (5) sec 496 - relied on. 
3. 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 'trend' 
is certainly an unhealthy one that should be strongly discouraged, 
G well before the filing of false affidavits gets to be treated as a 
routine and normal affair. [para 2] [153-F-G] 
4. On the basis of material before this Court and the 
material considered by the High Court, the imposition of costs 
by the High Court was justified. The imposition of costs, although 
H 
somewhat steep, was fully justified given that the High Court
MIS. SCIEMED OVERSEAS INC. v. BOC INDIA LIMITED 
153 
also held that the contract in favour of the petitioner was awarded 
A 
improperly and was of a commercial nature, the last two findings 
not being under challenge. [paras 1 and 32] [153-E; 160-H] 
Case Law Reference 
2001 (3) SCR 750 
relied on 
para30 
2011 (5) SCR 329 
relied on 
para 31 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition 
(C) No. 29125 of 2008 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2008 of the High Court 
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L. P.A. No. 212 of 2008. 
A. K. Ganguly, Devashish Bharuka, Ravi Bharuka for the 
Petitioner. 
Gopal Prasad, K. L. Mehta & Co. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. l. 
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 
B 
c 
D 
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 
E 
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 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. 
F 
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 
22"' September, 2008 passed by the Division Bench:of the High Court 
G 
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. 
I BOC India Limited v. State of Jharkhand, MANU/JH/0938/2008 
H
154 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 
4 .. The Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, (for short 
"the RIMS") issued a notice inviting tender on 1 O'" 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. I (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. 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 31" 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 31" 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 25th 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 
G 
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 25th July, 2007. 
10. Under these circumstances, BOC preferred yet another 
petition being W.P. (C) No. 4830 of2007 challenging the issuance of the 
H 
work order in favour of Sciemed.
WS. SCIEMED OVERSEAS INC. v. BOC INDIA LIMITED 
155 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
11. By an order dated 10th September, 2007 the High Court 
A 
dismissed the second 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 IO"' 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. 
B 
c 
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 14"' March, 2008. This Court 
disposed of the appeal being Civil Appeal No.2028 of 2008 on that day 
D 
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. 
E 
14. During the pendency of the Civil Appeal, an affidavit was 
filed on 20"' February, 2008 by Sciemed through its proprietor Shailendra 
Prasad Singh in which it was stated as follows:-
"lt is submitted that the NIT, after having been relaxed and technical 
and financial bids having been opened, the respondent No.5 was 
F 
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 
G 
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 
H
156 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 
of the High Court. By an order dated J41h 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, ma/a 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 
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 22"' 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 oflearned 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 
G 
extent of work completed or at the stage of completion. 
H 
19. The learned advocate so appointed by the High Court submitted 
his Report on 3" 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 required specification had not yet been 
installed. It was also found that a separate 3-Phase Electric Supply
MIS. SCIEMED OVERSEAS INC. v. BOC INDIA LIMITED 
157 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
System for commissioning the project had not yet been installed. In A 
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 
B 
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 c 
its proprietor Shailendra Prasad Singh son of Rameshwar Prasad Singh, 
had filed an affidavit on or about JOth 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 
D 
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 unqualified apology to the High Court for the statement 
E 
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.I 0 lakhs on 
Sciemed. 
23. While impugning the order passed by the High Court, it was 
F 
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 
G 
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 
H
158 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] l S.C.R. 
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. 
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. Mis 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
MIS. SCIEMED OVERSEAS INC. v. BOC INDIA LIMITED 
159 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
with parking facility has been installed but the electrical switches 
A 
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 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 
25'h July, 2007 but this was not disclosed to the High Court when it 
disposed ofW.P.(C) No.4203 of2007 on 31" 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 14'h 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" 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 Court when it rendered its 
decision on 14"' 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, 
Advocate' 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 
2 (200JJ s sec 2s9 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
160 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R. 
A 
be discouraged. It was observed by this Court as follows: 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"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 llamvazhuthi 3 this 
Court expressed the view that the filing of a false affidavit should be 
effectively curbed 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 
3 (201 l) s sec 496

MIS. SCIEMED OVERSEAS INC. v. BOC INDIA LIMITED 
161 
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 
judgment and order. The petition is dismissed. 
A 
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. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
SLP dismissed. 
B