The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently imposed ₹50,000 costs on a petitioner who was found to have filed a false affidavit in a case [Munagaala Ramesh v Vijayawada Municipal Corporation]..Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari said that such evil must be curbed effectively to preserve the sanctity of the judicial proceedings."The petitioner had tried to pollute the stream of justice and has filed false affidavit which is an evil and must be effectively curbed with a strong hand to preserve the purity of the judicial proceedings," the single-judge said..The petitioner had moved the Court claiming that the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation was making an attempt to demolish their property without following due process of law, and without issuance of a notice..However, the respondents' counsel informed the court that a notice was issued and three copies of it were served on the petitioner.In response to this, the Court was informed by the petitioner that though his signature was obtained, a copy of the notice was not given to him. He, however, admitted that the notice contained his signature and the endorsement of its receipt. He also admitted that he had not disclosed this to his counsel. .Considering these facts, the bench opined that the case was clearly one of "concealment of material fact" in an effort to get orders by misleading the Court..Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. v Additional Commissioner (Administration) where it was held that a person approaching the Court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, was under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material and important facts having a bearing on adjudication of the issues raised in the case..With this, the plea was dismissed with costs which has to be deposited with the Andhra Pradesh State High Court Legal Services Authority within 15 days failing which, the Registrar has to initiate proceedings to recover the amount..The petitioner was represented by advocate P Kameswara Rao while the respondents were represented by advocates G Naresh Kumar and M Manohar Reddy..[Read Order]
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently imposed ₹50,000 costs on a petitioner who was found to have filed a false affidavit in a case [Munagaala Ramesh v Vijayawada Municipal Corporation]..Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari said that such evil must be curbed effectively to preserve the sanctity of the judicial proceedings."The petitioner had tried to pollute the stream of justice and has filed false affidavit which is an evil and must be effectively curbed with a strong hand to preserve the purity of the judicial proceedings," the single-judge said..The petitioner had moved the Court claiming that the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation was making an attempt to demolish their property without following due process of law, and without issuance of a notice..However, the respondents' counsel informed the court that a notice was issued and three copies of it were served on the petitioner.In response to this, the Court was informed by the petitioner that though his signature was obtained, a copy of the notice was not given to him. He, however, admitted that the notice contained his signature and the endorsement of its receipt. He also admitted that he had not disclosed this to his counsel. .Considering these facts, the bench opined that the case was clearly one of "concealment of material fact" in an effort to get orders by misleading the Court..Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. v Additional Commissioner (Administration) where it was held that a person approaching the Court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, was under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material and important facts having a bearing on adjudication of the issues raised in the case..With this, the plea was dismissed with costs which has to be deposited with the Andhra Pradesh State High Court Legal Services Authority within 15 days failing which, the Registrar has to initiate proceedings to recover the amount..The petitioner was represented by advocate P Kameswara Rao while the respondents were represented by advocates G Naresh Kumar and M Manohar Reddy..[Read Order]
