Hotel Hans Private Limited & Ors vs M/S Mirage Hospitality & Ors
2018 Latest Caselaw 2050 Del

$~8
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CS(OS) 2379/2015 & I.A.Nos.14320/2016, 10231-10232/2017
       HOTEL HANS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS                          ..... Plaintiffs
                           Through      Mr.Sanjeev Narula with Mr.Ajay
                                        Sondhi with Ms.Surbhi Mehta,
                                        Advocates.
                           versus

       M/S MIRAGE HOSPITALITY & ORS               ..... Defendants
                    Through   Mr.Anil Grover with Mr.Shivesh
                              P.Singh, Advocates with defendant
                              no.3 in person.

%                                    Date of Decision: 3rd April, 2018

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                              JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. On 06th March, 2018, this Court had passed the following order:-

"An application being I.A. No. 10231/2017 has been filed by the defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement. In the said application it has been averred, "As asked by their previous counsel, the defendants signed only the last page of said written statement and sworn the supporting affidavit without knowing the entire contents of the said written statement as the same were not disclosed and explained by previous counsel to the defendants."

In the opinion of this Court, all litigants are bound in law to state true, correct and complete facts in their written statements.

The parties have to take full responsibility for whatever averments they make. The litigants are not supposed to blindly autograph a written statement.

Since the defendants have virtually „disowned‟ the written statement on record, this Court issues suo motu notice to Mr. Gurdeep Singh Bhasin as to why proceedings under Section 340 Cr. P.C. read with Sections 191, 192, 193 and 195 of IPC should not be initiated against him.

Mr. Shivesh P. Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Mr. Gurdeep Singh Bhasin. He prays for and is permitted to file a reply-affidavit within two weeks.

List for further hearing on 3rd April, 2018. The noticee Mr. Gurdeep Singh Bhasin shall be personally present in Court on the next date of hearing."

(emphasis supplied)

2. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, Sh.Gurdeep Singh Bhasin has filed a reply-affidavit. The relevant portion of the said affidavit is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"3. I further say that in late evening, Sh. Sanjeev K. Baliyan Advocate has called me for signing the Written Statement. He further said that it has to be filed tomorrow being a last working day before summer vacation. Therefore, the next day, I reached Delhi High Court and signed on the last page and supporting affidavit as asked by Sh. Sanjeev K. Baliyan, Advocate. Sh. Sanjeev K. Baliyan Advocate told that he will provide the copy of the Written Statement afterwards, as now he has to file it on urgent basis before closing of registry.

4. I after obtaining copy of Written Statement dated 2.6., came to know that Sh. Sanjeev K. Baliyan, Advocate has not even mentioned about the Mediation Settlement dated 6.11.2015, Encashment of Cheques given by me, Non-Registration of Lease

Deed and its consequences, etc. apart from certain other facts in the Written Statement prepared by him."

(emphasis supplied)

3. Learned counsel for Mr.Gurdeep Singh Bhasin tenders an unconditional apology and prays for a lenient view of the matter. He states that Mr.Gurdeep Singh Bhasin had signed the written statement reposing full faith and confidence in his previous counsel.

4. The written statement dated 02nd June, 2016 filed by Mr.Gurdeep Singh Bhasin bears the following verification:-

"Verification:

Verified at Delhi on this 2nd day of June, 2016, that the contents of paras 1 to 6 of the preliminary objections are true and correct to my knowledge, while those of paras 1 to 37 of the written statement and the legal submissions made therein are all true upon information received and believed to be true. Last para is prayer to this Hon‟ble Court."

(emphasis supplied)

5. The said written statement is also companied by an affidavit. The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under:-

"2. That the contents of the accompanying written statement, have been drafted by my counsel as per my instructions and the contents of the same have been duly read and understood by me and after fully understanding the contents of the same I hereby state that the facts stated therein are all true and correct to my therein are all true and correct to my (sic.) knowledge. The facts stated therein may kindly be read as part and parcel of the present affidavit as well as the same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity."

(emphasis supplied)

6. In response to a pointed question, it was candidly admitted by learned counsel for Mr.Gurdeep Singh Bhasin that no complaint had been filed against the previous counsel before the Bar Council or any other statutory authority.

7. From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that either the reply to the show cause notice as well as the affidavit accompanying the application for amendment of written statement or the verification and the affidavit accompanying the written statement are false and incorrect.

8. This Court cannot countenance the way in which Mr.Gurdeep Singh Bhasin has sworn affidavits in this Court.

9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs. State, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4006 has held as under:-

"8. False averments in pleadings are sufficient to attract Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 8.7. Making false averment in the pleading pollutes the stream of justice. It is an attempt at inviting the Court into passing a wrong judgment and that is why it must be treated as an offence. 8.8. Where a verification is specific and deliberately false, there is nothing in law to prevent a person from being proceeded for contempt. But it must be remembered that the very essence of crimes of this kind is not how such statements may injure this or that party to litigation but how they may deceive and mislead the courts and thus produce mischievous consequences to the administration of justice. A person is under a legal obligation to verify the allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies falsely, he comes under the clutches of law. 8.9. Consequently, there cannot be any doubt that if a statement or averment in a pleading is false, it falls within the definition of offence under Section 191 of the Code (and other provisions). It is not necessary that a person should have appeared in the witness box. The offence stands committed and

completed by the filing of such pleading. There is need for the justice system to protect itself from such wrongdoing so that it can do its task of justice dispensation."

10. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for initiating criminal action against Mr.Gurdeep Singh Bhasin and, therefore, this Court exercising its power under Section 340Cr.P.C read with Sections 191 and 209 IPC directs the Registrar General of this Court to draw up a complaint against Mr.Gurdeep Singh Bhasin for swearing false affidavits. The complaint be sent to the concerned court for further proceedings against Mr.Gurdeep Singh Bhasin. This criminal complaint will be pursued further by the plaintiffs in the present suit before the competent court. I.A.No.10231/2017 Keeping in view the aforesaid order passed today, the defendants' application for amendment of the written statement is dismissed.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. I.A.No.10232/2017 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the delay in filing the reply to I.A.No.14320 is condoned.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. I.A.No.14320/2016 At the request of learned counsel for the defendants, adjourned to 31 st August, 2018.

MANMOHAN, J APRIL 03, 2018 KA