[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The District Central Cooperative Bank ... vs The Controlling Authority Under The ... on 6 March, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
1 MCC-565-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 6 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 565 of 2026
THE DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK DISTRICT GWALIOR
Versus
THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT AND
GRATUITY ACT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P. Singh - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Shashank Sharma - Advocate for respondent No. 2.
ORDER
This application has been filed for restoration of Review Petition No.
286/2025, which was dismissed for non-compliance of order dated 23/4/2025, by
formal order of Principal Registrar dated 19/6/2025.
2. I.A. No. 1715/2026 has been filed for condonation of delay.
3. Since the grounds for condonation of delay and restoration are identical,
therefore, both the prayers shall be considered jointly.
4. It is not out of place to mention here that this application for restoration
has been filed on 18/2/2026. In this application, following grounds have been
raised:
"4. That, a review petition was filed for recall of order dated
08.08:2024 and 27.11.2024, but however there was some default with
respect to filing of certified copy of order as well as with respect to
calculation of limitation. It transpires that the matter was listed on
23.04.2025, however on that date the default was not cured by the
Advocate and the Hon'ble Court granted time to make good the
default, but the compliance was not made and, therefore, ultimately on
19.06.2024 the review petition has been dismissed for non-compliance
of order.
6. That, considering the aforesaid order dated 17.0.2019 another W.P.
No.30981/2023 filed by Kalicharan Gautam has been dismissed. Copy
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
2 MCC-565-2026
of order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Hon'ble Court in W.P.
No.30981/2023 is enclosed and marked as Annexure A/S.
7. That, in case of one Omprakash Sharma the similar orders dated
08.08.2024 and 27.11.2024 was passed in We. No.15440/2024, but
however the review petition No.285/2025 filed by the © present
applicant/bank was allowed on 28.11.2025. Copy of order dated
28.11.2025 is enclosed and marked as Annexure A/6.
8. That, in the present matter, the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of
present applicant/bank since did not make compliance of order passed
by this Hon'ble Court and, therefore, the review petition No.286/2025
was dismissed in default.
9. That, the information about the dismissal of review petition was not
given to the present applicant/bank, but however on 14.01.2026 when
the Contempt Petition No.1148/2025 was listed, the Hon'ble Court
directed to make compliance of order writ petition upto 18.02.2026, the
Chief Executive Officer of applicant bank searched then he found that
the review petition No.286/2025 filed by the applicant/bank was
dismissed on 19.06.2025.
10. That, in the aforesaid circumstance the bank has contacted the
another Advocate and according to his advise the present application
for restoration is filed. Thus, from the date of knowledge the present
restoration application is within time. Hence, the delay in filing of
present restoration application also deserves to be condoned.
11. That, even otherwise, for the fault on the part of Advocate the party
cannot be made sufferer as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
since reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400 ."
5. It is not out of place to mention here that Shri D.P. Singh, Advocate, had
filed the review petition and present application for restoration was filed by the
office of Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi, but because Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi, Sr.
Advocate had already appeared for respondent, therefore, the bank again engaged
Shri D.P. Singh as its counsel.
6. In the morning hour, Shri D.P. Singh submitted that although he does not
endorse the grounds raised in the application, but he would like to take the
responsibility on his shoulder and the review petition may be restored.
7. The submission made by Shri Singh was vehemently opposed by Shri
Shashank Sharma, and it was submitted that the bank is unnecessarily harassing
the respondent, who was a low-paid employee, and his gratuity is not being paid.
It is further submitted that the bank was aware of each and every proceedings, and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
3 MCC-565-2026
only when personal appearance of the CEO of applicant / Bank was ordered, and
when the CEO of applicant / Bank appeared before this Court on 18/2/2026, only
then present application for restoration of review petition, which was dismissed on
account of non-compliance of order dated 23/4/2025, has been filed.
8. Since counsel for respondent No. 2 did not agree for restoration of
Review Petition No. 286/2025, therefore, this Court was left with no other option
but to hear the parties on merits.
9. Accordingly, in the first half of the day, this Court went through the
grounds raised by applicant which were clearly against their earlier counsel Shri
D.P. Singh, who had appeared in the review petition but, for the reason mentioned
earlier, he was again engaged by applicant. This Court can understand the
precarious condition of Shri D.P. Singh, Advocate, and that is why at the
beginning of his arguments he had submitted that without endorsing the grounds
raised in the application, he would like to take the entire responsibility on his
shoulder.
10. In Paragraph 9 of the application for restoration, it has been specifically
mentioned that the information about the dismissal of review petition was not
given to the present applicant / Bank. However, on 14/1/2026 when Contempt
Petition No.1148/2025 was listed, the Court directed to make compliance of the
order passed in writ petition, and accordingly, on 18/2/2026, present CEO of the
bank searched for the documents and came to know that Review Petition No.
286/2025 was already dismissed on 19/6/2025.
11. Accordingly, record of CONC No. 1148/2025 was requisitioned.
12. The contempt petition was filed on 19/2/2025, and on 1/3/2025, notices
to respondents were issued. It is also apparent from the record of contempt petition
that respondent therein did not appear in spite of the service of notice, and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
4 MCC-565-2026
therefore, bailable warrants were also issued which were duly executed. Thus, the
contention of applicant that applicant / Bank came to know about the dismissal of
review only on 18/2/2026 is false even to the knowledge of present CEO - Shri
Himanshu Khade who has given his affidavit in support of this application. From
the contempt petition, it is clear that one Krishna Avtar Singh was made a
respondent/contemnor as Chief Executive Officer of District Cooperative Bank
Maryadit, Gwalior, District Gwalior.
13. During the course of arguments in the first half, it was informed by Shri
D.P. Singh that in fact Shri Krishna Avtar Singh was the OIC of the case and is of
clerk level and was wrongly made as a contemnor by projecting him as the CEO
of applicant / Bank. Accordingly, on further query, it was submitted by Shri D.P.
Singh that not only Krishna Avtar Singh was made an OIC by the applicant /
Bank in the writ petition but even for filing a review petition, the CEO had
directed the OIC Krishna Avtar Singh to approach Shri D.P. Singh.
14. It is really surprising that applicant / Bank thought that an employee of
a clerical level should be appointed as OIC. Since the conduct of applicant / Bank
was shocking, therefore, Shri Singh was directed to ask Mr. Khade, CEO of
applicant / Bank, to personally appear before this Court and to explain the conduct
of his predecessor in appointing an employee of a clerical level as OIC. It was also
directed that the order appointing Shri Krishna Avtar Singh as OIC should also be
produced before this Court.
15. In the second half of the day, Shri Himanshu Khade, CEO, District
Central Cooperative Bank, District Gwalior, appeared in person, but brought a
letter dated 30/1/2025 by which the then CEO had directed Krishna Avtar Singh -
OIC to engage Shri D.P. Singh as a counsel for filing review petition.
16. When Shri Khade was directed to produce the order by which Shri
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
5 MCC-565-2026
Krishna Avtar Singh was appointed as OIC, then it was submitted by Shri Khade
that the said order is not traceable in his office. It is really surprising that the order
of appointment of OIC should have been kept in the file of the case, but for the
reasons best known to applicant / Bank, order appointing Shri Krishna Avtar
Singh as OIC is missing.
17. Be that whatever it may be. The undisputed fact is that the predecessor
of Shri Khade had appointed a person of a clerical level as OIC.
18. It was submitted by Shri Khade that at the relevant time, there was no
officer above the rank of Shri Krishna Avtar Singh, except the predecessor of Shri
Khade, therefore, the then CEO of applicant / Bank decided to appoint a person of
a clerical status as OIC instead of filing the return along with his own affidavit.
19. Be that whatever it may be.
20. When the attention of Shri Khade was drawn towards the proceedings
taken by this Court in CONC No. 1148/2025, then it was fairly conceded by Shri
Khade that the notice of contempt was already received by the bank much prior
thereto, but he tried to explain the averments made in paragraph 9 of the
application by submitting that in fact he wanted to project that in fact Shri Khade
was not aware of the dismissal of review petition.
21. It is submitted by Shri Khade that earlier one R.K.S. Chauhan was
working as CEO of applicant / Bank, but on the allegations of irregularities, he
was placed under suspension, and thereafter, he has stood retired and a
departmental inquiry is already pending against him. The post of CEO of
applicant / Bank remained vacant for two months, and thereafter, Smt. Juhi Garg,
Joint Collector, Gwalior, was given the additional charge of the post of CEO of
applicant / Bank, and now Shri Khade has joined on 9/12/2025 as regular CEO of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
6 MCC-565-2026
applicant / Bank. It is submitted by Shri Khade that he had inquired from the OIC
about the pending cases, but the OIC did not disclose that any contempt petition is
pending.
22. Accordingly, Shri Khade was directed to file the copy of order by which
OIC was directed to give the details of ongoing cases as well as copy of reply
given by the OIC, along with the list of ongoing cases, then it was submitted by
Shri Khade that everything was verbal and nothing was sought in writing.
23. This Court was unable to understand the working style of Shri Khade
who was doing the official work by adopting a verbal pattern and not seeking any
information in writing. Shri Khade has submitted that he is B.Tech and MBA in
finance. Since Shri Khade is a qualified person, therefore, this Court is not ready
to accept that any official work can also be done verbally without asking for
information in writing.
24. Although Shri Khade has a high qualification, but whether it is suitable
for administrative post or not is for the cooperative department to decide and
nothing more is required to be observed by this Court at this stage.
25. Since Shri Khade has expressed that he did not write any letter to the
OIC and did not seek any list of cases in writing from OIC, therefore, the
explanation given by Shri Khade that he had done so verbally cannot be accepted
and it is hereby rejected.
26. Thus, it is clear that even after joining the post of CEO of applicant /
Bank, Shri Khade did not take care to find out as to whether any cases are pending
against the applicant / Bank or not.
27. In the entire application for restoration of Review Petition No.
286/2025, it is nowhere mentioned that Shri Khade took over the entire matter
after joining in the month of December 2025. Everywhere the word "applicant /
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
7 MCC-565-2026
Bank" has been used. Thus, Shri Khade was directed to clarify whether CEO can
be equated with bank or bank is an independent institution and CEO is the
representative of the same? It was fairly conceded by Shri Khade that bank is a
separate institution and CEO is merely a representative of the bank. Thus, it is
clear that the use of word "applicant / Bank" was with full knowledge and
understanding that aforesaid word does not refer to Shri Khade but it refers to the
applicant / Bank only. Since the applicant / Bank was already served with the
contempt notice sometime in the month of April 2025, therefore, it is clear that
present application has been filed on a false ground that applicant / Bank came to
know about the dismissal of review petition only on 18/2/2026 when Shri Khade
had appeared before the Court personally. Thus, it appears that immediately after
appearing before the Court, Shri Khade somehow managed to get the present
application for restoration filed on 18/2/2026 itself and did not hesitate in making
a false averment with regard to the date of knowledge of dismissal of the review
petition to the applicant / Bank. The unfortunate part is that Shri Khade has also
filed an affidavit in support of the application for restoration.
28. Filing of a false affidavit by itself is contemptuous. This Court in the
case of Smt. Kamla Sharma and Others Vs. Sukhdevlal and Others , decided on
18/4/2022 in MCRC No. 8770/2016 , has held as under:
"5. Challenging the order passed by the Courts below, it is submitted
by the counsel for the applicants that the Trial Court committed
material illegality by rejecting the application on the ground that the
affidavit was forged outside the Court, therefore, the bar as contained
under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would not apply and the complaint could
have been filed only if the affidavit was manipulated or forged while it
was in custodia legis. It is submitted that it is not a case of forging a
document, but it was a case of filing a false affidavit and, therefore, the
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh
Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah reported in AIR 2005 SC
2119 is not applicable. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court
has also rejected the appeal in limine on the similar grounds. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
8 MCC-565-2026
submitted by the counsel for the applicants that filing of false affidavit
before the Court is a serious offence and the Courts should not tolerate
the same. The affidavit has a solemn declaration of a statement upon
oath, which can be used as an evidence and nowadays a tendency is
increasing to file false affidavits in a most casual manner without
realizing their effect on the case. This increasing tendency of filing
false affidavits should be checked by the Court by taking a very serious
view in the matter. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the
applicants has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court
in the case of State of HP Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma reported in 1997
(1) MPWN 150 as well as by the coordinate Bench of this Court
(Jabalpur) in the case of Mohammad Ibrahim Mohammad Yusuf Vs.
Imdadulla Haji Abdul Sattar and others reported in 1995 MPLJ 255 .
* * *
8. Section 3(3) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reads as under:-
"3(3) "affidavit" shall include affirmation and declaration in
the case of persons by law allowed to affirm or declare
instead of swearing;"
9. Sections 3 and 4 of the Oaths Act, 1969 reads as under:-
3. Power to administer oaths. - (1) The following courts and
persons shall have power to administer, by themselves or,
subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 6, by
an officer empowered by them in this behalf, oaths and
affirmations in discharge of the duties imposed or in
exercise of the powers conferred upon them by law,
namely:--
(a) all courts and persons having by law or consent of parties
authority to receive evidence;
(b) the commanding officer of any military, naval, or air
force station or ship occupied by the Armed Forces of the
Union, provided that the oath or affirmation is administered
within the limits of the station.
(2) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) or by or under any other law for
the time being in force, any court, Judge,
Magistrate or person may administer oaths and
affirmations for the purpose of affidavits, if
empowered in this behalf--
(a) by the High Court, in respect of affidavits for
the purpose of judicial proceedings; or
(b) by the State Government, in respect of
other affidavits.
4 . Oaths or affirmations to be made by witnesses,
interpreters and jurors.-(1) Oaths or affirmations shall be
made by the following persons, namely:--
(a) all witnesses, that is to say, all persons who may lawfully
be examined, or give, or be required to give, evidence by or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
9 MCC-565-2026
before any court or person having by law or consent of
parties authority to examine such persons or to receive
evidence;
(b) interpreters of questions put to, and evidence given by,
witnesses; and
(c) jurors:
Provided that where the witness is a child under twelve years
of age, and the court or person having authority to examine
such witness is of opinion that, though the witness
understands the duty of speaking the truth, he does not
understand the nature of an oath or affirmation, the
foregoing provisions of this section and the provisions of
section 5 shall not apply to such witness; but in any such
case the absence of an oath or affirmation shall not render
inadmissible any evidence given by such witness nor affect
the obligation of the witness to state the truth.
(2) Nothing in this section shall render it lawful to
administer, in a criminal proceeding, an oath or affirmation
to the accused person, unless he is examined as a witness for
the defence, or necessary to administer to the official
interpreter of any court, after he has entered on the execution
of the duties of his office, an oath or affirmation that he will
faithfully discharge those duties.
10. Thus, it is clear that the affidavit is a statement of declaration made
by an affiant under oath for the affirmation which is administered by a
person, who is authorized to do so by law. Therefore, an affidavit is an
another form of evidence which contains the verification of its mode
under oath on penalty purgery.
11. Section 24 of IPC reads as under:-
"24. "Dishonestly".--Whoever does anything with the
intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or
wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing
"dishonestly".
11.1. Section 25 of IPC reads as under:-
"25. "Fraudulently".--A person is said to do a thing
fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but
not otherwise."
11.2. Section 191 of IPC reads as under:-
"191. Giving false evidence.--Whoever, being legally
bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state
the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon
any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which
he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to
be true, is said to give false evidence.
Explanation 1.--A statement is within the meaning of this
section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise.
Explanation 2.--A false statement as to the belief of the
person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
10 MCC-565-2026
person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that
he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by
stating that he knows a thing which he does not know."
11.3. Section 192 of IPC reads as under:-
"192. Fabricating false evidence. --Whoever causes any
circumstance to exist or 1[makes any false entry in any book
or record, or electronic record or makes any document or
electronic record containing a false statement], intending
that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may
appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a
proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or
before an
arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false
statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person
who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the
evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any
point material to the result of such proceeding, is said "to
fabricate false evidence".
11.4. Section 193 of IPC reads as under:-
"193. Punishment for false evidence. -- Whoever
intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial
proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of
being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine,
and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false
evidence in any other case, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.--A trial before a Court-martial; 1[***] is
a judicial proceeding.
Explanation 2.--An investigation directed by law
preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a
stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may
not take place before a Court of Justice."
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 has held as under:-
"1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic
values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa" (non-
violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi
guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life.
Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery
system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and
the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts
irrespective of the consequences. However, post-
Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
11 MCC-565-2026
system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos
and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that
those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the
court proceedings.
2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped
up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect
for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical
means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the
challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts
have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now
well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the
stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice
with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or
final."
12.1. The Supreme Court in the case of Muthu Karuppan,
Commissioner of Police, Chennai Vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and another
reported in (2011) 5 SCC 496 has held as under:-
"15. 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."
12.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of
Haryana and others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 757 has held as under:-
"38. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for
short the Act) defines criminal contempt as
"the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by
signs or visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or
the doing of any other act whatsoever to (1) scandalise or
tend to scandalise or lower or tend to lower the authority of
any court; (2) prejudice or interfere or tend to interfere with
the due course of judicial proceedings or (3) interfere or tend
to interfere with, or obstruct or tend to obstruct the
administration of justice in any other manner. Thus, any
conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the
administration of justice or the due course of judicial
proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal
contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial
proceedings not only has the tendency of causing
obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has
also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the
administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in
judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
12 MCC-565-2026
intention of the party concerned in perverting the course of
justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be
slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery of by
such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the
litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who
makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the
free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the
filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt of the
court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in
accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making
false statement on oath in courts aims at striking a blow at
the rule of law and no court can ignore such conduct which
has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial
institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is
put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain
of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to
filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and
fabricating false evidence in a court of law. The stream of
justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its
purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message
percolates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to
undermine the dignity of the court and interfere with the due
course of judicial proceedings or the administration of
justice. In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995) 1
SCC 421 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 239] the respondents produced a
false and fabricated certificate to defeat the claim of the
respondent for transfer of a case. This action was found to be
an act amounting to interference with the administration of
justice. Brother Hansaria, J. speaking for the Bench
observed: (SCC pp. 423-24, paras 1 and 2)
"The stream of administration of justice has to
remain unpolluted so that purity of court's
atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of
the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are,
therefore, required to be well taken care of to
maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so
also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to
the satisfaction of all concerned. Anyone who
takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of
judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with
oblique motive, the same interferes with the
administration of justice. Such persons are
required to be properly dealt with, not only to
punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter
others from indulging in similar acts which shake
the faith of people in the system of administration
of justice."
12.3. The Supreme Court in the case of Baban Singh and another vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
13 MCC-565-2026
Jagdish Singh and others reported in AIR 1967 SC 68 has held as
under:-
7. The matter has to be considered from three stand points.
Does the swearing of the false affidavits amount to an
offence under S. 199, Indian Penal Code or under either S.
191 or 192, Indian Penal Code ? If it comes under the two
latter sections, the present prosecution cannot be sustained.
Section 199 deals with a declaration and does not state that
the declaration must be on oath. The only condition
necessary is that the declaration must be capable of being
used as evidence and which any Court of justice or any
public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law
to receive as evidence. Section 191 deals with evidence on
oath and S. 192 with fabricating false evidence. If we
consider this matter from the standpoint of S. 191, Indian
Penal Code the offence is constituted by swearing falsely
when one is bound by oath to state the truth because an
affidavit is a declaration made under an oath. The definition
of the offence of giving false evidence thus applies to the
affidavits. The offence may also fall within S. 192. It lays
down inter alia that a person is said to fabricate false
evidence if he makes a document containing a false
statement intending that such false statement may appear in
evidence in a judicial proceeding and so appearing in
evidence may cause any person who, in such proceeding is
to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an
erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result
of such proceeding. When Baban Singh and Dharichhan
Kuer made declarations in their affidavits which were
tendered in the High Court to be taken into consideration,
they intended the statements to appear in evidence in a
judicial proceeding, and so appearing, to cause the Court to
entertain an erroneous opinion regarding the compromise. In
this way their offence came within the words of Ss. 191/192
rather than S. 199 of the Indian Penal Code. They were thus
prima facie guilty of an offence of giving false evidence or
of fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in
a judicial proceeding.
13. Filing a false affidavit also amounts to contempt of Court. In the
case of Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma reported in (1995) 1
SCC 421 the Supreme Court has held as under:-
8. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference
in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like
perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be
appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
14 MCC-565-2026
possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense
and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope
that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith
in courts when they would find that (truth alone triumphs) is
an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in
victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens
in the portals of courts.
9. The aforesaid thoughts receive due support from the
definition of criminal contempt as given in Section 2(c) of
the Act, according to which an act would amount be so if,
inter alia, the same interferes or tends to interfere, or
obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice.
The word 'interfere', means in the context of the subject,
any action which checks or hampers the functioning or
hinders or tends to prevent the performance of duty, as
stated at p. 255 of Words and Phrases (Permanent Edn.),
Vol. 22. As per what has been stated in the aforesaid work at
p. 147 of Vol. 29 obstruction of justice is to interpose
obstacles or impediments, or to hinder, impede or in any
manner interrupt or prevent the administration of justice.
Now, if recourse to falsehood is taken with oblique motive,
the same would definitely hinder, hamper or impede even
flow of justice and would prevent the courts from
performing their legal duties as they are supposed to do.
10. A reference to standard textbooks oncontempt, to wit,
C.J. Miller's Contempt of Court; Oswald's Contempt of
Court; and Anthony Arlidge & David Eady's The Law of
Contempt would amply bear what has been stated above;
and that if a forged and fabricated document is filed, the
same may amount to interference with the administration of
justice. Of course, for the act to take this colour there is
required to be an element of deceit or the knowledge of the
statement being forged or fabricated. This is what finds
place at pages 399 to 401 (2nd Edn.); page 62 (1993
Reprint); and pages 186 and 188 (1982 Edn.) respectively of
the aforesaid treatises.
14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be
with intent to deceive the court or one made with an
intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it
would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in
any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would
definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with the
aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated
document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention
to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of
contempt.
14. The judgment passed in the case of Dhananjay Sharma (supra) has
been relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Rita Markandey
Vs. Surjit Singh Arora reported in (1996) 6 SCC 14 . Thus, it is clear
that a false affidavit which is executed deliberately knowing the fact
that the declaration given on oath is false, has to be viewed with all
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
15 MCC-565-2026
seriousness and this practice of filing of such affidavit has to be
deprecated. Therefore, counsel for the applicants is right in submitting
that filing of the affidavit should be dealt with heavily."
29. Nowadays, it has become a fashion for government officers to keep the
compliance pending, and only when their personal appearance is directed, then
they file review applications or restoration applications.
30. It is not out of place to mention that according to applicant / Bank, one
more review petition was filed which was registered as R.P. No. 285/2025, and the
same was allowed by order dated 28/11/2025. When both the reviews were filed
and out of those, when only one review petition was listed, then applicant / Bank
should have verified as to why the second review petition has not been listed, but
even that was also not done. Furthermore, in connected review petition, the
ground was that OIC had played mischief in writ petition, but for the reasons best
known to applicant / Bank, the same OIC was required to file review petition,
thereby alleging himself.
31. Affidavit is a solemn statement on oath and is not a waste piece of
paper, but unfortunately, for Shri Khade, the affidavit has become a formality
having no sanctity in the eye of law and Shri Khade treated the affidavit as a waste
piece of paper because before swearing an affidavit, Shri Khade did not hesitate
even for a minute in making false averments in the application for restoration.
This conduct of Shri Khade cannot be appreciated and it has to be deprecated.
Since filing of a false affidavit by itself is a contempt, therefore, issue a notice to
Shri Khade as to why the proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act may not
be initiated against him.
32. Office is directed to register a separate case for the said purposes.
33. So far as the present case is concerned, this Court has already come to a
conclusion that the application for restoration of review petition has been filed on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
16 MCC-565-2026
false grounds and even applicant / Bank went to the extent of maligning the image
of his own counsel, irrespective of the fact that even in this case also, services of
the same counsel were taken by the bank.
34. Furthermore, Review Petition No. 286/2025 was barred by time and
default was of non-filing of application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, the
review petition was dismissed on account of non-compliance of peremptory order.
Entire burden has been shifted on to the shoulder of earlier counsel for not
removing the default, but the application is completely silent to the effect as to
whether any efforts were made by OIC or CEO of applicant / Bank to contact the
counsel and to verify the stage of review petition. How a lawyer can file an
application for condonation of delay without the affidavit of OIC? The manner in
which the applicant / Bank has treated this case, it appears that the attitude of CEO
of applicant / Bank was that it was for the advocate to approach the applicant /
Bank to point out the deficiencies in the review application and should have
pleaded for mercy of the bank for rectification of the same. That is an internal
individual understanding between the bank and Shri D.P. Singh, Advocate and
this Court would not like to comment upon any further, except that advocate
cannot be treated as an employee of the bank and the bank being an ordinary
litigant should have shown some respect to its own advocate.
35. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for condonation of
delay as well as for restoration of Review Petition No. 286/2025.
36. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1715/2026 is dismissed , and present MCC is
also dismissed on merits as well as barred by time.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8000
17 MCC-565-2026
AKS
