CASE BRIEF: NEU WORLD RESOURCES v. MAHESH S. PAREKH

CASE NAME	Neu World Resources v. Mahesh S. Parekh
CITATION	Perjury Petition No. 1 of 2018 in Summons for Judgment No. 54 of 2016iIn Commercial Suit No. 138 of 2015
COURT	Bombay High Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice G.S. Patel
PETITIONER	Neu World Resources
RESPONDENT	Mahesh S. Parekh
DECIDED ON	Decided on 17th January, 2019

INTRODUCTION

Judge G.S. Patel presided over the Bombay High Court on January 17, 2019, when it determined a case that centred on the fundamental legal rules pertaining to perjury, fabricating evidence, and the associated legal procedures for dealing with false claims made in court. In order to address allegations of dishonesty and misconduct during legal procedures, the petitioner asked the court to intervene under particular provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The IPC’s Sections 191, 192, and 193 address the definitions and legal penalties for perjury, which include making up and providing false testimony. The legal system makes sure that the integrity of the judicial system is upheld by punishing those who try to deceive the court by making false claims. Furthermore, during the course of a civil or criminal action, criminal proceedings may be started against someone accused of perjury by using Section 340 of the CrPC. This section describes the court’s authority and judgment in choosing whether to bring charges for providing misleading information or making false representations.

The court’s role in this case was to determine if these legal requirements had been satisfied and whether there was enough evidence to bring criminal charges. The case highlights the need to uphold integrity and openness in legal proceedings as well as the various legal options when these values are violated.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The subject of this dispute is a Summary Suit that the Petitioner filed in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”), Order XXXVII. After receiving a Writ of Summons, the Respondent to this Petition, the Defendant, made an appearance. Next, a Summons for Judgment No. 54 of 2016 was filed by the Petitioner. On June 19, 2017, SC Gupte J issued a summons for judgment. The defendant was given conditional leave to defend as long as they deposited Rs. 7.10 crores within a 12-week period. The deposit was never made, and the petitioner/plaintiff claimed they were entitled to a decree as a result of the non-deposit.

On April 5, 2018, SC Gupte J issued a ruling pursuant to Order VII Rule 3(6) of the CPC and awarded interest, citing the production of a certificate of non-deposit. It doesn’t seem like a costs order was issued. The Petitioner separately filed criminal charges against the Defendant in parallel. In filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 4400 of 2013, the Defendant requested that this Perjury Petition be submitted with the Criminal Writ Petition. I’ve been informed that the request for clubbing or consolidation was not answered.

Initially, the Petitioner states that in response to the Summons for Judgment, the Respondent presented two main defenses. One was that as of August 2012, the parties had stopped doing business, and as of September 2012, the Respondent had not received any items from the Petitioner. The Petitioner proceeded based on fraudulent Invoices Nos. 27, 28, and 29. The Petitioner never delivered any products to the Respondent in September. These three invoices, totaling Rs. 2,39,07,844, were not owed or payable. In response to the Summons for Judgment, the Petitioner’s second line of defense stated that although the Respondent had paid the Petitioner a total of Rs. 90 lakhs, as shown by certain documents, the Petitioner had not given the Defendant any credit for payment by allocating these towards goods that had been admittedly delivered. The Respondent, identified as 911-PRJP1-18.DOC on January 17, 2019, further stated that the Petitioner had completely disregarded the sum of Rs. 90 lakhs and that it needed to be modified.

ISSUES RAISED

Is it true that the respondent purposefully provided misleading testimony or manufactured evidence in court?
Does the original case’s outcome necessitate judicial action under Section 193 of the IPC due to falsified evidence or perjury?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

The attorney argues that if he can establish a case, the case ought to be sent, along with a written complaint, to the magistrate for a thorough investigation in compliance with the law. The magistrate will then have the authority to render a decision and can always rule in favor of or against the accused. An order on a Petition of this type is by no means definitive or determinative of that outcome; he may find the Respondent guilty or innocent.
In all actuality, a petition of this kind is between the petitioner and the court, and at this point, the respondent is not obliged to prove his innocence with regard to the accusations. The Respondent’s innocence or guilt is undoubtedly not established by the Court’s decision to consider the Petition, even if it is done out of kindness or tolerance. All of those arguments need to be maintained on the table for proper legal processes.
Petitioner claims that the affidavit of the ledger, which was filed in response to Summons by the respondent, was false and fabricated.
The Respondent produced a ledger account three times when the authorities confronted the Petitioner with the documents during the police investigation. These are three distinct variations or versions of the alleged identical ledger account that the Respondent kept in his books for the Petitioner in 2012. The Petitioner claims that none of the eleven cash entries totaling Rs. 90 lakhs that were submitted as annexures to the affidavits filed in this Court as a Reply and an extra Reply are present in these three ledger accounts.
There are no income tax returns that attest to this payment, nor is there a witness of that type.

Arguments on the behalf of the respondent

An identical ledger of the petitioner’s account in the Respondent’s records, 911-PRJP1-18.DOC, dated January 17, 2019, was appended by the Respondent in the Affidavit in Reply to the Summons for Judgment and the supplementary Affidavit in Reply, dated October 24, 2016, and December 3, 2016. According to the respondent, this represented the parties’ positions, among other things, in relation to the payment of Rs. 90 lakhs.

The handwritten material was added by the petitioner after the respondent provided papers to law enforcement.

JUDGMENT

The Court noted that the Petition should be granted and that it would be just and reasonable to investigate offenses related to Sections 191 through 193 of the IPC, as mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC. I am confident that the requirements of Section 340 of the CrPC are satisfied, hence in terms of prayer clause (a), the petition is made absolute. At least with regard to the papers submitted and the declarations made on affidavits in a case before this Court, the offense has been committed prima facie. On this basis, it is directed that the Prothonotary and Senior Master, 17 January 2019 911-PRJP1-18.DOC, file a written complaint with the relevant Judicial Magistrate First Class. Regarding the matter of security for the respondent’s appearance before the magistrate, this order is not required because the respondent’s passport has already been seized. In any event, the knowledgeable magistrate will issue the proper directives, and each party is free to submit any necessary petitions in this regard. All claims are left open for criminal action before the magistrate, even at the expense of repetition.

CONCLUSION

The legal system intended to preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings is highlighted by the Neu World Resources v. Mahesh S. Parekh case, especially in regard to perjury and the introduction of false evidence. Sections 191, 192, and 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which define and punish perjury and false evidence, and Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which describes the steps needed in starting a court case involving perjury, are the main legal provisions at play. Giving false evidence is defined as purposefully making a false statement in a court proceeding with the knowledge that it is untrue under Section 191 of the IPC. This is further elaborated upon in Section 192, which deals with the creation of false evidence with the goal of injuring or deceiving the court. The penalties for these acts are outlined in Section 193, which emphasizes that giving false or misleading information to the court is a serious criminal that carries a jail sentence.

Section 340 of the CrPC describes the legal process for dealing with such lies. This clause gives the court the authority to investigate allegations of perjury and other false statements made in court. However, the court needs to be persuaded that the deception or misleading evidence is relevant to the case and that it could harm the parties involved or affect the outcome. Section 340 requires the filing of a written complaint to the magistrate with jurisdiction and requires the court to carefully assess whether perjury prosecution is appropriate.

The court’s job is to strike a compromise between upholding judicial integrity and making sure that all legal procedures are followed before starting criminal proceedings. Before pursuing criminal charges under Sections 191 to 193 IPC and Section 340 CrPC, judges must carefully consider the impact of false statements on the legal system and apply the law. This is demonstrated by the Neu World Resources case.