cpc

lawyer fined rs.25,000 for filing false affidavits

Advocate.

Lawyer fined Rs.25,000 for filing false affidavits:

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS(OS) 465/2007

SAVITA KHATRI ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. G.S. Khatri, Adv.

Versus

RAI SINGH TEWETHIA and ORS. ….. Defendants
Through: Mr. Rajender K. Panigrahi, Adv.

CORAM: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

O R D E R – 20.10.2009 – IA No.13431/09

This application has been made under order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the defendant for recalling the order dated 15th July, 2009 when the defendant and his counsel did not appear in the Court and the defendant was proceeded ex parte. The application is supported by affidavit of defendant no. 1 and affidavit of his counsel R.K.Panigrahi. In the application, it is stated by the defendant that counsel for the defendant in his diary noted a wrong date. Instead of 15th July, 2009, he noted 15th October, 2009 and therefore the counsel and the defendant could not appear before the Court on 15th July, 2009. Counsel visited the High Court website on 11th October, 2009 and then he found that next date in the case was 14th October, 2009 and case was also fixed on 15th July, 2009. It is stated that defendant has been bonafidely prosecuting and conducting the suit and non-appearance of the defendant and his counsel was due to above reason.

Counsel for the plaintiff has filed a reply to the application in the Court itself. Before filing reply to the application, counsel for the plaintiff moved an application under RTI to the Registry of High Court and sought information if any request for issuance of gate pass to the defendant for 15.7.09 was received by the Registry from his counsel. Under RTI, the information was given to the plaintiff that such a request was received from defendant’s counsel for issuance of gate pass for 15.7.09 to the defendant by the Registry and a copy of the request was also furnished to the applicant/plaintiff . Along with the reply to defendant?s application, the plaintiff has filed the RTI information received and the copy of request forwarded by defendant?s counsel for issuance of gate pass to the defendant for 15.7.09. When the defendant?s counsel was confronted with this information and the copy of request made by him for issuance of gate pass to his client on 15.7.09 he said he was sorry for this.

It is obvious that the defendant’s counsel deliberately, with the intention of misleading the Court and playing fraud with the Court, knowing that his client had appeared in the Court and watched the proceedings and he himself had noted right date in his diary, made this false application to the Court accompanied by his own false affidavit and false affidavit of his
client/defendant no.1.

I consider that conduct of counsel for the defendant is unbecoming of an Advocate. It only looks that the Advocate has lost sense of professional ethics. He mislead the litigant and even forged his dairy to show to the Court that he had noted wrong date. He filed a false affidavit of himself and his client. He is liable to be prosecuted under Sections 182, 192, 196, 199 and 200 IPC. A complaint under Section 195 Cr.PC is liable to be filed against Advocate Rajender Kumar Panigrahi and defendant and both are liable to be prosecuted for above offences. Registrar General of High Court is directed to file a complaint against the Advocate as well as against defendant no.1 under Section 195 Cr.PC for filing false affidavit in the Court and making false averments and allegations, deliberately, in the Court. A letter be also written by Registrar
General to the Bar Council for considering cancellation of license of Advocate Rajender Kumar Panigrahi as he is not fit to be an Advocate. The application under Section 9 Rule 7 CPC is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- on Advocate Rajender Kumar Panigrahi. The costs shall be paid by the Advocate himself because as it is the Advocate who advised his
client wrongly and asked him to file a false affidavit. In case cost is not paid, the same shall be recovered by attachment of the assets of the Advocate.

CS(OS) 465/2007

The matter is listed for ex parte evidence on 23rd October, 2009 before the Joint Registrar and ex parte evidence be recorded on that date.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J
OCTOBER 20, 2009


Total likes : 2 times

 
Reply   
 
Lawyer

optimum use of RTI....and a good lesson for lawyers as well.

 

one advice for lawyers, never give your personal affidavit in any case.

 
Reply   
 



A good lesson to the Lawyers who try to file false affidavits in the court  and persons who give false affidavits to the courts.

 
Reply   
 
Retired

 The advocate had no choice but to give his affidavit when confronted by the Court. 

 
Reply   
 
ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108

EVERYTHING APART,

ATLEAST ONE CAN CONCLUDE & APPRECIATE THAT THE  COUNSEL SHOWED  "LOYALTY"  towards his client, even though it meant paying a heavy price for it  (paid fine of 25000/-, licence cancelled and good-will down the drain)

Nothing to dispute in the above, in light of the fact,  that such loyalty will be rarely found.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal

 

 

 
Reply   
 
Property management

Dear Members,

In a case in a Consumer Forum a builder had affirmed that he took layout plan approval of plots for construction before embarking on calling investors.

The affidavit was signed before an advocate who filed the same in form of a counter. The counter being of enormous content and volume of papers one of the investor who had lodged the case had overlooked the line that ‘he took layout plan approval’. Later the investor came to realize neither the layout plan/building plan was approved. When brought to notice, the builder filed a reply, this time through a different councilor that he never said the plans were approved.  
A separate case was booked by the investor that the builder had made perjury under sec 340 crpc before the consumer forum, citing section 195 crpc. .
 
To evade trail the builder tendered apology in form of a petition, this time again through another advocate. The perjury case is being investigated by a Magistrae.
 
The investor is planning to move the bar association to fix the advocates second and third.    
 
Regards
R.Thyagarajan

 

 
Reply   
 
Retired

 Planning? By now he should have filed it. This is the problem with us. We spend our life time in planning only, discussion and correspondence.

 
Reply   
 

 The court should not misuse the power itself if  it find any irregularity then the same ought to have been sent for appropriate action before the Bar Council of Delhi.

 

 
Reply   
 
Retired

 It is a criminal act on the part of the lawyer. Where is question of ONLY sending to Bar Council?


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 
Property management

MR. Agarwal,

It is common that a petitioner says he solemly affirms statement is made by him and the lawer only sings the statement is signed before him. In this criminal act is done by the petitioner instigated by the lawer . he lawyer can not say the petitioner made  it under freewill .

Thus I agree with you  sending to bar councile only was not sufficiant and booking advocate under 195 crpc is justified.

regards,

RT

 

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

IPC Grand Course     |    x