caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Deepak Chandrakant Jhaveri vs Johnson Dye Works (P) Ltd. on 3 March, 2020Author: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 111396 OF 2018
IN
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2757 OF 2018
IN
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 782 OF 2017
IN
S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 12501 OF 2017
Deepak Chandrakant Jhaveri & Ors. …Petitioners
Versus
Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents
IN THE MATTER OF
M/s New Era Fabrics Ltd. …Applicant/
Respondent No. 2
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. :
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
GULSHAN KUMAR
This application has been filed by M/S. New Era
ARORA
Date: 2020.03.03
17:46:35 IST
Reason:
Fabrics Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Applicant’) under Section 340 read
1
with Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code
(hereinafter ‘CrPC’) seeking institution of criminal proceedings
against Nikhilesh Keshrichand Jhaveri (hereinafter ‘Respondent
No. 3’) in Civil Appeal No. 6344/2017 (reconverted to S.L.P.
(Civil) No. 12501 of 2017) for giving false evidence.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1 Twelve members of the Jhaveri family, including the
petitioners herein and Respondent Nos. 3-5, claim to be the
lessors of suit premises being C.S. No. 560 and 561, final Plot
No. 268, T.P.S. III of Mahim Division, Ward No. 6/North 5546 (1-
1A) situated at Mogul Lane, Tulsi Pipe Road, known as Senapati
Bapat Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400016. The Applicant is a
monthly tenant of the suit premises. The tenancy of the
Applicant was terminated by notice dated 11.2.2009, and
subsequently, in March 2009, the aforesaid twelve members of
the Jhaveri family filed a suit (hereinafter ‘1 st suit’) before the
Court of Small Causes, Mumbai for possession and injunction
against Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Respondent
No. 1’), the Applicant, and some other parties. In August 2010,
Respondent No. 1 also filed an eviction suit (hereinafter ‘2 nd
2
suit’) before the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai against
members of the Jhaveri family, including the aforesaid twelve
members, contending that they were merely sub-lessees, and
that Respondent No. 1 had become the owner of the property
as it had purchased the suit property from the original owners.
2.2 On 12.08.2016, the petitioners herein, being six
members of the Jhaveri family, filed an application under
Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’)
before the High Court of Bombay, seeking clubbing together of
the aforesaid suits so that they could be heard together.
2.3 This application seeking clubbing together of suits
was opposed by Respondent Nos. 3-5 vide reply dated
22.12.2016 on the ground that the petitioners were acting in
collusion with a third party, namely, Gnani Investment Pvt. Ltd.
to render the 1st suit infructuous. In this reply, Respondent
Nos.3-5 pointed out that this Court, vide order dated
22.07.2016 in SLP (Civil) No. 10337/2013, had directed that the
trial in the 1st suit had to be concluded by 27.01.2017. It was
submitted that significant progress had been made in the trial
3
of the 1st suit, whereas even issues had not been framed in the
2nd suit.
2.4 Vide order dated 23.12.2016, the High Court of
Bombay dismissed the application filed by the petitioners,
accepting the submissions made by Respondent Nos. 3-5. It
was against this order that Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
12501/2017 came to be filed by the petitioners.
2.5 Vide order dated 04.05.2017, this Court granted the
relief of clubbing the suits together. The relief was granted
without notice being issued to Respondent Nos.3-5, as this
Court was of the opinion that issuing notice to them would
merely delay the matter. However, Respondent Nos.3-5 were
given the liberty to approach this Court if they had any
objections to the order.
2.6 Utilising the liberty granted to him, Respondent No.3
filed M.A. No. 782 of 2017, seeking modification of the order
dated 04.05.2017 and de-tagging of the two suits. In the said
application, Respondent No.3 stated that while the preliminary
issue of jurisdiction had already been decided by the Court of
Small Causes in the 1st suit, even issues had not been framed in
4
the 2nd suit, and that therefore, the two suits should not have
been tagged.
2.7 The Applicant in its reply to M.A. No. 782 of 2017
contended that both the suits were at similar stages, as the
only difference was that the preliminary issue of jurisdiction
had been decided by the Court of Small Causes in the 1 st suit,
and that even this issue was pending consideration before this
Court. Significantly, it was contended that issues had been
framed by the Court of Small Causes in the 2 nd suit also.
2.8 In his rejoinder, Respondent No.3 admitted that due
to an oversight, it had erroneously stated that issues had not
been framed in the 2nd suit. Further, Respondent No. 3 tendered
an unconditional apology for this oversight, and sought to
provide an explanation as to why the oversight had taken
place.
2.9 On 12.01.2018, this Court allowed M.A. No. 782 of
2017, recalled the order dated 04.05.2017, and restored SLP
(Civil) No. 12501/2017 to its original file. Thereafter, this Court
heard the matter afresh, and dismissed SLP (Civil) No.
12501/2017.
5
2.10 On 07.08.2018, the Applicant filed the present
application under Section 340 of the CrPC, claiming that
Respondent No. 3 had made incorrect statements in M.A. No.
782 of 2017 regarding the stages of the two suits with the
intent of misleading this Court in order to get a favourable
order.
3. Heard learned senior counsel Shri Vikas Singh
appearing on behalf of the Applicant, and learned senior
counsel Shri Amit Sibal appearing on behalf of Respondent
No.3.
4. Shri Vikas Singh contended that Respondent No.3
had deliberately stated in M.A. 782 of 2017 that issues had not
been framed in the 2nd suit, although this was factually
incorrect. It was submitted that this factually incorrect
statement was made only with a view to mislead the court and
obtain a favourable order, and that this clearly amounted to
perjury, therefore requiring initiation of criminal proceedings
against Respondent No.3
5. Per contra, Shri Sibal argued that Respondent No. 3,
in his rejoinder, had sought to explain the reasons for the
6
oversight that had led to incorrect submissions being made in
M.A. No. 782 of 2017. It was pointed out that after the issues
had been framed in the 2nd suit vide order dated 03.04.2014,
the Applicant itself had filed an application on 28.10.2014
seeking framing, recasting, and deletion of issues on the
ground that the issues that had been framed vide order dated
03.04.2014 were not in consonance with tenancy law. It was
thus submitted that due to the pendency of this application,
seeking recasting and deletion of framed issues as well as
framing of certain new issues, Respondent No. 3 had
committed the inadvertent error of stating that the issues had
not been framed in the 2nd suit. Furthermore, as mentioned
earlier, Respondent No. 3 also tendered an unconditional
apology for the error.
6. We find that the rejoinder filed by Respondent No. 3
contained a clear admission to the effect that in M.A. 782 of
2017, he had stated certain facts which were not accurate. This
Court was thus apprised of the fact that such submissions were
not to be relied upon. Further, we are also of the view that the
explanation offered by Respondent No. 3 in his rejoinder seems
7
reasonable inasmuch as the pendency of the application
seeking framing, recasting, and deletion of issues, filed by the
Applicant, could have caused some confusion in the mind of
Respondent No. 3 regarding the stage at which the 2 nd suit was
pending. In light of this, it would be difficult to conclude that
Respondent No. 3 had deliberately tried to mislead this Court to
obtain a favourable finding or order, more particularly when
Respondent No. 3 has tendered an unconditional apology in his
rejoinder.
7. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no
prima facie case is made out against Respondent No. 3
requiring initiation of criminal proceedings against him.
Consequently, the present application filed by the Applicant is
dismissed.
……………………………………………J.
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]
……………………………………………J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 03, 2020
8
Comments