Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner challenged a provisional attachment order dated 31.12.2019, claiming it had lapsed and was no longer valid.
  • The Revenue submitted that the attachment was not extended and thus stood dissolved, leading to disposal of the writ petition earlier.
  • Subsequently, material was placed before the Court indicating that:
    • The alleged proprietor, Mr. Surat Singh, was merely a name-lender.
    • He had no knowledge of the business affairs of the petitioner firm.
    • The business was actually managed by another individual (Mr. Ravinder Baweja).
  • The Court also noted links to similar suspicious entities and prior litigation (M/s Global Suppliers case).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the provisional attachment order continued to remain valid after lapse of statutory period.
  2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable when filed by a person not genuinely managing the petitioner entity.
  3. Whether false statements on affidavit amounted to perjury warranting action under CrPC.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The provisional attachment order had lost its efficacy and should be withdrawn.
  • The petition was filed based on instructions of the deponent (Mr. Surat Singh).

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The provisional attachment order had already lapsed and stood dissolved, and necessary instructions were issued to the bank.
  • Evidence indicated that:
    • The petitioner was not genuinely represented.
    • The deponent was merely a front person, raising doubts on the legitimacy of the petition.

Court Findings / Order

  • The Court recalled its earlier order dated 15.07.2022.
  • Held that:
    • The writ petition was filed at the behest of a person not managing the petitioner’s affairs.
    • The affidavit filed was false and inconsistent, amounting to perjury.
  • Consequently:
    • The writ petition was dismissed.
    • Proceedings under Sections 195 & 340 CrPC were directed to be initiated against Mr. Surat Singh.
    • Matter referred to the Judicial Magistrate for prosecution.

Important Clarifications by Court

  • Filing petitions through dummy or name-lender individuals is impermissible.
  • False affidavits before the Court will attract strict perjury proceedings.
  • Authorities must comply with procedural safeguards as laid down in:
    • Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors., (2021) 1 SCC 184 (regarding recording of statements).

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2022:DHC:3127-DB/RAS17082022CW104562022_135056.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.