Perjury Cannot Be Invoked For Every Pleading Omission If Correct Financial Position Was Considered: NCLT Delhi

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in New Delhi has held that perjury jurisdiction cannot be invoked to penalise every pleading defect or omission.

The tribunal observed that this principle applies where it has already examined the correct financial position while deciding the substantive proceedings.

The bench of Judicial Member Manni Sankariah Shanmuga Sundaram and Technical Member Atul Chaturvedi observed, "Perjury jurisdiction cannot be invoked to penalize every pleading defect or omission, particularly where the matter has already been examined in the substantive proceedings and the Tribunal has adjudicated upon the correct financial position."

The ruling came while dismissing an application by Tollman International Private Limited seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against operational creditor Capstech Network Private Limited. Tollman alleged that Capstech failed to disclose two part payments totalling ₹20 lakh in the pleadings filed during the Section 9 insolvency proceedings.

The tribunal noted that the allegation related only to the computation and adjustment of the claim amount. It held that the omission did not result in any beneficial order because the insolvency petition itself was dismissed after the adjusted claim fell below the statutory threshold.

The tribunal further observed that the alleged suppression stood cured during adjudication, as the final decision in the insolvency petition was rendered after taking the part payments into account.

It also observed that the application may not be maintainable as the main proceedings had been concluded. 

It observed, "Once the substantive proceedings attain finality, the Tribunal becomes functus officio in relation to collateral issues, save in narrowly circumscribed situations such as clerical correction or implementation of executory directions."

Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the tribunal observed that miscellaneous applications are generally not maintainable after the conclusion of proceedings. 

The tribunal also held that the case did not fall within the exceptional category warranting the exercise of its extraordinary powers. It observed, "Proceedings for perjury cannot be permitted to become an instrument for collateral attack or retaliatory litigation arising out of adversarial disputes already adjudicated upon."

The tribunal accordingly dismissed Tollman's application seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against Capstech Network Private Limited.

For Applicant: Advocates Ayush Gupta, Anand Varma and  Apoorva Pandey, 

For Respondent: Advocates Prince Mohan Sinha,  Aniket Krishnatray and Vikrant Chauhan,