Filing false affidavits to explain delays constitutes contempt and warrants dismissal of restoration applications.

The applicant Bank sought restoration of Review Petition No. 286/2025, which was dismissed on June 19, 2025, for non-compliance with a peremptory order dated April 23, 2025.

The Bank filed the restoration application on February 18, 2026, alongside an application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 1715/2026), claiming they only learned of the dismissal on February 14, 2026, during contempt proceedings.

Records from Contempt Case No. 1148/2025 revealed that the Bank had been served with notices and bailable warrants as early as April 2025.

The CEO of the Bank, Shri Himanshu Khade, filed an affidavit supporting these claims of ignorance, despite the Bank’s prior legal involvement in the matter.

1. Whether the applicant established "sufficient cause" for the condonation of delay and the restoration of the dismissed review petition.

2. Whether the filing of a false affidavit by a high-ranking official to explain litigation delay warrants the initiation of contempt proceedings.

The court applied the principle that a litigant who "pollutes the stream of justice" with falsehoods is not entitled to relief, as established in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

It further relied on Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi, asserting that filing false affidavits is an evil that must be curbed with a strong hand.

The court invoked Sections 191, 192, and 193 of the IPC regarding false evidence.

Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines criminal contempt as any conduct that interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings.

The precedent in Smt. Kamla Sharma v. Sukhdevlal was cited to emphasize that affidavits are solemn declarations, not mere formalities.

The court found the Bank’s explanation for the delay—lack of knowledge—to be factually false and "shocking".

Records proved the Bank was aware of the proceedings through contempt notices served nearly a year prior.

The court rejected CEO Himanshu Khade’s defense that his inquiries into pending cases were "verbal" and that he was personally unaware, noting that as a representative of the Bank, he is bound by the institution's knowledge.

The court observed that the Bank shifted the entire blame onto their previous counsel without demonstrating any internal diligence, such as providing necessary affidavits for the original delay condonation.

Consequently, the court determined that the application was built on a "false ground" and a "false affidavit," which disentitled the applicant to any discretionary relief.

Holding that the filing of a false affidavit is a contemptuous act, the Court directed the Registry to register a separate criminal contempt case against the CEO, Shri Himanshu Khade, and issued a notice to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against him.