Giving False Statements under oath: What the Delhi High Court ruled

The Delhi High Court has sentenced a defendant in a trademark infringement suit to one month’s simple imprisonment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for making false statements under oath. The court also imposed a fine of Rs. 2000 on the defendant..The Court held that in a case of perjury, the court can invoke its contempt jurisdiction..It observed,.“This Court is of the view that it strikes a blow at the rule of law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone giving false statements and/or fabricating false evidence in a court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the Court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice.”.“Consequently, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the respondent no.2/ defendant no.2 is committed to one month’s simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.”.The judgement was pronounced by Justice Manmohan in a contempt petition against a Delhi based shop owner after it was found that he made certain false statements with respect to the possession and sale of Louis Vuitton’s counterfeit products..Louis Vuitton had filed for a permanent injunction against the defendant shop owner to restrain him from infringing its trademark, copyright, passing off etc. by selling counterfeit products bearing Louis Vuitton registered trademark and logo..An ex-parte ad interim injunction was passed in favour of Louis Vuitton and a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the premises of defendant on August 30, 2013. The Commissioner found infringing goods at the premises of the defendant..However, the defendant shop owner, in his statement under oath, stated that he had been working from his shop for the last three years and dealt in shades and eyewear only. He stated that he had never sold any branded products..After he denied selling branded goods in his statement under oath, another Local Commissioner was appointed to conduct an investigation at the premises of the defendant shopkeeper. This time, the Local Commissioner found stock of more than five hundred counterfeit products of thirty-four different brands, in the presence of the defendant shop owner..Advocate Pravin Anand, appearing for Louis Vuitton argued that the false statements made by the defendant shopkeeper before the Court had lowered its authority and interfered with the administration of justice. It was argued that by lying with malicious intent, the defendant shopkeeper had tried to evade liability for his infringing activities and was liable to be proceeded against under Section 14 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971..The Court held that the defendant shop owner committed perjury by making false statements before the court under oath, and thus invoked its contempt jurisdiction. It, therefore, sentenced the defendant to simple imprisonment of one month and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000..The Court also held that the reports of the Local Commissioner form a part of the Court record and can form the basis of action under Section 14 of the Act 1971..Louis Vuitton was represented through Advocate Pravin Anand, Dhruv Anand, Udita Patro and Shamim Nooreyezdan..The defendant was represented through Advocate Nitin Mehta..Read judgement: