Contractual termination and perjury standards upheld: notice under a special employment agreement was valid, and a wrong affidavit date was insufficient.

A special employment agreement permitting termination on notice and cure of defaults governed the Managing Director's exit, and the contractual notice was upheld because it followed that agreed procedure and was supported by board concerns over performance, targets, and financial transparency. General promoter protections could not override the voluntarily executed special agreement, so no illegality in the termination was shown. On the affidavit issue, an incorrect date by itself was treated as carelessness rather than perjury; absent a deliberate false statement on a material fact with intent to give false evidence, the ingredients of perjury were not satisfied and proceedings were not initiated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice of termination issued to the petitioner as Managing Director was contrary to the Articles of Association or the agreements between the parties. (ii) Whether the incorrect date mentioned in affidavits amounted to perjury so as to justify initiation of proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the notice of termination issued to the petitioner as Managing Director was contrary to the Articles of Association or the agreements between the parties.

Analysis: The petitioner had entered into a special Employment Agreement providing for termination on notice and an opportunity to remedy the alleged defaults. The Board had recorded dissatisfaction with performance, failure to meet targets, and lack of transparency in financial affairs. In that background, the termination notice was issued in accordance with the contractual arrangement, and the petitioner could not rely on general promoter protections to defeat the special agreement voluntarily executed by him.

Conclusion: The termination notice was not shown to be illegal or contrary to the governing agreements, and the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.

Issue (ii): Whether the incorrect date mentioned in affidavits amounted to perjury so as to justify initiation of proceedings.

Analysis: A mere incorrect date in an affidavit, without a false statement on a material subject or an intention to give false evidence, does not by itself constitute perjury. The defect was treated as carelessness or mistake, and the allegation did not satisfy the ingredients of giving false evidence within the meaning of the penal provisions invoked.

Conclusion: No case for perjury was made out, and the request for initiation of proceedings was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The applications were rejected and the petitioner obtained no substantive relief on either the termination dispute or the perjury allegation.

Ratio Decidendi: A termination issued under a special employment agreement will not be interfered with when it is consistent with the contractual notice procedure and board assessment of performance, and a mere incorrect date in an affidavit does not constitute perjury absent a deliberate false statement on a material fact intended to give false evidence.

---