Perjury proceedings need prima facie deliberate falsehood on a material issue; a defence affidavit in a finalised resolution plan dispute was not enough.

Perjury proceedings require prima facie proof of deliberate falsehood on a material matter, supported by distinct evidence, and must be expedient in the interest of justice. A defence affidavit that merely disputes allegations in a later challenge to a resolution plan does not become perjury absent mala fide intent, deception, or material falsity. The approved resolution plan had already attained finality under the insolvency framework, so repeated efforts to reopen the concluded process were treated as frivolous. The application for perjury action was rejected, and the costs order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for initiating perjury proceedings against the resolution professional was maintainable and whether the impugned order dismissing that application with costs called for interference.

Analysis: A perjury proceeding can be initiated only on a prima facie satisfaction that the statement complained of contains deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance, supported by distinct evidence, and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to proceed. The approved resolution plan had already attained finality and was binding under the insolvency regime. The statements made in the reply affidavit to oppose a subsequent challenge to the resolution plan were only the resolution professional's version of the case and did not disclose mala fide intent, deliberate deception, or any material falsehood warranting perjury action. The repeated attempts to reopen the concluded resolution process were found to be frivolous, and the costs imposed were justified.

Conclusion: The application for perjury proceedings was rightly rejected and the cost order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Perjury action cannot be initiated unless the court is prima facie satisfied of deliberate falsehood on a material issue and expediency in the interest of justice, and a defence affidavit filed in support of a concluded proceeding does not amount to perjury merely because it contests the opponent's allegations.

---