9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether respondents are entitled to photocopies of documents already inspected. Analysis: The appeal challenged an order by the company judge allowing the application for photocopies of documents at the cost of the petitioners. The main issue was whether the respondents, who had already inspected the documents, were entitled to photocopies. The appellants resisted the supply of copies citing factual errors by the judge and arguing against any entitlement for the respondents. However, the court noted that inspection had already been allowed, evidence recorded, and cross-examination pending. The court emphasized the importance of documents for substantiating allegations and stated that the respondents should be permitted to have copies for a fair trial. The court considered the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and noted that the power to order supply of copies could be exercised under section 151. It highlighted the need for relevant entries from the documents to be put into evidence and rejected the appellants' argument that shareholders had no right to inspect books of account for proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. The court disagreed with a Calcutta High Court decision limiting inspection rights to directors only. It stressed the significance of documents in investigating allegations of fund misuse and stated that supplying copies would aid in a time-saving trial process. The court referred to previous cases, including one from the Delhi High Court, to support its stance on the supply of copies. It emphasized that allowing photocopies would not cause prejudice as inspection had already been completed. The court highlighted the importance of facilitating a detailed study of documents for effective legal representation and proper consultation. Ultimately, the court found no reason to interfere with the company judge's order and dismissed the appeal, with no costs awarded.
|
