9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1188 - HC - Companies LawNon-applicant marking a letter - Held that - This court cannot come to a conclusion that the official liquidator is in possession of the original bills, vouchers and receipts evidencing expenses of ₹ 1,33,501/- or the deposit slips in the name of the company in liquidation to an extent of ₹ 79,900/-. Consequently, in the obtaining facts of the case, find no force in the application. The same is dismissed. However, as stated above qua the letter dated 26-11-2010, the non-applicant No.1 shall be free to take proceedings under Section 65 of the Evidence Act which shall when the occasion arises, be addressed in accordance with law of its merits.
Issues: Application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 CPC for production of documents by the Official Liquidator.
Analysis: The matter before the Rajasthan High Court involved an application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 CPC for the production of documents by the Official Liquidator. The non-applicants sought to mark certain documents as evidence, including a letter dated 26-11-2010 and bills, vouchers, and receipts. The Official Liquidator objected to the marking of these documents as they were photocopies and not originals. The non-applicants argued that the letter dated 26-11-2010 was relevant for their defense in an application under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956. They also claimed that the Official Liquidator possessed the original documents and should produce them before the court. The Official Liquidator, represented by Mr. Gaurav Sharma, contended that while the letter dated 26-11-2010 was apparently under the hand of the erstwhile Official Liquidator, a copy was not available in the records. Mr. Sharma argued that the letter was not relevant to the proceedings under Section 543 of the Act of 1956. Additionally, he pointed out that the documents submitted by the non-applicant in a letter dated 26-3-1997 lacked original receipts or photocopies of deposit slips and bills, vouchers, and receipts. The Official Liquidator stated that the original documents were not available with them for production in court. After hearing both parties and considering the arguments presented, the court emphasized that a party in a court proceeding must provide relevant documents. However, the court found that the Official Liquidator's notice dated 26-11-2010 was not relevant to the ongoing application under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court noted that the non-applicant could utilize Section 65 of the Evidence Act if necessary. Regarding the documents annexed with the non-applicant's letter dated 26-3-1997, the court observed that the letter only mentioned sending photocopies of deposit slips and did not definitively state that original receipts were enclosed. Consequently, the court concluded that the Official Liquidator did not possess the original documents in question and dismissed the application. The court, however, allowed the non-applicant to pursue proceedings under Section 65 of the Evidence Act regarding the letter dated 26-11-2010 in the future. In summary, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the application for the production of documents by the Official Liquidator, ruling that the Official Liquidator did not have possession of the original documents requested by the non-applicants. The court clarified the relevance of the documents in question to the ongoing legal proceedings and permitted the non-applicant to explore alternative legal avenues under the Evidence Act if needed.
|
