2022 (7) TMI 775 - Tri - Companies Law

Seeking production of original documents - Whether the Respondents can be directed to produce the documents as prayed? - HELD THAT - It may be stated that the 1st Respondent herein earlier filed IA 40/2022 for leave to file certain documents mentioned in the index of the said petition and this Tribunal after hearing both parties on 08.06.2022 allowed the same and accordingly received the documents. During the course of the hearing of the said IA, Ld. Senior Counsel for the Respondents in IA No. 40/2022 Shri M.S. Prasad who is also the Counsel representing the Applicant herein, submitted that in order to verify whether the documents described as originals in the index are the original documents or not, the opportunity to verify the same may be given. Pursuant therefore, the Tribunal allowed verification of the said documents in the presence of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and to file a memo confirming the verification of these documents. Later, the Ld. Counsels representing both sides have orally informed that the documents were verified and a memo confirming verification will be filed during the course of the day. However, no such memo was filed. Subsequently, a memo is filed by 1st Respondent on 01.07.2022. The present application is filed for a direction to the 1st Respondent to produce the originals of the documents - since the 1st Respondent had reiterated vide memo dated 01.07.2022 that the documents at Sl. No. 1 to 4 which were produced under IA No. 41/2022 are original documents no direction to produce the originals of documents at Sl. No. 1 to 4 by the 1st Respondent can be given. However, since the Applicant herein contends that the documents at Sl. No. 1 to 4 as produced are not originals, it is left open for the Applicant to establish that these documents are not original documents. In so far as other documents mentioned in the application are concerned, the 1st Respondent had stated that these documents are not presently traceable and that these documents being more than 8 years old, the 1st Respondent has no legal obligation to keep the records, besides that the relief sought for production of these documents is barred by limitation. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for direction to produce original documents related to board and general meetings for specific financial years.
2. Respondent's contention on maintainability, time-barred nature, and jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
3. Verification of documents previously filed by the Respondent.
4. Request for direction to produce documents and Respondent's response regarding traceability and limitation.

Issue 1: Application for Direction to Produce Original Documents:
The Applicant sought a direction for the 1st Respondent to produce original documents related to board and general meetings held during specific financial years. The documents included notices, attendance registers, and minutes of meetings. The Applicant argued that the production of these originals was crucial for the proper adjudication of the Company Petition.

Issue 2: Respondent's Contentions:
The Respondent, through a counter filed by a Director, contended that the application was not maintainable, time-barred, and lacked jurisdiction for adjudicating fraud allegations. They argued that the documents requested were outdated, beyond the statutory limitation period, and not essential for uncovering any fraud. The Respondent also highlighted that they had already produced some original documents in court and that the Petitioner failed to provide relevant IT returns or raise complaints regarding non-receipt of meeting notices.

Issue 3: Verification of Previously Filed Documents:
The Tribunal noted that the 1st Respondent had previously filed documents in another application, which were allowed after verification. However, the Petitioner contested the authenticity of these documents, leading to a subsequent request for the production of originals.

Issue 4: Request for Direction and Respondent's Response:
During the hearing, the 1st Respondent stated that some documents were already produced and verified, while others were not traceable due to the records being maintained for only 8 years. The Respondent argued that the prayer for production of older documents was time-barred and not feasible due to traceability issues. The Tribunal acknowledged the Respondent's stance and did not issue any immediate direction. The matter was left open for further consideration during the final hearing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the application, considering the Respondent's explanations regarding the traceability and limitation of the requested documents. The decision to not issue immediate directions for production was based on the Respondent's assertions and the need for further examination during the final hearing.