2023 (10) TMI 358 - HC - SEBI

Request to place on record a compilation of documents - request as made to place on record the compilation of documents, and at this stage, when the Court had already commenced with the final hearing of the proceedings is strongly objected by petitioners - HELD THAT - We find much substance in the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Seervai and Mr. Joshi. At the outset, we may observe that we cannot accept a compilation of documents to be placed on record of the proceedings at the stage the present proceedings stand, that is the Court having already commenced final hearing on the petitions. More particularly on a crucial issue the petitioners have already and quite substantively having argued their case for the entire second session yesterday. It may be that such averments are made in the affidavit as noted by us above, however, such averments would not confer any right or entitlement on respondent no. 2 to place on record a big bunch of documents, at the midst of the final hearing as requested by Mr. Dhond in his oral application. This would be certainly contrary to the basic rule the Court would adopt on pleadings. Also after such long lapse of time and that too after the proceedings have commenced final hearing and the petitioners had commenced their arguments and quite substantially it would not be fair to the petitioners that new material documents unknown to the parties are permitted to be placed on record. It would also not be fair to the process of adjudication of the proceedings. Moreover, this would be completely contrary to the basic law of pleadings under which any plea to be taken by a party which may be on documents or otherwise would be required to be taken by way of a pleading in that regard, and such documents on which a plea is taken are required to form part of the record, in a manner known to law. This is the normal rule, so that such plea and documents are made known to all the parties on which the parties can advance their case before the Court. If we permit such compilation of documents to be placed on record, we permit a completely new course of action, which would be permitting respondent no. 2 to make out a case on documents which are not part of the record and on which there is no specific pleading on any such document and above all which are not in the knowledge of the petitioners. This can certainly cause a grave and serious prejudice to the petitioners.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the admissibility of a compilation of documents by respondent no. 2 during the final hearing, the timing and fairness of such a request, and the potential prejudice it may cause to the petitioners.

Admissibility of Compilation of Documents:
During the final hearing, respondent no. 2, Bharat Nidhi Ltd., made an oral request to place a compilation of documents on record, which was strongly objected to by the petitioners. The objection was based on the contention that such documents were not part of the record and presenting them at that stage would prejudice the petitioners. Respondent no. 2 argued that they had the right to submit the compilation based on earlier averments in an affidavit. The court, after hearing both parties, ruled that the request to introduce new documents at that stage was not permissible. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the basic rules of pleadings and fairness in the adjudication process.

Timing and Fairness of Request:
The court noted that respondent no. 2 had multiple opportunities to submit additional documents earlier in the proceedings but chose not to do so. The petitioners had already presented their arguments substantially, and allowing new documents at that stage would disrupt the fairness of the process. The court highlighted that the rules of pleading required parties to present their case based on existing records to ensure transparency and equal opportunity for all parties involved.

Prejudice to Petitioners:
The petitioners argued that allowing the compilation of documents at that late stage would cause serious prejudice to their case. They pointed out that they had previously requested specific documents from respondent no. 2, which were not provided, leading to concerns about suppression of evidence. The court considered these arguments and concluded that permitting new documents without proper pleading and notification to all parties would indeed harm the petitioners' position. Respondent no. 2's argument about confidentiality requirements was dismissed as lacking prior basis in the case.