9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 10-7-1995, placed by the respondent. 3. One Sri K.G. Narasimhan, who claims to be retainer of the applicant-company, filed an affidavit in support of the applications, stating as follows. 4. The applicant-company filed Company Petition under section 433( e ) read with sections 434(1)( a ) and 439(1)( b ) of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the respondent-company, namely M/s. Sanghi Industries Limited, for recovery of its dues to the tune of Rs. 50,66,457, along with interest thereon. The Company Petition having been admitted, is coming up for the evidence of the applicant-company. 5. It is the case of the applicant-company that when the Company Petition came up for trial, the respondent-company mooted a compromise, and it was felt that the necessity of producing the documents would not arise, if the matter ended in a compromise, but unfortunately, the compromise failed. As the entire transaction with respect to supply of material to the respondent-company took place from their different offices at Chennai, Hyderabad and Mumbai, they could not assemble certain documents, namely ( i ) Letter of Intent, ( ii ) Purchase Order placed by the respondent-company, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... written statement. Therefore, the documents now sought to be produced by the applicant-company, along with the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, cannot be entertained. He, thus sought, dismissal of the applications. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant-company as well as the respondent-company. 9. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-company submits that when the matter came up for trial, the respondent-company mooted a compromise, and it was felt that the necessity of producing them would not arise if the compromise ended on a positive note, but unfortunately the compromise did not materialize and failed and therefore, the necessity of producing the present documents in support of the case of the applicant-company has arisen. Moreover, the documents now sought to be produced were lying at the different offices of the applicant-company, namely, Chennai, Hyderabad and Mumbai, and therefore, they could not be filed along with the Company Petition, and inasmuch as the same have now been grouped up, the applicant-company should be permitted to produce the same in support of its case in the interest of justice. Even the original Letter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition is coming up for trial, are not maintainable in view of the amended provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XIII of the Code, and more particularly when no application to condone the delay of three years in filing the said applications has been filed, cannot be accepted for the reasons to be stated infra. 13. To answer the above question, it would be necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the Code. Be it noted that by reason of Amendment Acts 46 of 1999 and 22 of 2002, which came into operation from 1-7-2002, Order VII, Rule 14, Order VIII, Rule 1, Order XIII, Rules 1 and 2 and Order XVIII, Rule 17A of the Code, were amended. Prior to the amendments, under Order VII, Rule 14 and Rules 15 to 18, the plaintiff was expected to file the documents along with the plaint, and under Order VIII, Rule 1A, the defendant was expected to file the documents along with the written statement. While under Order XIII, Rule 1, the parties or their pleaders were to produce at or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e read in juxtaposition with that of the unamended provisions of Rule 14 of Order VII : "Unamended provisions of Order VII, Rule 14 of the Code 14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues - (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. (2) List of other documents - Where he relies on any other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint. Amended provisions of Order VII Rule 14 CPC of the Code 14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies - (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document on relies upon a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly with the leave of the Court. It is pertinent to note that sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII of the amended Code did not find place in the Amendment Act 46 of 1999. Perhaps, realizing the difficulty, the Parliament has incorporated sub-rule (3) to Rule 14 of Order VII of the Code. Similar such provisions have been incorporated in Order VIII where the defendant in case of counter-claim, is obliged to file the document along with the written statement. Rule 1A of Order VIII is a new provision, which is akin to Rule 14 of Order VII of the Code, the only difference being that the former applies to the defendant and the latter applies to the plaintiff. The provision which enabled the parties to produce evidence with the leave of the Court under Rule 2 of Order XIII has been removed and transplanted virtually in Order VII, sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 and Order VIII, sub-rule (3) of Rule 1A of the code. These two provisions, now enable the parties to produce the documents at the hearing of the suit, which have not been produced along with the plaint or written statement, as the case may be. Since sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII and sub-rule (3) of Rule 1A clearly contemplate the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the trial has not yet started. The copies of the documents which are now sought to be filed were not filed along with the Company Petition because the transactions with regard to supply of material took place from various offices of the applicant-company, and they were lying at Chennai, Hyderabad and Mumbai. That apart, the original Letter of Intent and Purchase Order were retained by the excise officials for computing the excise duty, and therefore, the applicant-company is left with the xerox copies thereof. It is further the contention of the applicant-company that they could have filed the documents at an earlier point of time, but because of the compromise mooted by the respondent-company, they could not file the documents. As the compromise failed, it became necessary for the applicant-company to file the documents in support of their case, which are crucial and important. The contention of the applicant-company that the compromise mooted by the respondent-company, failed, has neither been disputed by the respondent-company neither in their counter nor at the time of arguments. 23. Since the trial in the Company Petition is yet to start, and the documents now sought t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
