9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Board of India Act, 1992 is with Securities Exchange Board of India. (b) The operation of the letters issued by the defendant has already been stayed by the Calcutta High Court. (c) It is also a matter of fact that under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the impugned order is not an appealable order. Order XLIII CPC does not contemplate an appeal against the order passed in application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC. (d) It also appears from the record that the defendant has attempted on many dates to delay the completion of the trial on one pretext or the other. The suit filed by the plaintiff is merely a suit for recovery of the amount. The said fact has not been denied. The said documents cannot be summoned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completed by the defendant on 2nd March, 2010. In the meanwhile, the defendant who was under the cross-examination filed the application being I.A. No.6903/2012 under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC. In terms of the order dated 24th May, 2012, both the sides filed additional affidavits pertaining to the proceedings pending in Calcutta High Court. Through the said application, the defendant sought summoning of the record of business transactions of the plaintiff-Company as per the details given in para 2 of the application. 3. The application was strongly opposed by the plaintiff, mainly, on the ground that earlier the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to accept the request of the defendant. The said order dated 19th January, 2009 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts as sought to be summoned by the defendant in the present case. The contention of the plaintiff is that the said order is operational and continues to bind the defendant. The argument of the plaintiff is that it is malafide on the part of the defendant for calling to obtain the said documents for other collateral purposes. Learned Senior counsel states that it is done in order to cause further delay in the matter, as the suit was filed in 2004 and for the last 10 years, the defendant on one pretext or the other is delaying the further proceedings in the matter. 6. The defendant has admitted that the plaintiff paid a sum of ₹ 8.76 crores to the defendant in response to the specific demand of the defendant made at Kolkata. The cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e suit is liable to be stayed. 8. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has argued that the intention of the defendant seeking summoning of the documents is for investigation. The intention is not the defence of the suit but for another collateral proceeding which is not connected with the present suit. It is stated that after withdrawal of the petition, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration before the Calcutta High Court being CS(OS) No.219/2007 in which the Calcutta High Court has restrained the defendant from acting on the basis of the letters dated 14th August, 2003, 26th September, 2003 and 3rd November, 2003. Therefore, it is apparent that the defendant is not only inspecting and summoning the said docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant for the purposes of adjudication of the suit. Once the Hon ble Single Judge came to the conclusion that the documents sought to be produced were not relevant for the adjudication of the suit and the order was also upheld by the Hon ble Division Bench, the issue of relevance cannot be reopened by the Joint Registrar. Further, the suit filed in the Calcutta High Court is based on the documents now sought to be summoned and in the said suit, Hon ble Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in order dated 09.01.08 restrained the present defendant from seeking discovery of the said documents. Learned senior counsel for defendant contends that the said order of the Hon ble Single Judge ceases to have effect in view of order dated 24.12.08 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) It is also a matter of fact that under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the impugned order is not an appealable order. Order XLIII CPC does not contemplate an appeal against the order passed in application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC. (d) It also appears from the record that the defendant has attempted on many dates to delay the completion of the trial on one pretext or the other. The suit filed by the plaintiff is merely a suit for recovery of the amount. The said fact has not been denied. The said documents cannot be summoned from the plaintiff at the time of cross-examination of the defendant s witnesses. It is evident that those documents are actually required by the defendant for pending investigation for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
