Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: Comm.Suit No. 50/2020. 1 Order below Exh.6.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 6
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 50 OF 2020
Miss Karishma Barchha )...Plaintiff
Versus
Sun Chemical Industries & Anr. )...Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI R.R.BHAGWAT.
(COURT ROOM NO.31).
DATE : 21st MARCH, 2022.
Shri Jarin Doshi, Advocate for the defendants.
Miss Nelly Mehta, Advocate for the plaintiff.
ORDER
1. This is an application seeking leave for filing the
compilation of documents as per Order 11 Rule 1 (10) of the CPC filed
by the defendants. Perused application and affidavit in reply (Exh.6A).
Heard learned counsel Shri Jarin Doshi for the defendants and learned
counsel Miss Nelly Mehta for the plaintiff.
2. Learned counsel Jarin Doshi for the defendants submitted
that the documents were not available with the defendants and
therefore, they could not file the documents alongwith written
statement. Husband of defendant no.2 approached to husband of the
plaintiff. Certain documents were lying with their accountant who
furnished those documents recently. The plaintiff and her husband had
destroyed the physical records of Highlux India and deleted email
correspondence between them and the foreign and local consultants. By
raising all these points, he submitted that certain emails have been
-- 1 of 3 --
Comm.Suit No. 50/2020. 2 Order below Exh.6.
retrieved. He prayed to allow Exh.6.
3. Learned counsel Nelly Mehta for the plaintiff submitted
that averments made in the application are not sustainable. According
to her, emails are available with both sides. The defendants filed
written statement long ago. The defendants have not explained the
manner in which documents are obtained. Contents in the application
are vague. She further submitted that Order 11 Rule 1(7) of the CPC is
not applicable to the case of the defendants. She prayed for rejection of
the application.
4. Considering rival submissions and material on record, it
appears that the defendants have specifically pleaded in para 26, 27 and
28 of the written statement (Exh.5) that Nikhil Barchha obtained
password of email of Highlux India from their accountant and deleted
all email correspondence exchanged by them in the course of business.
There is also reference of the complaint made to Ghatkopar Police
Station seeking an enquiry through the cyber cell. In short, there is
some basis to submission of learned counsel Jarin Doshi in respect of
deletion of email correspondence and retrieving the data of emails
exchanged between the parties. So far as documents available with
accountant are concerned, the defendants could not explain the nature
of those documents and particulars of time when those documents were
obtained. In such circumstances, mandate of Order 11 Rule 1(10) of
the CPC permits the Court to consider the application in part in respect
of email correspondence made from and received on email ID of
Highlux India as referred in para 5 of this application and para 27 of
written statement (Exh.5). Hence, I pass the following order :
-- 2 of 3 --
Comm.Suit No. 50/2020. 3 Order below Exh.6.
ORDER
1. Application (Exh.6) is partly allowed.
2. The defendants are permitted to file printouts of email
correspondence made from and received on email ID of
Highlux India mentioned in para 27 of the written
statement within 30 days from the date of this order.
(R.R.BHAGWAT)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date : 21/03/2022. Mumbai.
1. Dictated online on : 21/03/2022.
2. Signed on : 21/03/2022.
3. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
21/03/2022. 5.14 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni.
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri R.R.Bhagwat.
(Court Room No.31).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 21/03/2022.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 21/03/2022.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 21/03/2022.
-- 3 of 3 --