Interim Order 6

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: Order on Exh.22 in Suit no.63-2020
MHCC010007192019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
ORDER ON EXHIBIT NO.22
IN
SUIT NO. 63 OF 2020
Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd.
Through R. Krishnamurthi .. Plaintiff
V/s
Pramod Shrivastava ... Defendant
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI VIRENDRA D. KEDAR
(COURT ROOM NO.01)
DATE : 3rd DAY OF JULY, 2023
-: Appearance: -
Defendant in person
ORAL ORDER
The defendant has filed the present application under
caption, “Application false documents/Statement and false affidavits by
plaintiff and Advocates to misuse Court by bogus suit no. 63/2020 not
maintainable from day one...340 Cr PC”.
2. It is contention of the defendant that, the plaintiff has not
filed Board of Directors Resolution. The plaintiff has given Aadhar card
of ten digits and R. Krishnamurthi has deliberately not disclosed
-- 1 of 4 --
Order on Exh.22 in Suit no.63-2020
designation in Affidavits so as to mislead the Court. Advocate Vijay
Hiremath and others accused are responsible to mislead this Court by
producing impugned order dated 07/11/2020 of Esplanade Court to
obtain favourable order from this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, it is perjury
under section 340 Cr PC r/w 195 IPC. Therefore, it is necessary under
Order Section 340 CrPC r/w 195 IPC in the matter of false affidavit and
false evidence by plaintiff and advocate be passed and suit be dismissed
with cost of Rs. One Crore.
3. Heard the defendant in person. Perused the record. The
defendant relied on the authority reported in the case of S.P
Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs. Vs Jagannath (dead) by LRs and
Ors, MANU/SC/0192/1994, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that, “
decree obtained by practising fraud on court is nullity. Person
who bases his case on falsehood has no right to approach the court. His
case can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation”.
4. I would like to submit that, the defendant has taken out M.A.
No. 116/2023 thereby prayed to proceed under section 340 r/w S. 195
IPC against the plaintiff. The said application no. 116/2023 came to be
rejected
vide Order dated 19/06/2023 by this Court after hearing
defendant at length. The defendant has also previously filed similar
application to take action under section 340 r/w S.195 of IPC against
the plaintiff, however it was not press. Now again the defendant by
present application has sought similar relief. After going through the
record and considering submission of the defendant, nothing on record
to substantiate, at this stage, that any fraud is played by the plaintiff, as
alleged. Hence, I do not find any substance in the contention of the
defendant. The defendant is in habit of filling similar nature of
-- 2 of 4 --
Order on Exh.22 in Suit no.63-2020
application and thereby delaying the proceedings. Hence, I pass the
following order:
ORDER
Application Exh.22 stands rejected.
(Virendra D. Kedar)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions
Date:.03.07.2023 Court, Gr. Mumbai (C.R.No.01)
Dictated on : 03.07.2023
Transcribed on : 05.07.2023
Signed on : 06.07.2023
-- 3 of 4 --
Order on Exh.22 in Suit no.63-2020
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE: 03.07.2023 NAME OF STENOGRAPHER(G I)
Mrs. V. V. Mhatre
TIME:
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) HHJ Shri V.D.Kedar (Court Room No.1)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT/ORDER
03.07.2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 06.07.2023
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 06.07.2023
-- 4 of 4 --