Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: :1: N.M. No.793/2019 in Sum. Suit No.7494/2001
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 793 OF 2019
CNR NO.: MHCC010020662019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 7494 OF 2001
(HIGH COURT SUMMARY SUIT NO.2714 OF 2001)
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ...Plaintiff
Versus
Sharda Textile Mills (India) Limited ...Defendant.
Appearances:
Advocate Mr. Sandeep Aole alongwith Advocate Koshiki for the
plaintiff.
Advocate Bhagwat for the defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SONALI P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO.14)
DATED : 16th NOVEMBER, 2019.
ORAL ORDER
This Notice of Motion is filed by plaintiff with prayer that
photocopies be taken on record as evidence.
2. Plaintiff has stated that original of the Office copies of the
documents are not available in the records duly maintained by the
plaintiff as the same pertains to the year 1998 and have been misplaced
-- 1 of 4 --
:2: N.M. No.793/2019 in Sum. Suit No.7494/2001
and not traceable. Plaintiff has further stated that they have taken all
possible steps to find out the aforesaid original documents but they
have failed to endeavors them. Therefore, plaintiff has stated that they
want to produce photocopies of the documents by way of secondary
evidence.
3. Official Liquidator has filed reply and stated that the transaction
made between the plaintiff and defendant Company is prior to the
winding up of the Company. Hence, the Official Liquidator has no
knowledge about the same. He has further stated that the ExDirectors
of the Company has not filed Statement of Affairs as required under
Section 454 of Companies Act, 1956 and also not handed over books of
accounts/statutory records of the Company. He has further stated that
plaintiff has not filed his claim with this defendant, Official Liquidator
and the last date for filing the claims with the Official Liquidator was on
10.07.2008. He has further stated that plaintiff should be directed to
obtain Order of condonation of delay from the Hon'ble High Court,
Bombay as per the Provisions of Rule 177 of the Company (Court) Rules
1959 to lodge the claim with Official Liquidator.
4. Present Notice of Motion is filed only for taking on record the
photocopies of the documents by plaintiff. Hence, only that much issue
can be decided in this application.
5. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has cited judgment in case of Karthik
Gangadhar Bhat vs. Nirmala Namdeo Wagh and another reported in
[2018 (1) Mh.L.J.], in which it is held that, “it is always open to party
to lead secondary evidence before trial Court without having to file such
application.” In the case in hand but plaintiff has filed an application to
-- 2 of 4 --
:3: N.M. No.793/2019 in Sum. Suit No.7494/2001
lead secondary evidence. This case law is squarely applicable to the case
in hand. Plaintiff can file second evidence supporting his claim as per
Indian Evidence Act and plaintiff need not file application to lead
secondary evidence. Hence, following Order:
ORDER
1. Application is filed with permission to produce documents as
stated in prayer clause (a) of the Notice of Motion.
2. Notice of Motion No.793 of 2019 stands disposed of.
(SONALI P. AGARWAL)
Judge,
Date: 16.11.2019. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 16.11.2019
Transcribed on : 16.11.2019
Signed on : 16.11.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
:4: N.M. No.793/2019 in Sum. Suit No.7494/2001
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
19.11.2019 At 05:29 p.m. Mr. Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Sonali P. Agarwal
(C.R.NO.14)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
16.11.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 16.11.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 19.11.2019
-- 4 of 4 --