Madras HC: Revenue records will not confer any title unless supported by valid documents

 It is needless to reiterate again that, revenue records are not documents for title, it will not confer any title, unless supported by valid documents. Likewise documents created fraudulently though registered is non est in eye of law. {Para 46}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

A.S. No. 876 of 2019, C.M.P. Nos. 26727 of 2019 and 13994 of 2020

Decided On: 17.02.2021

Somasundaram Vs. Parameswariammal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.

Citation:  MANU/TN/0670/2021,2021(1) LW 912,2021(4) CTC 44.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Prosecution Documents admitted As Genuine U/S 294 of CRPC By defence can be read as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its contents without examining its author

 Also, this Court in the case of Akhtar vs.

State of Uttaranchal (2009) 13 SCC 722 has held in para 21 as

under:

“21. It has been argued that nonexamination of the

 concerned medical

officers is fatal for the prosecution. However,

there is no denial of the fact that the defence

admitted the genuineness of the injury

reports and the poot-mortem examination

reports before the trial court. So the

genuineness and authenticity of the

documents stands proved and shall be

treated as valid evidence under Section 294

of the CrPC. It is settled position of law that

if the genuineness of any document filed by

a party is not disputed by the opposite party

it can be read as substantive evidence under

sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC.

Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its

genuineness is not disputed by the opposite

party, the said post-mortem report can be

read as substantive evidence to prove the

correctness of its contents without the doctor

concerned being examined.”{Para 20}

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024

SHYAM NARAYAN RAM Vs STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Author: VIKRAM NATH, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 800.

Print Page

What are Supreme court Guidelines if investigating officer does not file documents favourable to accused at the time of filing of chargesheet?

 The amici pointed out that at the commencement of trial, accused are only furnished with list of documents and statements which the prosecution relies on and are kept in the dark about other material, which the police or the prosecution may have in their possession, which may be exculpatory in nature, or absolve or help the accused. This court is of the opinion that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/208, Cr. PC, the magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials, (such as statements, or objects/documents seized, but not relied on) should be furnished to the accused. This is to ensure that in case the accused is of the view that such materials are necessary to be produced for a proper and just trial, she or he may seek appropriate orders, under the Cr. PC.3 for their production during the trial, in the interests of justice. It is directed accordingly; the draft rules have been accordingly modified. [Rule 4(i)] {Para 11}

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

SUO MOTO WRIT (CRL) NO.(S) 1/2017

IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS  Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 

Coram: S.A. BOBDE J, L. NAGESWARA RAO J, S. RAVINDRA BHAT J

Dated: April 20, 2021.

Leading Supreme court judgment laying down procedure for expeditious trial of Criminal cases

https://www.lawweb.in/2021/04/supreme-court-directs-high-courts-to.html

Print Page

Whether plaintiff or a defendant, while deposing as a witness, can be confronted with documents in cross- examination completely divorced from or foreign to the pleadings made?

 The differentiation between the party to a suit and a witness, as is made clear by our earlier discussion, is not something that gels with the law. As has been hitherto observed, the term witness does not exclude the party to the suit i.e., the Plaintiff or the Defendant, themselves appearing before the court to enter evidence. As far as the non-production of documents amounting to fraud, it may be true that the non-production of documents on which the parties place reliance, may hinder the progression of the suit- and in a given case, perhaps may amount to fraud- but we do not comment on those possibilities, if any. However, the intentional withholding of a document, in these two situations- is completely different. One is the withholding of a document upon which the case depends, or is essential for the lis to be appropriately decided - and the other is solely for the purpose of effective cross-examination. The two cannot be held to be at the same pedestal, the latter most certainly not amounting to fraud.

{Para 20}

30. A reading of the judgments above would imply that substance is what the courts need to look into, and therefore, in reference to the production of documents, in the considered view of this Court, so long as the document is produced for the limited purpose of effective cross-examination or to jog the memory of the witness at the stand is not completely divorced from or foreign to the pleadings made, the same cannot be said to fly in the face of this established proposition.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8146 of 2023 

Decided On: 14.12.2023

Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs. Nilofer and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1342/2023.

Print Page

Whether the court can conduct S 202 CRPC proceeding under dishonour of cheque case on the basis of documents only?

 We may note here that as far as complaints under

Section 138 of the NI Act are concerned, this Court in

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal)No.2 of 2020 in the case

of "In Re : Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138

of N.I.Act, 18811" has laid down the guidelines. In

clause (3) of paragraph 24 of the said decision, the

Constitution Bench has directed as under:

"3) For the conduct of inquiry under Section

202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf

of the complainant shall be permitted to be

taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the

Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to

examination of documents without insisting for

examination of witnesses."

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2484 OF 2023

VISHWAKALYAN MULTISTATE CREDIT CO OP

SOCIETY LTD. VS. ONEUP ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED.

Dated: August 21, 2023.

Print Page

Whether the court must consider document filed along with plaint for deciding application for rejection of plaint?

12.2 The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.

12.3 Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint2, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.

12.4 Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the Plaintiff places reliance in his suit, which reads as under:

Order 7 Rule 14: Production of document on which Plaintiff sues or relies.-

(1) Where a Plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon 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 shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the Plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

(4) Nothing in this Rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the Plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure, the documents filed alongwith the plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application Under Order VII Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9519 of 2019 

Decided On: 09.07.2020

Dahiben Vs.  Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao and Indu Malhotra, JJ.

Author: Indu Malhotra, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0508/2020, (2020) 7 SCC 366

Print Page

Can the Income Tax department refuse to release documents to the assessee if SLP is pending Supreme court?

 Even otherwise, the statute confers authority to grant

authorisation for retaining the documents beyond the order of

assessment only till the proceedings under the Act is completed.

The word “proceedings under this Act” is a clear indication that

the power of the officers empowered to grant authorisation is

available only till the statutory proceedings are completed. Once

the statutory proceedings are completed, the authorities under

the statute are denuded of the power to grant further

authorisation. {Para 20}

21. The word proceeding is a term of wide importance and

it includes the original proceedings as well as the appellate

proceedings as it is trite law that an appeal is a continuation of

the original proceedings (see the decision in State of Tamil

Nadu and Others v. S. Subramaniam [(1996) 7 SCC 509]. In

the context in which the word ‘proceedings’ appear in section

132(8), it can be held to be used in a very comprehensive sense

to include even revisional proceedings, provided the same is

invoked under the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act.

Thus an assessment proceeding, appellate proceeding, and even

revisional proceeding are all “proceedings under this Act”.

22. The proceedings under this Act expired by the disposal

of the appeal by this Court, as evidenced by Ext.P4 judgment

dated 08-01-2010. Thereafter, no proceedings under this Act are

in existence. On the contrary, the special leave petition having

been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot

be regarded as a proceeding under this Act. As a taxing statute,

strict interpretation is to be adopted and that being so, recourse

by the assessee to the provisions of the Constitution by filing a

special leave petition before the Supreme Court cannot be

regarded as 'a proceeding under this Act'. Thus by the disposal

of the appeal filed before the High Court in I.T.A. No.819 of 2009

and I.T.A. No.1326 of 2009, the statutory authority lost its power

to grant further authorisation to retain the documents.

Therefore, even on this count, the respondents are not

authorised or justified in retaining the documents of title seized

by them under section 132 of the Act.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) NO. 12849 OF 2021

UDAYA SOUNDS Vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PRESENT

 MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 

Print Page

How to prove the statement of delinquent recorded in preliminary enquiry?

Learned counsel for the State argued that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief only on the technical ground of non-supply of documents unless it is shown as to what prejudice was caused to the petitioner in his defence. It is contended that the petitioner, during preliminary enquiry, had given a statement on 7.9.1991 in which he admitted that he had interpolated the official records in order to mislead the authority and created an evidence of felling of trees which were otherwise illegally felled and transported away from the forest area. In his reply to charge sheet, the petitioner nowhere stated that he had never given any such statement of admission of his gilt on 7.9.1991 and he only gave evasive denial of charges against him. It is further submitted that all relevant documents as stated in Sr. No. 1 of his application dated 30.4.1992 were supplied to him and remaining documents demanded by the petitioner were not relevant to the charges because the charge No. 1 was not found proved against the petitioner and charge No. 2 was found proved on the basis of petitioner's own statement dated 7.9.1991 recorded during preliminary enquiry prior to issuance of charge sheet, which the petitioner did not dispute but only sought to justify at a later stage and not at the first instance while submitting his reply to the charge sheet. Once the petitioner had admitted having interpolated the records, the other ground of violation of principle of nature justice would not come to his aid and the enquiry cannot be said to be vitiated.

 A perusal of the enquiry report and the order of the Disciplinary Authority would at once reveal that the statement of Kishan Lal Sonwani, Kamta Ram Sahu as also pre-recorded statement of the petitioner himself was made a basis to sustain the charge No. 2 proved against him that he, acting in concert with Cherpa Gopal and Kishal Lal Sonwani, tampered the official record. As a matter of fact, the so called pre-recorded statement of the petitioner was used as an admission of the guilt by the petitioner. But this document was never supplied to the petitioner despite demand. This was the most crucial documents because the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority both have heavily relied upon this document to hold charge No. 2 proved against the petitioner. The petitioner in his memo of appeal and even before this Court has taken a categoric stand that he was coerced to put signature on certain documents. Whether or not the petitioner would not been able to make out his defence, on this aspect, is one thing, but it can certainly be concluded that non-supply of this crucial documents seriously prejudiced the petitioner. It would not out of place to mention here that so called statement of the petitioner was not even proved by examining the officer who is alleged to have recorded the said statement. Therefore, serious prejudice on account of non-supply of statement is writ large on the fact of it.{Para 24}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 935 of 2005

Decided On: 31.10.2017

Dhanpati Barik Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

Dated:MANU/CG/0595/2017

Print Page

Whether the court can pass judgment on admission based on admissions made in documents of the defendant?

It is now well-established that admissions are not restricted to pleadings. More often than not, contents of the plaint are denied in order to delay proceedings and procrastinate the incidence of liability. Admissions can, therefore, be justly and soundly drawn even from attending circumstances, such as pleadings in other suits or proceedings, or documents exchanged between the parties. Infact, in my opinion, documents constitute the best source of admissions of facts. In the present case, admittedly a license deed was executed by the parties, and the Court need not travel any further. It is bound to treat the contents of such a document as admissions between the parties, and give effect to its contents at the very earliest. Failure to do so would tantamount to encouraging dishonest pleadings. All the averments put forward by the plaintiff are predicated and are sustainable merely from a reading of this deed itself."

12. Indubitably, Order XII Rule 6 CPC confers a wide discretion upon the Court to decree any suit to the extent of admissions made. Such admissions may be made in the pleadings "or otherwise". The discretion is to be exercised judicially; however, the power encompasses not only pleadings but other materials such as documents, correspondence and the like.

Delhi High Court

Gajender Kumar Loond vs Samant Barara on 9 February, 2012

Print Page

Supreme Court: Accused can not claim discharge from criminal prosecution on the basis of documents produced by him at that stage of proceeding

LEGAL PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE IN REGARD TO AN APPLICATION SEEKING DISCHARGE

14. This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We refer to a recent judgment which has referred to the earlier decisions, viz., P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and another (2010) 2 SCC 398  and discern the following principles:

i. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused.

ii. The Trial Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution.

iii. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the Police or the documents produced before the Court.

iv. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, “cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial”.

v. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion.

vi. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would 

not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons.

vii. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true.

viii. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused.

15. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 of the Cr.PC (See State of J & K v. Sudershan Chakkar and another  AIR 1995 SC 1954 ). The expression, “the record of the case”, used in Section 227 of the Cr.PC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the Police (See State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi AIR 2005 SC 359).

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 957 OF 2017

M.E. SHIVALINGAMURTHY  Vs  CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BENGALURU 

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

Dated:JANUARY 07, 2020. 

Print Page

Whether court should also see documents filed along with plaint while deciding application for rejection of plaint?

Moreover while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the court can only look at the averments in the plaint and the accompanying documents. In Tilak Raj Bhagat vs. Ranjit Kaur, MANU/DE/3345/2012 : 2012 VAD (Delhi) 186 this court held as follows:-

"5. It may be worthwhile to mention here that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to look at the averments made in the plaint by taking the same as correct on its face value as also the documents filed in support thereof. Neither defence of the defendant nor averments made in the application have to be given any weightage. Plaint has to be read as a whole together with the documents filed by the plaintiff."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

C.R.P. 22/2017

Decided On: 06.07.2018

Suresh Nanda  Vs.   Devika Mehta and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Jayant Nath, J.

Print Page

Whether order passed by court without considering documents filed along with application amounts to perverse order?

 It is the duty of the court to consider the documents filed on record by the party and after considering the same, the Court either accept or reject the document by supplementing the reasons. However, when available documents are not at all considered by the Court and when there is no reference of these documents in the order which is challenged before the appellate court, then in that event, it is always open for the Appellant to criticise the impugned order that it suffers from non-application of mind and the approach of the court below is perverse one. In the present case, the impugned order is one of such orders. The Court below ought to have seen that these documents available on record, which goes to the root of the matter. If the structures are standing from 1961-62, then they are protected structures and the Corporation cannot issue notices to demolish them on the ground that there is no sanction for the construction. In the present case, the plaintiffs pointed out by placing on record two very important documents of the Corporation to show that the structures are standing prior to 1961-62. Therefore, non consideration of these vital documents requires me to record a finding that approach of the court below is perverse and cannot sustain in the eye of law because of non-consideration of vital documents which goes to the root of the matter.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Appeal From Order No. 276 of 2018,

Decided On: 27.06.2018

 Suresh Shankar Rokade Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.M. Deshpande, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 357

Print Page

Whether court can consider documents which were not part of pleading and in respect of which issues are not framed?

 We have perused the written submissions filed by the Appellant in-person. The Appellant has relied upon the Partition Deed dated 6th December, 1937 and the Deed of Settlement dated 6th August 1942. According to the Appellant, the Deed of Partition dated 6th December, 1937 was entered into between her grandfather late Shri Appavu Gounder and his two sons late Shri Karunappanan Gounder (Defendant No. 1) and late Shri Athappa Gounder. The Deed of Settlement dated 6th August 1942 executed by her father Athappa Gounder in favour of her grandfather Appavu Gounder showed the inability of Athappa Gounder to cultivate his land. According to the said Settlement Deed dated 6.8.1942, the property should be handed over to the legal heirs of Athappa Gounder. As the said two documents were neither part of the pleadings in the Suit nor was an issue framed regarding the said documents, we are afraid that we cannot adjudicate on the issues pertaining to the said documents. Civil Suits are decided on the basis of pleadings and the issues framed and the parties to the Suit cannot be permitted to travel beyond the pleadings.1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 9558-9559 of 2018 

Decided On: 17.09.2018

 L. Ponnayal Vs.  Karuppannan (Dead)

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.

Citation: (2019) 11 SCC 800

Print Page

Whether eviction decree will be passed against tenant on ground of non user if he fails to produce documents regarding his business?

It is true that though he had maintained documents about his grocery business, the record has been eaten up by white-ants and cockroaches. This by itself would not dislodge the claim of the defendant that during the said period, he was carrying on with grocery business in the suit premises. The defendant has placed on record documents like payments made to the Telephone Department vide Exh. 11 colly., electricity bill (Exh. 10 colly.), payments made to the Corporation for weather frame (Exh. 9 colly.) and registration certificate of the establishment (Exh. 8) which covers the period in dispute. It is not disputed that the defendant obtained licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute drugs by retail from 22-11-1972 to 31-12-1973 i.e. after filing of the suit. But this by itself would not show that the defendant was not doing any business in the premises prior to this.

12. If the evidence of the parties is weighed, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs by merely stating on oath that the defendant was not doing any business in the premises during the said period except for running a matka den would entitle them to evict the defendant from the premises. The evidence of the defendant as well as the documents placed before the Court would show that the premises were not kept idle and in all probability it was used for business. In this background, it cannot be said that the two Courts below committed any error or illegality in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground of Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petn. No. 1779 of 1988

Decided On: 03.08.2000

Laxmibai Ramji and Ors. Vs. Khimji Palan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.N. Patel, J.

Citation: 2000(4) ALLMR 314

Print Page

When a party can be restrained from producing any document during cross examination of any witness?

 Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIII was introduced in the Civil Procedure Code by the Amendment Act of 1976. It will be relevant, therefore, to advert to its Statement of Objects and Reasons. It is stated therein that Rule 2 provides that documents which should have been produced at an earlier stage shall not be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, unless the Court is satisfied that there is good cause for non-production of such documents at earlier stage and that the rule was being amended to clarify that the documents which are produced for cross-examination shall not fall within the ambit of the rule. It appears, therefore, clear that the mischief sought to be removed by way of the amendment is that documents covered by Rule 2 should not find their way in the evidence by way of cross-examination, circumventing thereby the said provision of law. Thus, if this was the intention for amending Rule 2 and for introducing sub-rule (2), the view taken by me appears to be correct. I, therefore, hold that the documents which can be introduced in the evidence by way of cross-examination are those which are not meant to prove the original case of a plaintiff or of a defendant as set out in the plaint or written statement, and further those produced for the sole purpose of refreshing the memory of the witnesses.

7. Now, in the light of the above discussion, it only remains to determine whether the documents sought to be introduced by the petitioners in the evidence during the cross-examination of the respondent no. 1 are or are not falling in the aforesaid category. Mr. Lawande submitted that he does not press at this stage for the introduction in the evidence of the letters mentioned above in the plaintiffs cross-examination, but he reserves his right to introduce such documents with the leave of the trial Court. He thus submitted that he restricts his case to the introduction in the evidence of the house tax receipts only, since the said receipts are public documents and manifestly cannot be said to be manipulated or fabricated. Mr. Peres Cardozo, however, contended that though the house tax receipts are public documents, the fact remains that the petitioners are not entitled to introduce the said documents during the cross-examination of the plaintiff no. 1. Petitioners may seek and will definitely obtain the leave of the Court to introduce them in due course of the trial, he further submitted.

8. It is common ground that the subject matter of the suit is a house and that the ownership thereof is disputed by both the parties, both plaintiffs and defendants claiming that it belongs to them. This being the case, it is manifest and clear that the house tax receipts are documents meant to prove the ownership of the house by the defendants/petitioners herein. In other words, the said documents are sought to be introduced in evidence to prove the original case of the defendants/petitioners herein, as set out in the written statement. Hence, and in the view taken by me as regards Order XIII, Rule 2(2) Civil Procedure Code. It was not permissible for the defendants/petitioners herein to introduce the said documents in the course of the cross-examination of the plaintiff no. 1. Thus, by disallowing the introduction of the said documents in evidence during the course of the cross-examination of the plaintiff no. 1, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji, has not committed any error in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (PANAJI-GOA)

C.R.A. No. 103 of 1984

Decided On: 14.09.1984

Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar and another Vs.  Raghuvir Sinai Lotlekar and another

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. G.F. Couto, J.

Citation: 1984 Mh. L.J. 938.

Print Page

Whether adverse inference is to be drawn against a party if he withholds material document?

In the instant case, as noted above, the rent in dispute relates to the period of six months -- from January 1, 1978 to June 30, 1976. Notice of demand in respect of the rent in arrears was sent by the appellants (Exh. 29 which was received by the respondents on July 14, 1978. The period of one month contemplated in the provision within which the original tenant was entitled to pay the rent expired on August 14, 1978. The defence of the appellants is that on July 11, 1978, a money order on July 17, 1978 and, therefore, there has been substantial compliance of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 12. Admittedly, the respondents did not file receipt of sending the money order which is direct evidence of the fact of sending the money order to the appellants. In his deposition in the trial court the original tenant admitted that the receipt of sending the money order issued by the postal authorities was with him; however, he did not choose to file the same. The trial court drew adverse inference against him, in our view rightly. The money order coupon containing the endorsements of the postal authorities "refused" which was returned by the postal authorities (Exh. 67) was examined by the trial court and it was found that the postal stamp was dated August 27, 1978, if that be so there was no material to show that the amount in demand was sent within one month. These findings were confirmed by the appellate court. The High Court misread Exh. 67 as containing the dated August 17, 1978 and from that inferred that the money order might have been sent on August 12/13, 1978 and upset the concurrent findings of courts below. In view of the divergence of opinion of this aspect we ourselves looked into the record and with the help of magnifying glass perused Exh. 67. The same was also placed before the learned counsel for the parties. We are unable to agree with the High Court that the postal stamp is of August 17, 1978. The adverse inference drawn by the trial court and the appellate court remains unrebutted. There was no other material to justify interference by the High Court. Therefore, the finding recorded by the High Court cannot be sustained.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (civil) 4756-4757 of 1997

Decided On: 27.09.2001

Sugarbai M. Siddiq and ors. vs.  Ramesh S. Hankare (D) by Lrs.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.S.M. Quadri and S.N. Phukan, JJ.

Citation:2001(8) SCC 477

Print Page

Basic principles to be followed by court while deciding application for temporary injunction

Grant or refusal of an injunction

86. Grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit is the most important stage in the civil trial. Due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the judicial officers and judges while granting or refusing injunction. In most cases, the fate of the case is decided by grant or refusal of an injunction. Experience has shown that once an injunction is granted, getting it vacated would become a nightmare for the Defendant. In order to grant or refuse injunction, the judicial officer or the judge must carefully examine the entire pleadings and documents with utmost care and seriousness.

87. The safe and better course is to give short notice on injunction application and pass an appropriate order after hearing both the sides. In case of grave urgency, if it becomes imperative to grant an ex-parte ad interim injunction, it should be granted for a specified period, such as, for two weeks. In those cases, the Plaintiff will have no inherent interest in delaying disposal of injunction application after obtaining an ex-parte ad interim injunction. The Court, in order to avoid abuse of the process of law may also record in the injunction order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the Plaintiff undertakes to pay restitution, actual or realistic costs. While passing the order, the Court must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and pass proper order for mesne profits. The Court must make serious endeavour to ensure that even-handed justice is given to both the parties.

88. Ordinarily, three main principles govern the grant or refusal of injunction.

a) prima facie case;

b) balance of convenience; and

c) irreparable injury, which guide the Court in this regard.

89. In the broad category of prima facie case, it is imperative for the Court to carefully analyse the pleadings and the documents on record and only on that basis the Court must be governed by the prima facie case. In grant and refusal of injunction, pleadings and documents play vital role.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal No. 2968 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15382 of 2009)

Decided On: 21.03.2012

Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L. Rs.

Print Page

Whether lease deed signed by one party is valid?

A close reading of the third paragraph indicates that there is no stipulation that the instrument must be signed by both parties. The requirement is that when the lease is made by a registered instrument, "such instrument shall be executed by both the lessor and lessee." What is underlined in it is that the creation of a lease is not a unilateral exercise of one of the parties but a bilateral endeavour of both the lessor and the lessee.

11. The word "execute" is given the meaning in Black's Law Dictionary as "to complete; to make; to sign; to perform; to do; to follow out; to carry out according to its terms; to fulfil the command or purpose of." In "Words and Phrases" (Permanent Edition) the word "execute" is given the meaning as "to complete as a legal instrument; to perform what is required to give validity to." An instrument is usually executed through multifarious steps of different sequences. At the first instance, the parties might deliberate upon the terms and reach an agreement. Next the terms so agreed upon would be reduced to writing. Sometimes one party alone would affix the signature on it and deliver it to the other party. Sometimes both parties would affix their signature on the instrument. If the document is required by law to be registered, both parties can be involved in the process without perhaps obtaining the signatures of one of them. In all such instances the instrument can be said to have been executed by both parties thereto. If the instrument is signed by both parties it is presumptive of the fact that both of them have executed it, of course it is only rebuttable presumption. Similarly if an instrument is signed by only one party it does not mean that both parties have not executed it together. Whether both parties have executed the instrument will be a question of fact to be determined on evidence if such a determination is warranted from the pleadings of the particular suit. Merely because the document shows only the signature of one of the parties it is not enough to conclude that the non-signing party has not joined in the execution of the instrument.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

S.L.P. (C) No. 15042 of 1998

Decided On: 28.10.1998

 Rajendra Pratap Singh Vs.  Rameshwar Prasad

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Saiyed Saghir Ahmad and K.T. Thomas, JJ.

Citation:1998 (7) SCC 602

Print Page

Whether admissibility of document in evidence is necessary for discovery of document?

 Nor do we think that the High Court was right in holding that the documents ordered to be discovered were not relevant to the injury. The documents sought to be discovered need not be admissible in evidence in the enquiry or proceedings. It is sufficient if the documents would be relevant for. the purpose of throwing light on the matter in controversy. Every document which will throw any light on the case is a document relating to a matter in dispute in the proceedings, though it might not be admissible in evidence. In other words, a document might be inadmissible in evidence yet it may contain information which may either directly or indirectly enable the party seeking discovery either to advance his case or damage the adversary's case or which may lead to a trail of enquiry which may have either of these two consequences. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 665(N) of 1972

Decided On: 19.07.1972

Shri M.L. Sethi Vs. Shri R.P. Kapur

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.K. Mathew and P. Jaganmohan Reddy, JJ.

Citations: 1972 AIR 2379, 1973 SCR (1) 697

Print Page

Whether documents having genesis in conciliation proceeding can be introduced as evidence in other proceeding?

Mr. V. Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants, has argued that Section 75 is in very wide terms and that parties are to keep confidential all matters relating to conciliation proceedings. He also referred to Section 81 of the Act, and stated that parties cannot rely upon or introduce as evidence in arbitral or judicial proceedings, proposals made by the conciliator under Sub-clause (c) from which the said report emanated.

4. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, has argued that quite clearly none of the sub-clauses in Section 81 would apply. In any case, according to him, the various sub-clauses in Section 81 only reflect the extent of confidentiality that arises out of the earlier Sections contained in Part III dealing with Conciliation, and that, therefore, the moment the case does not fit into any of the four pigeon holes of Section 81, the report can certainly be admitted into evidence and relied upon. He also cited a Canadian Supreme Court judgment, which we will deal with, in support of this proposition.

5. Sections 75 and 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read thus:

75. Confidentiality.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the conciliator and the parties shall keep confidential all matters relating to the conciliation proceedings. Confidentiality shall extend also to the settlement agreement, except where its disclosure is necessary for purposes of implementation and enforcement.

81. Admissibility of evidence in other proceedings.- The parties shall not rely on or introduce as evidence in arbitral or judicial proceedings, whether or not such proceedings relate to the dispute that is the subject of the conciliation proceedings,-

(a) views expressed or suggestions made by the other party in respect of a possible settlement of the dispute;

(b) admissions made by the other party in the course of the conciliation proceedings;

(c) proposals made by the conciliator;

(d) the fact that the other party had indicated his willingness to accept a proposal for settlement made by the conciliator.

On a reading of Section 75, it is clear that the object of the Section is sub-served by the expression "relating to" which is an expression of extremely wide import. (See: Renusagar Power Company Limited v. General Electric Company, MANU/SC/0001/1984 : (1984) 4 SCC 679 at 704). It is clear, therefore, that both the conciliator and the parties must keep as confidential all matters relating to conciliation proceedings.

6. The litmus test for determining whether the matter relates to conciliation proceedings was laid down by an earlier judgment of this Court. In Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pearey Lal Kumar and Anr., MANU/SC/0001/1952 : [1952] S.C.R. 501, the question to be decided was as to whether a dispute or difference arose out of a certain insurance policy. This Court laid down that the test for determining whether a dispute or difference arose out of the said policy is whether recourse to the contract, by which the parties are bound, is necessary for the purpose of determining the matter in dispute between them. If it is found that such recourse is necessary, then the matter would certainly fall within the policy. Following this judgment, and applying it to the facts of this case, it is clear that recourse needs to be had to conciliation proceedings as the genesis of this demarcation report is only in conciliation proceedings and not otherwise.

7. This being the case, it is of no matter that the present case does not fall within the four pigeon holes contained in Section 81, as otherwise, if there are insidious encroachments on confidentiality, a free and fair settlement may never be arrived at, thus stultifying the object sought to be achieved by Part III of the 1996 Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10786 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9888 of 2015)

Decided On: 23.08.2017

 Govind Prasad Sharma and Ors. Vs. Doon Valley Officers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rohinton Fali Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 SC 4968.

Print Page