Whether departmental enquiry will be vitiated if inspection of documents was not given to delinquent at initial stage?

 On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that at the earliest the respondent sought for the inspection of documents mentioned in the charge sheet and relied on by the appellant. It is settled law that after the charge-sheet with necessary particulars, the specific averments in respect of the charge shall be made. If the department or the management seeks to rely on any documents in proof of the charge, the principles of natural justice require that such copies of those documents need to be supplied to the delinquent. If the documents are voluminous and cannot be supplied to the delinquent, an opportunity has got to be given to him for inspection of the documents. It would be open to the delinquent to obtain appropriate extracts at his own expense. If that opportunity was not given, it would violate the principles of natural justice. At the enquiry, if the delinquent seeks to support his defence with reference to any of the documents in the custody of the management or the department, then the documents either may be summoned or copies thereof may be given at his request and cost of the delinquent. If he seeks to cross-examine the witnesses examined in proof of the charge he should be given the opportunity to cross examine him. In case he wants to examine his witness or himself to rebut the charge, that opportunity should be given. In this case, at the earliest, the delinquent sought for inspection of the documents. It is now admitted in the affidavits filed in this Court and in the letter written by the enquiry officer, that some of the documents were seized by the police after the murder of the Manager of the appellant-institution on 31.7.80 for investigation. In that case the respondent was also one of the accused charged for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. It is now an admitted fact that in Sessions Trial No. 228/81 dated 31.7.86 he was convicted for the said offence and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. It would appear that he filed an appeal in the High Court and bail was granted to him.

6. It is stated in the letter written by the enquiry officer that inspection of documents would be given at the time of final hearing. That obviously is an erroneous procedure followed by the enquiry officer. In the first instance he should be given the opportunity for inspection and thereafter conduct the enquiry and then hear the delinquent at the time of conclusion of his enquiry. In this case that procedure ...of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we agree with the High Court, though for different reasons, in the setting aside of the order of dismissal passed by the Management as approved by the Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor on the respective dates referred to hereinbefore.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7674 of 1994 

Decided On: 28.10.1994

Committee of Management, Kisan Degree College  Vs. Shambhu Saran Pandey and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Ramaswamy and N.G. Venkatachala, JJ.

Citation: (1995) 1 SCC 404

Print Page

Whether photocopies of documents can be exhibited subject to condition to produce original for inspection as and when required?

The question for consideration is, whether it is permissible in law to permit a party to a civil suit to file only photocopy of the document and exempt such party from placing the original document on the file of the court and merely to give inspection thereof to the opposite party at the time of admission/denial of documents and at the time of tendering the document into evidence and to put the Exhibit mark again on photocopy on the file of the court.

From all the aforesaid definitions of document found by me, a photocopy or a copy would also be a document. Thus it cannot be said that the provisions of the CPC for filing of documents necessarily relate to original documents. The legislature has used the word original only in Order 13 Rule 1 of CPC.

20. The next questions which arise are, as to whether under Order 13 Rule 1 of the CPC the original document has to be placed on the file of the court or to be merely given inspection of for admission/denial of documents; whether the Evidence Act while providing for proof of documents by primary evidence requires filing/placing of the original document on the record of the court.

21. There can be no manner of doubt that the Evidence Act providing in Section 64 thereof of proof of documents by primary evidence only means proof of the original document. Even though Section 62 defining the primary evidence as meaning the document itself, does not state original document but since Section 63 while defining secondary evidence includes "copies from the original" and "copies made from and compared with the original" it necessarily follows that only the original is primary evidence.

22. However, most importantly, Section 62 is as under:

62. Primary Evidence - Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the court.

Thus even at the stage of proof, the requirement is only for production of the original for inspection of the court and not of filing of the original in the court. It cannot be argued that production for inspection of the court has to be necessarily by placing it on the file of the court. It can also be by producing it as and when directed by the court for inspection thereof.

23. When at the stage of proof of documents, the requirement under Section 62 of the Evidence Act is only of production of original for inspection of the court, Order 13 Rule 1 of the CPC requiring production of originals has to be necessarily meant as production of original for inspection of the court and not as filing of the original. Significantly, Order 13 Rule 1 also uses both expressions "produce" in connection with original and "filed" in connection with the copies. The different expression used, together with definition/meaning of produce cited by Counsel for plaintiffs also lend me to hold that the original documents are only intended to be produced i.e. to be given inspection of while the copies are to be filed.

24. I, therefore, find that the scheme of the aforesaid legislative provisions also permits production of originals for inspection only and filing of copies only.

25. However, Order 13 Rule 4 CPC and the practise directions in the trial of suits issued by this court, also provide for making of endorsement on documents admitted in evidence. The document which is admitted in evidence is the primary document i.e. the original. Is the endorsement of exhibit mark to be made on original only which would again mean placing it on court record? In my view No. These provisions are procedural. When the substantive law permits only production for inspection of original, once that has been done, the endorsement/exhibit mark can be put on copy on court record also.

26. The aforesaid should not be understood as laying down that in all cases the filing of photocopies is enough. If the document is doubtful or for any other reason required by the court to remain in original on the file of the court, the court can always direct so and a party cannot insist on filing of copy only. There may be other instances where filing of the original is necessary, as in the case of documents like Will, Agreements which may be terminated/cancelled by destruction. The courts can in such cases insist upon the original being filed on the record.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

IA No. 5683/2008 in CS(OS) 516/2007

Decided On: 18.05.2009

Aktiebolaget Volvo and Ors. Vs.  R. Venkatachalam and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

Citation: ( 2009 )ILR 6 Delhi 233,

MANU / DE / 1690 / 2009,

160 ( 2009 ) DLT 100.

Print Page

Whether plaintiffs are guilty of willful default when they failed to give inspection of documents as per order of court?

In the order dated 17.08.2009, the plaintiffs were directed to give inspection of the said proceedings expressly relied upon by the plaintiffs in the plaint. Therefore, when the plaintiffs state that they are not relying upon the said proceedings, the question of giving inspection also does not arise.

In fact, in the plaint, the plaintiffs do not even state that they are relying upon the said proceedings. What the plaintiffs have stated is that "the plaintiffs crave leave to refer to and rely upon the correct facts including those in respect of its ongoing disputes before the Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal and the Madras High Court as against Dynasty if required". Even in the list of documents annexed to the plaint, the plaintiffs have not mentioned about the said proceedings. Therefore, in my view, there is no willful default on the part of the plaintiffs in not giving inspection of the said proceedings. I find no willful default as contemplated by the Apex Court in M/s. Babbar Sewing Machine Company (supra). I do not find any obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the plaintiffs or willful attempt to disregard the order of the Court.

 In the circumstances, the notice of motion is dismissed with costs.

Bombay High Court

Jumbo World Holdings Limited And 2 ... vs Bennett,Coleman And Co.Ltd And 3 ... on 12 November, 2014

Bench: K.R. Sriram

Ciation; 2015 (4) MHLJ 445

Print Page

When court should not order production and inspection of documents?

In the present case there is no reference in the plaint to any of the documents of which production is sought by the defendants. The defendants have not yet filed their written statement. They have not given any satisfactory reason for production and inspection of these documents prior to the completion of pleadings. From the affidavit in support it is not at all clear whether the defendants allege that there was an existing concluded agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants to grant various concessions to the defendants as set out in the affidavit or not. In fact, from the writ petition which the defendants have filed it would appear that there is no agreement to grant any concession to the defendants and that the defendants are seeking various reliefs in the writ petition as a result of which they would have the benefit of these concessions. In any case, the stand of the defendants in connection with granting of these concessions is not clear in the absence of any written statement. In this context, by asking for prior inspection of these documents before filing their written statement the defendants seem to be embarking on a fishing enquiry in order to ascertain the exact nature of correspondence which has ensued between the plaintiffs and the Reserve Bank of India in order that they may mould their defence on the basis of these documents. In these circumstances, where production of documents is asked for in order that the defendants may mould their defence in the light of documents of which they want production and inspection, the discretion ought not to be exercised in favour of the defendants.

Bombay High Court

Indian Overseas Bank vs Shreekrishna Woollen Mills Pvt. ... on 24 September, 1987

Equivalent citations: AIR 1988 Bom 343, (1987) 89 BOMLR 510

Bench: S Manohar

Print Page

Whether suit can be dismissed for Non compliance of order of inspection of documents?

 In the order dated 17.08.2009, the plaintiffs were directed to give inspection of the said proceedings expressly relied upon by the plaintiffs in the plaint. Therefore, when the plaintiffs state that they are not relying upon the said proceedings, the question of giving inspection also does not arise. In fact, in the plaint, the plaintiffs do not even state that they are relying upon the said proceedings. What the plaintiffs have stated is that "the plaintiffs crave leave to refer to and rely upon the correct facts including those in respect of its ongoing disputes before the Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal and the Madras High Court as against Dynasty if required". Even in the list of documents annexed to the plaint, the plaintiffs have not mentioned about the said proceedings. Therefore, in my view, there is no willful default on the part of the plaintiffs in not giving inspection of the said proceedings. I find no willful default as contemplated by the Apex Court in M/s. Babbar Sewing Machine Company (supra). I do not find any obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the plaintiffs or willful attempt to disregard the order of the Court.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1215 OF 2014
IN
SUIT NO. 1458 OF 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION


Jumbo World Holdings Limited & Ors.Vs. Bennet Coleman and Co. Ltd. & Ors.

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 12TH NOVEMBER , 2014

Print Page

Whether party wanting inspection can call upon opposite party to produce the document?

The right to discovery remains the same, that is to say, a party has a right to interrogate with a view to obtaining an admission from his opponent of every thing which is material and relevant to the issue raised on the pleadings. While interpreting the above provision, in M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur MANU/SC/0245/1972, it has been held that the provisions of Order 11, Rule 12, C. P. C. mean that 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. It has also been held that generally speaking, a party is entitled to inspection of all documents which do not themselves constitute exclusively the other party's evidence of his case or title. If a party wants inspection of documents in the possession of the opposite party, he cannot inspect them unless the other party produces them. The party wanting inspection must, therefore, call upon the opposite party to produce the document. And how can a party do this unless he knows what documents are in the possession or power of the opposite party? In other words, unless the party seeking discovery knows what are the documents in the possession or custody of the opposite party which would throw light upon the question in controversy, how is it possible for him to ask for discovery of specific documents? The aforesaid principle has been elaborately discussed in Compagnie Financiere Et Commercial Du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Company (1882) 11 QBD 55. In that case, it has been observed that "a document relating to any matter in question in action" means that in order to determine whether certain documents are within that description, it is necessary to consider what are the questions in the action. The Court must look not only at the statement of claim of the plaintiff's case, but also at the statement of the defence and the defendant's case. In Attorney-General v. Gaskill, (1882) 20 Ch D 519, Cotton, L. J. observed :

The right to discovery remains the same, that is to say, a party has a right to interrogate with a view to obtaining an admission from his opponent of every thing which is material and relevant to the issue raised on the pleadings. It was said in argument that it is not discovery where the plaintiff himself already knows the fact. But that is a mere play on the word 'discovery'. Discovery is not limited to giving the plaintiff a knowledge of that which he does not know, but includes the getting an admission of anything which he is to prove on any issue which is raised between him and the defendant. To show that the pleadings have raised issues and that therefore interrogatories should not be allowed is another fallacy. The object of the pleadings is to ascertain what issues are. The object of the interrogatories is not to learn what the issues are but to see whether the party intelligently can obtain an admission from his opponent which makes the burden of proof easier than it otherwise would have been.1

ORISSA HIGH COURT 

Rajkishore Prasad and Ors. Vs. The State of Orissa and Ors.

Reported in : AIR1979Ori96; 47(1979)CLT451

Judge : N.K. Das, J.

Decided On : Jan-23-1979

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 11, Rule 12

Print Page

Right to inspection includes Right to take notes and obtain copies

 We may add that the right to inspection ordinarily includes the right to have copies of the document Ormerod Grierson & Co. v. St. Georges Iron Works (1905) 1 Ch. 505; 74 L.J. Ch. 373; 53 W.R.502; 92 L.T.541 and Bevan v. Webb (1901) 2 Ch. 59 at p. 74;70 L.J. Ch. 536; 49 W.R. 548; 84 L.T. 609; 17 T.L.R. 440; but according to the practice which obtains in England the parties cannot make copies for themselves though they are entitled to be supplied with copies on payment of necessary fees to the Court In the Present case it would be sufficient to direct that the plaintiffs will be at liberty not merely to inspect the documents but also to make notes of their contents. If they find it necessary to obtain copy of a document they must apply to the Court for directions.

Calcutta High Court

Gobind Mohun Doss And Ors. vs Kunja Behary Doss on 14 July, 1909

Equivalent citations: 4 Ind Cas 364 ;[1909-1910] Calcutta Weekly Notes, vol. XIV p. 147, 

Bench: Mookerjee, Vincent

Print Page

Right to privacy includes that bank should maintain confidentiality in respect of documents in its custody

Right to privacy deals with 'persons and not places', the documents or copies of documents of the customer which are in Bank, must continue to remain confidential vis-`-vis the person, even if they are no longer at the customer's house and have been voluntarily sent to a Bank. If that be the correct view of the law, we cannot accept the line of Miller in which the Court proceeded on the basis that the right to privacy is referable to the right of 'property' theory. Once that is so, then unless there is some probable or reasonable cause or reasonable basis or material before the Collector for reaching an opinion that the documents in the possession of the Bank tend, to secure any duty or to prove or to lead to the discovery of any fraud or omission in relation to any duty, the search or taking notes or extracts therefore, cannot be valid. The above safeguards must necessarily be read into the provision relating to search and inspection and seizure so as to save it from any unconstitutionality.

Supreme Court of India

Distt. Registrar & Collector, ... vs Canara Bank Etc on 1 November, 2004

Author: L . R.C.

Bench: R Lahoti, A Bhan

Print Page