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