AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Pinto, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.08.2013 passed in OS No. 4171/2010 on the file of XXXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-38), Bangalore City (herein after referred to as the trial Court), where under the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC requesting the Court to direct the defendant Bank to produce the Inspection Report of RBI dated 26.04.2011. The petitioner is the defendant before the trial Court. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant praying for a declaration that the currency option contract bearing No. OPT1013 trade dated 27th November, 2007 being illegal and against the public policy and opposed to RBI Guidelines and obtained fraudulently is void ab-initio and therefore unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiff and with a further prayer for declaring that the currency option contract bearing No. OPT1015 trade dated 29th November, 2007, being illegal in law and against the public policy opposed to the RBI Guidelines and obtained fraudulently is void-ab-initio and is therefore unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiff and also along with other prayers connected there with. The defendant filed the written statement and thereafter the plaintiff filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requesting the Court to direct the defendant to furnish the copy of the report of the inspection/scrutiny conducted by the Reserve Bank of India of the defendant Bank.
It is the case of the plaintiff that, the RBI has imposed penalties on the defendant Bank for failure to comply with the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, in respect of derivative transactions and the same has been stated in the Press Release of the Reserve Bank of India bearing No. 2010-2011/1555 dated 26.04.2011, a copy of such Press Release issued by the Reserve Bank of India has been filed along with the application and affidavit in support of the application.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that, the Reserve Bank. of India has observed certain irregularities in respect of the business carried on by the defendant Bank and has imposed penalty on the defendant Bank as well as on 18 other Banks. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, the Reserve Bank of India after conducting the enquiry into the allegations has imposed the penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- on the defendant Bank and the said imposition of penalty has been done after carrying on the investigation and hearing the parties and after founding that the Bank has violated the directions of the Reserve Bank of India insofar as the management of the Bank transactions by the defendant Bank is concerned. The trial Court after hearing the parties had ordered and directed the defendant Bank to produce the Inspection Report of the Reserve Bank of Bank bearing No. 2010-2011/1555 dated 26.04.2011 stated in the IA filed under Order 11 Rule 14 of the CPC filed by the plaintiff. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.
Heard Sri N.V. Srinivasa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Dhananjay Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in order to decide the suit between plaintiff and the defendant production of the document now called for is unnecessary and that it is only internal transactions between the Reserve Bank of India and the concerned Bank and it has no bearing on the transactions between the parties to the suit. The said application has been filed only to protract the proceedings and divert the attention of the Court and cause prejudice to the Court as well as to the parties. Hence, he submits that the impugned order may be set aside.
Sri Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the communication of the Reserve Bank of India is a public document. Both the defendant Bank as well as the Reserve bank of India are the public institutions and therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the said document in respect of the imposition of the penalty on the defendant Bank is a document which is very much necessary for the just decision of the case between the parties. Therefore, he submits that, the writ petition may be dismissed.
On a careful consideration of the submission made by both the parties and also relying upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in A. Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam Represented by Its President etc., , I am of the opinion that by producing the documents it would throw light to the facts of the case as well as the transactions made by the defendant Bank. Every citizen has right to know about the contents of a public document and every parties to the suit has right to know the real facts in respect of the business carried on by either parties in the suit.
The Reserve Bank of India has conducted the proceedings to enquire into the business transactions of the defendant Bank and the report of such enquiry is relevant for the purpose of disposal of the suit. The trial Court has rightly held that the said document is required for the just decision of the case. In the writ petition, the High Court is concerned only about the legality and propriety of the order concerned. If the order is neither perverse nor against the settled principles of law, the High Court cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. It is for the trial Court to summon the document in accordance with law so as to assist it in the disposal of the case in the interest of justice.
On a careful consideration of all the materials on record and the decision cited above, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Court in directing the defendant Bank to produce the document is neither perverse nor contrary to the provisions of law nor the same is against the settled principles of law. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is devoid of merits and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The observation in this writ petition are made only for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition and shall not be taken into consideration by the trial Court while disposing the suit on its merits.