AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.R. Shah, J.—By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners-original applicants, who have initiated the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts'' Act by submitting application below Exh-129 in Civil Misc. (Arbitration) Application No. 47/2002, have prayed for following main reliefs:
10(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding and declaring that the impugned orders dated 15.2.2011 and 1.3.2011 are illegal, unreasonable, inequitable, unfair and discriminatory;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the orders dated 15.2.2011 below Exh.178 and Exh.179 and dated 1.3.2011 below Exh.208 and Exh.209.
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding, declaring and directing the Ld. Court to issue witness summons to M/s. Yashvee Constructions Pvt. Ltd to produce the documents in the form of letters and correspondences as well as other documents forming part of one-time settlement between the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and other third party purchasers and the Respondent Bank between the period from 1.1.2005 to 31.3.2009;
(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding, declaring and directing the Ld. Court to direct production of documents in the form of letters and internal correspondence as well as other documents forming part of one-time settlement between the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and other third party purchasers and the Respondent Bank between the period from 1.1.2005 to 31.3.2009 from the Respondent No. 8 i.e. Bank of India, SARM Branch, Mumbai;
(F) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding, declaring and directing the Ld. Court to direct appointment of Court Commissioner as prayers made in application at Exh.209 on the record of Civil Misc. (Arbitration) Application No. 47/2002;
(G) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding, declaring and directing the Ld. Court to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to give reply to the notice dated 31.1.2011 served to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 under Order XI Rules 15 and 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908;
At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present petition, main challenge is the orders passed by the Trial Court below Exhs.178 and 189 dated 15/02/2011 as well as common order passed by the Trial Court dated 01/03/2011 passed below Exhs.208 and 209, by which, application submitted by the Petitioners herein for an appropriate direction, directing the Bank to produce certain documents and alternatively to issue witness summons to the Bank, have been rejected.
At the time of hearing of the present application, Mr. K.B. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has stated at the bar that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties more particularly the Petitioners herein, to submit appropriate application for the reliefs sought in applications below Exhs.178, 189, 208 and 209 in future at the time of hearing of application below Exh.129, the Petitioners will be satisfied at this stage, if Respondent-bank shall furnishes information of Officers of the Bank, who has executed Deed of Assignment and passed order under OTS.
Mr. S.I. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, under the instruction from the concerned Respondents, has fairly stated that the Respondents shall not have any objections if the Respondent - Bank furnishes the necessary particulars of the Officers of the Bank, who have executed the Deed of Assignment as well as OTS on behalf of the Bank and he has no objection if the impugned order passed below Exhs.178 and 189 dated 15/02/2011 as well as common order passed by the Trial Court dated 01/03/2011 passed below Exhs.208 and 209 are set aside, reserving liberty in favour of the parties to submit appropriate application/s before the learned Trial Court for production of documents and issuance of the witness summons at the time of hearing of the application below Exh-129.
Mr. Panesar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 8 - Bank has stated at the bar that necessary particulars with respect to Officer/s of the Bank, who has executed Deed of Assignment on behalf of the Bank and who has issued order under OTS, shall be disclosed in writing to the respective parties and/or their advocates within a period of ten days from today.
Mr. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has submitted that the aforesaid shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties and stand of the Petitioners that Respondent No. 8 - Bank is bound to comply with the order dated 17/06/2010 passed by Central Information Commissioner.
Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that application below Exh.129 has been submitted by the Petitioners in Civil Misc. (Arbitration) Application No. 47/2002 praying for appropriate action under the provisions of Contempt of Courts'' Act for alleged breach of Undertaking, which was given during the pendency of the application under Sections 9 and 34 in the aforesaid Civil Misc. (Arbitration) Application No. 47/2002. It appears that in the aforesaid proceedings, earlier various applications were submitted by the Petitioners below Exhs.127, 170, 171, 173 and 177 and on the said applications, learned Trial Court passed order dated 08/12/2010 below Exh.127; order dated 15/12/2010 passed below Exhs.170 and 171 and order dated 17/01/2011 below Exhs.173 and 177 dismissing the said applications. It also appears that even by order dated 08/12/2010, the application below Exh-129 also came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court. It appears that against the aforesaid orders, the Petitioners preferred petition before this Court and this Court (Coram: J.C. Upadhyaya) vide order dated 25/03/2011 considering the broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, quashed and set aside the order dated 08/12/2010 passed by the Trial Court below Exh-129 and directed the District Court to proceed further with the contempt proceedings and to decide and dispose of the said application below Exh.129 in accordance with law and on merits. In the meantime and before the aforesaid Special Civil Application was preferred, the Petitioners preferred applications below Exhs.178 and 189 and applications below Exhs.208 and 209 for production of documents pursuant to the order passed by Central Information Commissioner and/or alternatively to issue witness summons to the Bank to produce aforesaid documents, which also came to be dismissed.
So far as the impugned orders are concerned, there is a broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties that the order passed below Exhs.178 and 189 dated 15/02/2011 as well as common order passed by the Trial Court dated 01/03/2011 passed below Exhs.208 and 209 be quashed and set aside and liberty may be reserved in favour of the parties to submit appropriate application for production of the documents as mentioned in the aforesaid application and/or to issue witness summons to produce the said documents in future, reserving liberty in favour of the respective parties to contest the said application, which may be considered in accordance with law and on merits.
Under the circumstances, the impugned orders passed below Exhs.178 and 189 dated 15/02/2011 as well as common order passed by the Trial Court dated 01/03/2011 passed below Exhs.208 and 209 are hereby quashed and set aside, reserving liberty in favour of the parties to submit an appropriate application for the aforesaid relief, which is sought in the aforesaid application at the time of hearing of the application at Exh-129 and/or as and when necessity arises in future. As and when such application is submitted, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and on merits, for which, this Court has not expressed anything.
So far as submission on behalf of the Petitioners to disclose the name of the Officers, who has executed Deed of Assignment on behalf of the Bank and who has issued order under OTS is concerned, Respondent No. 8 - Bank is directed to act as stated hereinabove and shall furnish particulars of the Officers of the Bank, who has executed Deed of Assignment and who has issued order under OTS, within a period of ten days from today to the concerned respective parties and/or to their advocates by Regd. Post A.D. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.