In this civil application, the High Court disposed of the request for document inspection as premature, holding that the concern arises if originals are not produced in reliance on copies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.223 OF 2006
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.9066 OF 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda
of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or Judge’s orders
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.R.S.Khadapkar i/b Mr.R.G.Ketkar for the
Applicants.
Mrs.M.P.Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.1
and 2.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO, J. and
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
17th February, 2006.
P.C.:
The Applicants have prayed that
Respondent No.2 be directed to give
inspection and copies of the documents set
out therein. If the Respondent No.2 relies
on those documents and the Applicants
herein dispute the genuineness of those
2
documents, Respondent No.2 is bound to
produce the original. If originals are not
produced, the same would not be considered.
For the aforesaid reasons, the present
application is premature and accordingly
disposed of.
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for inspection and production of documents is premature.
Applicants
Respondent No. 1
Respondent No. 2
F.I.REBELLO
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court