Partly allowed

Yayesh H. Pandya and Ors. v. Ashok B. Gupta and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Mar 2007NMS/4199/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master to furnish certified xerox copies of specific documents to the police for investigation of an alleged crime, finding no impediment from pending civil proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Prothonotary, Senior Master directed to furnish certified xerox copies of documents mentioned in Schedule-A to the Motion to the police. Liberty granted to parties to seek originals later if neede

Yayesh H. Pandya and Ors. Vs Ashok B. Gupta and Anr. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

VPH

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION No. 4199 OF 2006 IN ARBITRATION PETITION No. 229 OF 2004

¶6

Jayesh H. Pandya & Ors.

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Ashok B. Gupta & Anr.

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Ms. Jacinta D’Silva, Advocate for the petitioner/applicant.

¶12

Ms. Jyoti M. Chavan, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J.

¶14

DATE : MARCH 8, 2007.

¶15

PC :-

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶17

applicant/petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to

¶18

None present for respondent Nos. 8 and 9.

¶19

This Motion is taken out by the

¶20

applicant for an order of the Court, directing the Prothonotary & Senior Master to hand over the documents and papers, set out in Schedule A to the Motion to the Investigating Officer,

¶21

Azad Maidan Police station, for investigation

¶22

¶23

into the alleged crime.

¶24

By a letter dated 29th June 2006, the

¶25

Police		Sub Inspector	/ In	vestigati	ng	Officer
attached		to the Azad	Maidan	Police	Station	has
requested		the Prothonotary	& Se	nior	Master	to
hand	over	to him the	originals	or	the	certified
copies	of	the Joint	Venture	A	greement	and
Declaration		Deed, deposited	in	this	Court,	for
the p	urpose	of investigation	of	a	crime	alleged
to	have	been committed	in the	com	plaint	being
Complaint		Case No.	1/M/06	under	section	190

¶26

Cr.P.C., pending in the 8th Court, Esplanade,

¶27

Mumbai.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent

¶29

submitted	that		previ	ously	a		similar r	equest	was
made	by	the		responde	nts	to	this	Court,	by
filing	a	prae	cipae	and	t	his	Court by	its	order
dated	21st		Octo	ber 20	05	had	declined	to	pass
any	order.			The	co	unsel	therefore,		submitted

¶30

that the court should not grant the applicant’s

¶31

request which was not previously granted.

¶32

I have perused a copy of the order

¶33

¶34

dated 21st October 2005, which reads thus - "no

¶35

order on the praecipae" .

¶36

6.	It appears to me tha	t the prayer for
handing	over the doc	uments, b	eing		substantive
prayer,	the court declined	to pass	an	y ord	er on
the	praecipae. It is	worthwhile	to	note	that
by	declining to pass	any	order	on	the
praecipae,	the court has	not d	eclined	any	order
on	merits. Similar is	the case	in	respect	of
order	dated 2nd August	2006.	The	Court	had
merely	stated "no o	rder"	without		indicating
that	the court had	declined	to	grant	any
relief.	In my view	therefore,	the	two	orders
dated	21st October 2005	and 2nd		August	2006

¶37

cannot be interpreted to mean that the court

¶38

has refused the request.

¶39

7.		I	f the invest	igating	police offic	er
requires		pape	rs for	inv	estigation	of	a	crime,
there	is	no	reason	why	they	should	not be	made
available		to	him,		merely		because	some
proceeding		is	pe	nding	between	the	parties	in
this cou	rt.		It is	also	worth	while	to note	that
what	the		police	have	asked	for	is either	the

¶40

¶41

originals or certified xerox copies. I find no

¶42

reason to deny the request for the supply of

¶43

the xerox copies, to the police.

¶44

In the circumstances, motion is partly allowed. The Prothonotary, Senior Master to furnish the certified xerox copies of the

¶45

documents, mentioned in Schedule-A to the

¶46

Motion, to the police.

¶47

Liberty to the parties to move, if the

¶48

police authorities require originals at any

¶49

stage.

¶50

The request of the respondent for stay

¶51

of operation of this order is rejected.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

[ D. G. KARNIK, J.]

Yayesh H. Pandya and Ors. v. Ashok B. Gupta and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yayesh H. Pandya and Ors. v. Ashok B. Gupta and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

ms sushma sankalp @ sushma manjari pati Vs s.v.s securities Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs the Honkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.

H.E. Jani Vs Maharashtra Industrial Develop. Corpn. and Ors.

The B.P.T.of Bombay Vs M/S.Shree Krishna Wollen Mills Pvt.Ltd.

M/S. Nikita Art Movie P. Ltd. Vs Sanjay Entertainment P. Ltd.

Girish Reddy Vs Principal Chief Engineer, Central Railway, Mumbai