In a writ petition, the court rejected the petitioner's challenge against the trial Court's refusal to order the production of the respondent's accounts, finding no jurisdictional error.
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
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s orders.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 1315 OF 2011
***
1.Heard Advocate Mr. S. D. Tambat with
Advocate Mr. Deokar for the Petitioner/
plaintiff. Petitioner plaintiff filed an
application for direction to Respondent /
defendanttoproduceitsaccounts.
Contention is, work done by petitioner is
accepted by Respondent/ defendant in written
statement and in accounts actually provision
has been made for the payment of the
plaintiff. The trial Court has rejected that
application.
2.It is apparent that petitioner/
plaintiff has to discharge burden put by law
upon him. If the Respondent/ defendant is
withholding any material document, the trial
Court is free to draw appropriate inference
in the matter in accordance with law. I do
not see any jurisdictional error or
perversity. Petition is rejected.
[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]
Dated:11/03/2011.
ans/1315
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court was in error in rejecting an application by the Plaintiff for direction to the Defendant to produce its accounts.
Petitioner/Plaintiff
Respondent/Defendant
B.P. Dharadhikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court