Disposed

M/S. Teracom Ltd. Rep. by Its Chief Operating Officer Mr. Ashish D. Jain v. M/S. Sojitz Corporation Rep. by Mr. Masahiro Ota

Bombay HC14 Dec 2012COA/13/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The City Civil Court disposed of the Company Appeal challenging the Single Judge's order permitting the respondent to file a fresh Power of Attorney. The Court did not decide on the merits but reserved the parties' right to file written arguments regarding the production of the document.

What did the court decide?

Appellant to file additional written arguments; Respondent to file re-joinder thereafter.

M/S. Teracom Ltd. Rep. by Its Chief Operating Officer… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

COMPANY APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2012

¶3

M/S. TERACOM LTD. REP. BY ITS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER MR. ASHISH D. JAIN ... Appellant Versus M/S. SOJITZ CORPORATION REP. BY MR. MASAHIRO OTA ... Respondent

¶4

Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Bernard and Mr. A.D. Bhobe, Advocates for the Appellant. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr.D.V. Patkar and Mr. D. Dewan, Advocates for the Respondent.

¶5

Coram:F. M. REIS & U. V. BAKRE, JJ. Date:14th December, 2012

¶6

P.C:

¶7

Heard Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

¶8

The above appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18/10/2012 whereby whilst permitting the respondent to file brief written submissions has also granted leave to file fresh Power of Attorney.

¶9

Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned Single Judge granted leave to produce the said Power of Attorney without giving an opportunity to the appellant to oppose the production of the said document. Learned Senior counsel has taken us through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Single Judge has

¶10

¶11

without giving any reason granted said leave to produce fresh Power of Attorney. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the appellant has raised an objection to the earlier Power of Attorney in favour of the respondents on the ground that the said document was not properly stamped. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that it is well settled that under sections 33 and 35 of the Stamp Act, once such a document comes to the notice of the Court, it ought to be impounded. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that unless and until the appellant is given an opportunity to object to the production of the said document, the question of granting leave does not arise. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has relied upon (2008) 4 SCC 720 in the case of "Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. P. Laxmi Devi (Smt)" and (2009) 2 SCC 532 in the case of "Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra", in support of his submission.

¶12

On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order. Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the appellant was given a copy of the said Power of Attorney and according to him the appellant chose not to raise any objection to the production of the said document. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the said document was produced by way of abundant caution as according to the respondent even if there were certain defects in the earlier Power of Attorney, such defects are curable by filing a fresh Power of Attorney. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the respondent had already relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in that regard. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that in any event the impugned order could not be construed that the learned Single Judge has granted leave to produce such Power of Attorney in a matter reserved for orders. Learned Senior Counsel for the

¶13

¶14

respondent therefore submits that no interference is called for with the impugned order.

¶15

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the parties and we have gone through the impugned order. Without going into the merits of the rival contentions with regard to the earlier Power of Attorney and the right to produce a fresh Power of Attorney, as sought by the respondent, we find it appropriate that before allowing the production of the said document, an opportunity can be given to the appellant to oppose the production of the said document if they so desire. Considering that the matter is already reserved for orders, we feel it appropriate that an opportunity be given to the appellant to file additional written arguments to oppose the production of the fresh Power of Attorney dated 12/10/2012. Liberty is also to be given to the respondent to file re-joinder to such written arguments.

¶16

Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Nadkarni, upon instructions,states that said written submissions would be filed within two weeks from today. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kantak for the respondent, upon instructions, states that the respondent would file re-joinder within one week thereafter.

¶17

Subject to the above, the Company appeal stands disposed of.

¶18

F. M. REIS, J.

¶19

U. V. BAKRE, J.

¶20

ap/-

M/S. Teracom Ltd. Rep. by Its Chief Operating Officer Mr. Ashish D. Jain v. M/S. Sojitz Corporation Rep. by Mr. Masahiro Ota

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Teracom Ltd. Rep. by Its Chief Operating Officer Mr. Ashish D. Jain v. M/S. Sojitz Corporation Rep. by Mr. Masahiro Ota

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Vanashree Fatu Kenkre and 2 Ors., Vs Dr. Sricrishna Balchandre Kenkre (Deceased) through Lr'S and Ors.

Mrs. Anasuya Sricrishna Kenkre Alias Anasuya Sheila Kenkre and 2 Ors., Vs Mr. Umakant Bhalchandra Kenkre (Deceased) and 15 Ors.

Dr. Sricrishna Balchandre Kenkre (Deceased) through Lr'S and Anr. Vs Mr. Umakant Balchandra Kenkre (Deceased) through Lr'S and 4 Ors.

M/S. Teracom Ltd. Rep. by Its Chief Operating Officer Mr. Ashish D. Jain Vs M/S. Sojitz Corporation Rep. by Mr. Masahiro Ota

Ms. Maria D'Sa Vs Mapusa Municipal Council through Its Chief Officr and 2 Ors.

The Executive Engineer Works Division VII Vs Shri Saunsthan Devkikrishna Ravalnath