Disposed

Icici Bank Ltd. and 22 Ors. v. Vipul Desai and 8 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Aug 2013CHS/145/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order disposing of a chamber summons for document inspection, noting submission for items pressed and directing inspection of remaining documents to other respondents.

What did the court decide?

Plaintiffs directed to offer inspection of remaining documents to defendant nos. 5 to 9 within three weeks; court notes inferences if plaintiffs rely on unproduced slips.

Icici Bank Ltd. and 22 Ors. Vs Vipul Desai and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

kvm

1/4

10-CHS145.11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 145 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3469 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 3057 OF 2010

¶6

ICICI Bank Ltd.Provident Fund & Ors.

¶7

..... Plaintiffs

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Vipul Desai & Ors.

¶10

..... Defendants

¶11

Dr.Birendra Saraf, a/w. Mr.Mayur Bhojwani, i/b. Manilal Kher Ambalal for the Plaintiffs.

¶12

Mr.Karl Shroff, i/b. Mr.Ajay Rao for Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

¶13

Mr.Simil Purohit, a/w. Mr.Rohan Cama, Mr.Manish Doshi, i/b. Vimadalal & Co. for Defendant Nos. 5 to 9.

¶14

Mr.Omkar Bade, i/b. Jaykar & Partners for Defendant No.3.

¶15

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

¶16

DATED : 8^th AUGUST, 2013

¶17

P.C.

¶18

This Chamber Summons has been filed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 for seeking inspection of the documents referred to and relied upon by the plaintiffs in Schedule of the documents appended to the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons. Mr.Shroff, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant nos. 1 and 2 on instructions submits that though there are 25 items mentioned in the Schedule by the defendant nos. 1 and 2, inspection is pressed in respect of item nos. 2, 4, 7,

kvm

2/4

10-CHS145.11

15 and 16. Learned counsel invited my attention to the letter addressed by defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 through their advocates addressed on 8^th March, 2011 seeking inspection of the various documents and also reply dated 19^th March, 2011 from the advocates of the plaintiffs to the advocates of defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4.

¶23

In so far as item No.2 of the schedule is concerned, reliance is placed on paragraph (1) of the reply dated 19^th March, 2011 by Dr.Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. It is clarified that vide letter dated 9^th February, 2011 addressed by the plaintiffs to the Police Authorities, copies of the minutes of the meetings located by the plaintiffs were enclosed. Police Authorities were informed that no separate meetings were held for considering the proposal of security by plaintiff nos. 1, 10, 12 and 15. The same was on the basis of the memo circulated by defendant no.1. Dr.Saraf, learned counsel submits that the statements made by the plaintiffs in paragraph (1) of the said letter be accepted. There are no separate meetings held and thus no inspection thereof can be furnished. Statement is accepted.

¶24

In so far as Item No.4 of the schedule is concerned, Dr.Saraf on instructions submits that whatever slips were available with the plaintiffs, inspection thereof has been already furnished. Learned counsel however seeks 15 days time to verify whether other slips are available. If any other slips are available with the plaintiffs, inspection thereof would be furnished to the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 by fixing an appointment. It is submitted that in such an event, copies of such documents also would be furnished. Learned counsel submits that if no such slips are available, plaintiffs would inform the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4. It is made clear that on such intimation given by the plaintiffs to defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 that no additional slips are available, plaintiffs would not be permitted to rely upon

kvm

3/4

10-CHS145.11

the additional slips without permission of the court.

¶29

In so far as documents mentioned at serial no. 7 of the schedule is concerned, Dr.Saraf learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that complaints were received by the plaintiffs under ‘Whistle Blower Policy’ and the plaintiffs are not in a position to offer inspection of the said documents. It is, however, submitted that as and when called upon by this court, plaintiffs would furnish such complaint for perusal of the court. Statement of the learned counsel is accepted.

¶30

As far as documents mentioned at serial no. 15 are concerned, my attention is invited to the reply of the plaintiffs in paragraphs 12 and 18 of the letter dated 19^th March, 2013. Dr.Saraf on instructions submits that at the stage of hearing of the Notice of Motion, plaintiffs are not relying upon the print out from any website of the BenchMark prices referred to in the auditors’ report. In my view, if at the stage of hearing of the Notice of Motion, if it is found that the printout from the website referred in auditors’ report are found relevant and are not produced by the plaintiffs though referred in the said auditors’ report, court can draw appropriate inference in that regard.

¶31

In so far as documents referred to at serial no.16 of the schedule is concerned, my attention is invited to paragraph (2) of the reply dated 19^th March, 2013. It is stated by the plaintiffs that at this stage, the plaintiffs are not relying upon any such documents. If at the time of hearing of the Notice of Motion, it is found that those documents are relevant in respect of which the inspection is refused, on the ground that the plaintiffs are not relying on the same, this court can draw adverse influence.

kvm

4/4

10-CHS145.11

In respect of other documents referred in the schedule, learned counsel appearing for defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4 does not press inspection in respect thereof at this stage. Statement is accepted.

¶36

Plaintiffs are directed to offer inspection of the remaining documents if any to defendant nos. 5 to 9 in accordance with the requisitions already received within three weeks from today.

¶37

Chamber Summons is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Icici Bank Ltd. and 22 Ors. v. Vipul Desai and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Ltd. and 22 Ors. v. Vipul Desai and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kutubnisha Moh. Hasan Shah Vs Sonambano Moh. Hasan Shah and 3 Ors.

Nareshkumar Sampatraj Jain Vs Vinodkumar Sampatraj Jain

Paul Duming Ferreira Vs 1.GENEVIEVE Henriques and Anr.

M/S K. Bhatia Constructons Vs Maheshwar Niwas Chs. Ltd. and Bharat Ashar and 7 Ors.

Icici Bank Ltd. and 22 Ors. Vs Vipul Desai and 8 Ors.

Pankaj R. Patel and 7 Ors. Vs R. a. Jhaveri and 10 Ors.