Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sambhaji Dashrath Patil and Another

Bombay HC10 Jul 2014WP/5829/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order that refused to exhibit a police statement recorded under Section 162 CrPC. The court distinguished the cited precedent, holding that the judgment allowed use of the statement but not its exhibition without the author's examination.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no interference with the Labour Court order.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sambhaji… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5829 OF 2013

¶4

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Adalat Road, Aurangabad.

¶5

...Petitioner (Ori. Opponent No. 2)

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sambhaji S/o Dashrath Patil, Age 32 years, Occu: Cleaner, R/o: At Post Mondhale, Tq: Parola, Dist: Jalgaon.

¶8

Mrs. Sarojben W/o Chandulal Agrawal, Aged: Major, Occ: Owner, R/o: At Post Maliyasan, Dist: Rajkot, Gujrat. …. Respondents (Resp. No. 1 is Ori. Claimant & Resp. No. 2 is Ori. Opponent No.1)

¶9

Ms S. A. Nirban, Advocate h/f Mr R. F. Totala, Advocate for petitioner

¶10

CORAM : N. W. SAMBRE, J.

¶11

DATED : 10^th JULY, 2014.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT: -

¶13

Impugned in the present petition is an order dated 9th

¶14

January, 2013 passed below Exh. U-8 by the Labour Court, Jalgaon, in Workmen's Compensation Application No. 34 of 2011. The

¶15

petitioner has also prayed for exhibiting the statement recorded by

¶16

the Police during the course of investigation on 31st October, 2009.

¶17

WP5829.2013

¶18

-2-

¶19

The petitioner, Insurance Company, during the course of cross-examination of the claimant, prayed before the learned Labour Court that, since the petitioner who has given the statement to the police authorities during the course of investigation was admitted and as such, same be exhibited.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, invited attention of this Court to the judgment delivered by this Court in the matter of Ranjit Satardekar & anr. Versus Joe Mathias & anr. reported in 2006(4) Bom.C.R. 847 , so as to canvass that, the statement recorded by the police officer under Section 162 of the Civil Procedure Code could be used in civil proceedings in view of provisions of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and there is no bar against its production or use. The learned Counsel has invited attention of this Court to the observations made by this Court in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. The learned Counsel based upon the above referred judgment has submitted that, the order passed by the Labour Court refusing to exhibit the document is not sustainable in the eyes of law as same is contrary to the scheme of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶21

WP5829.2013

¶22

-3-

¶23

Having gone through the said judgment and having perused the provisions of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, in my opinion, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the said judgment is misplaced. What is referred to or under challenge in the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is rejection of an application moved by the petitioner in the said case for summoning the Inspector of the Police Station to produce the statement recorded under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While dealing with the said contention, this Court after relying upon the catena of the decisions has held that, the said document i.e. a statement recorded by the police under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be used in civil proceedings in view of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. However, it cannot be stretched the stage of exhibiting the document in absence of author of the document is examined.

¶24

In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition as such fails and same is dismissed.

¶25

( N. W. SAMBRE, J. )

¶26

Punde

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sambhaji Dashrath Patil and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sambhaji Dashrath Patil and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Jija Dhakarge and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sahebrao Vithoba Pawar Vs Vithoba Ramkrishna Pawar and Others

Bhalchand Karbhari Lakhare and Ors. Vs G G Mavale , Asst Registrar Co-Op Societies Akole and Ors.

Narayan Ganpat Gaikwad Vs Ramdaya C.Kabra(Decd)Lrrs Lilawati R.Kabra and Ors.

President Shri Vasantrao Naik Shik.Pra.Man.and Anr. Vs Rajashree Laxmanrao Salve and Anr.

Rajkumar Bandappa Malbhage Vs the President Vidyamrut Shikshan Prasarak Mandal