Dismissed

Bhadresh Trading Corporation Limited v. Sugoi Asia Limited

Bombay HC6 Dec 2016CA/621/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a company application for inspection of documents. The court held that no documents cited by the respondent were relied upon by the petitioner and viewed the request as an impermissible fishing inquiry, noting the authority to decide document validity lies at the hearing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The company application is dismissed. The Respondent is directed to file a reply by 16 December 2016, with the petition hearing scheduled for 20 December 2016.

Bhadresh Trading Corporation Limited Vs Sugoi Asia… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2016)

cal 760-2016.doc

1/2

sat

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

¶5

COMPANY APPLICATION (L) NO. 760 OF 2016 IN

¶6

COMPANY PETITION NO. 324 OF 2016

¶7

Sugoi Asia Ltd. …Petitioner vs.

¶8

Bhadresh Trading Corporation Ltd. ....Respondent / Respondent

¶9

Mr.Rahul Narichania, Senior Advocate with MR.Nihal Sheikh I/b. Mustafa Motiwala for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Harish Pandya I/b. Rajendra Kookada I/b. Kookada & Associates for Respondent / Applicant in CAL 760/2016.

¶11

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

¶12

6 DECEMBER 2016

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶15

2 This application seeks inspection of documents referred to and relied on by the Petitioner in the company petition. When queried about the identity of the documents of which inspection was sought by the Applicant, since there is no schedule to the application or the affidavit in support thereof, learned Counsel for the Applicant refers to the letter dated 10 August 2016 addressed by the Advocates of the Applicant to the Advocate of the Petitioner and also another letter dated 24 August 2016 following the first letter. By these letters, the Applicant purports to record the inspection of documents which was given by the Petitioner. Insofar as the bills of exchange are concerned (which form part of the documents on which the Petitioner's debt in the present petition is based), the Applicant in its letters records that the originals of these bills of exchange were stated to be under

¶16

2/2 cal 760-2016.doc

¶17

sat

¶18

the custody of State Bank of India, Rajkot Branch and that hence, inspection of the originals was not given. The letters list out a number of documents of which inspection was not given. If one has regard to these documents, it is clear that none of these documents is referred or relied upon by the Petitioner in its petition. Secondly, the request for making available these documents is in the nature of a fishing inquiry which the Applicant is not permitted to engage in. Based on whatever documents the Petitioner has given inspection of to the Applicant, the Applicant may well be in a position to file its reply to the company petition. As for the other documents of which inspection was purportedly not given by the Petitioner, the Petitioner shall take consequences of non-disclosure. That is the matter for the court to decide at the hearing of the petition. There is accordingly no merit in the company application and the same is dismissed.

¶19

3 Learned Counsel for the Applicant refers to his objections concerning the validity of the documents relied upon by the Petitioner and requests for recording those objections in this order. An application such as this is not a place where such request can be entertained. The request is rejected.

¶20

4 The Respondent is directed to file its reply to the petition and serve a copy of the same on the Petitioner latest by 16 December 2016. The petition to come up for admission on 20 December 2016.

Bhadresh Trading Corporation Limited v. Sugoi Asia Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhadresh Trading Corporation Limited v. Sugoi Asia Limited

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

Geometric Ltd. Vs -

Quadrant Engineers Ltd. Vs -

Vision International Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs -

P.D. Hinduja National Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Anr. Vs Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors.

P.D. Hinduja National Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Anr. Vs Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors.

Sicom Ltd. Vs Lav Chadha and Anr.