Dismissed

Moh Mohsin Khan Asif Khan v. Rajendra Radhakisan Jakhete

Bombay HC5 Feb 2019WP/4758/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenges the rejection of an application to compel the production of income tax returns to prove a financial claim. The court held that the specific burden of proof lies with the party advancing a particular case, so the impugned order was not perverse or erroneous.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as it is devoid of merit and the impugned order is not perverse or erroneous.

Moh Mohsin Khan Asif Khan Vs Rajendra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4758 OF 2018 (Moh.Mohsin Khan Asif Khan Vs. Rajendra Radhakisan Jakhete)

¶4

Mr.V.B.Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.M.R.Malpani h/f Mr.A.B.Kale, learned Advocate for respondent.

¶5

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

¶6

DATE : 05/02/2019

¶7

PER COURT :

¶8

I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent.

¶9

Grievance of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the Trial Court has rejected application Exh.96 filed by him in Spl.Civil Suit No.62/2014, vide the impugned order dated 11/12/2017. The petitioner had sought a direction that the defendant should produce his income tax returns for the accounting year 01/04/2009 to 31/03/2010, 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011 and 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012. He desired to establish the payment of Rs.32,00,000/- that he has made to the respondent and that is not a part of any business transaction. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that it was a hand loan. The defendant has come forward with a case that the payment was on account of a business transaction.

¶10

khs/FEB.2019/4758-d

¶11

- 2 -

¶12

The Trial Court has concluded that the payment of Rs.32,00,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant in the month of January 2010 has been proved by oral and documentary evidence as the said payment was made by cheque and the bank statement Exh.48 proves the said payment.

¶13

I find from the pleadings of the defendant that he claims that the said payments have been made, not by way of a hand loan, but on account of their partnership business. It requires no debate that the party which pleads a specific case has to prove the said pleadings. The defendant, therefore, will have to establish his case based on his pleadings.

¶14

In view of the above, I do not find that the impugned order could be termed as being perverse or erroneous. This petition, being devoid of merit, is therefore dismissed.

¶15

( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

¶16

khs/FEB.2019/4758-d

Moh Mohsin Khan Asif Khan v. Rajendra Radhakisan Jakhete

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moh Mohsin Khan Asif Khan v. Rajendra Radhakisan Jakhete

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

Ashok Chandmal Lodha and Others Vs Mahesh Ramkrishna Patil Deshpande and Another

Rohini Shrirang Gaikwad Vs Shrirang Sadashiv Gaikwad

Gautam Vijay Bora Vs Ajay Sahebrao Baraskar and Others

Ramesh Shankar Bhagwat Vs Babanrao Baburao Rokade

Pandu Dhondiba Nikale and Others. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Narendrakumar Kachrulal Abad and Ors. Vs Shaikh Jafar Shaikh Imam and Ors.