Disposed

H.T. Media Limited v. First Labour Court, Kolkata and Anr.

Calcutta HC20 Aug 2024WPA/20862/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging interim orders directing a company to produce annual returns absent from its custody. The court directed the Labour Court to conclude proceedings and modified an order reducing costs under conditions.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings disposed; First Labour Court directed to conclude pending proceedings; August 9, 2024 order costs reduced contingent on Rs. 2,500 payment.

H.T. Media Limited Vs First Labour Court, Kolkata… — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

D/L 04. August 20, 2024. KAUSHIK.

¶2

WPA No.20862 of 2024

¶3

H. T. Media Limited Vs.

¶4

First Labour Court & Anr.

¶5

Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee Mr. Varun Kedia Ms. Priyanka Prasad Mr. Avee Jaiswal

¶6

… for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Mainak Bose Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh Mr. Aniket Nanda

¶8

…for the resdpondent no. 2.

¶9

The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the interim orders dated July 25, 2024, August 5, 2024 and August 9, 2024 respectively.

¶10

Briefly, the petitioner is aggrieved by the repeateddirections for production and proving of the Annual Returns of the petitioner-company for the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 respectively.

¶11

On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner is not in possession or custody of any the aboveannual reports and cannot produce the same. Notwithstanding this fact, the Learned Tribunal is repeatedly directing the petitioner to produce the above records. In such view of the matter, there is a stalemate in the proceedings and the non furnishing of such

¶12

¶13

records is obstructing the progress of the trial. The petitioner also assails the order dated August 5, 2024 whereby the First Labour Court is alleged to have shifted the burden of proof for proving the above records on the petitioner.

¶14

On behalf of the respondent no. 2, it is submitted that the above documents are public documents under Section 92 of the Companies Act, 1952 and in terms of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof of the same is on the petitioner. Admittedly, the Annual Returns are already on record before the First Labour Court and have been adduced by the private respondent.

¶15

In view of the fact that the proceedings are still pending before the First Labour Court, WPA 20862 of 2024 stands disposed of by directing the First Labour Court to expeditiously proceed in accordance with law and conclude the proceedings in terms of the earlier order dated July 9, 2022.

¶16

It is fairly submitted on behalf of the private respondent that, in the absence of the writ petitioner being unable to produce the records, there are ample powers both under the Evidence Act, 1872 as well as under the Companies Act, 2013 to proceed in accordance with law and to draw any adverse inference, if the circumstances

¶17

¶18

so arise. In view of the above, the Tribunal has sufficient powersto proceed in case the petitioner chooses not to adduce evidence.

¶19

The order dated August 9, 2024 stands modified to the limited extent that the costs awarded stand reduced on the condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.2,500/- to the DLSA, Kolkata and furnish proof thereof before the Trial Court.

¶20

Both partiesundertake not to take any unnecessary adjournments before the First Labour Court.

¶21

(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)

H.T. Media Limited v. First Labour Court, Kolkata and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.T. Media Limited v. First Labour Court, Kolkata and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Bharany Vs Raj Kishore Modi and Ors.

M/S. Loknath Security Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Asraf Ali Laskar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Bata India Limited Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Indian River Transport Co. Ltd. (in Liqn.) Vs

Sujoy Das Vs Union of India and Ors.