The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an application by a respondent seeking to further examine a witness after the conclusion of cross-examination, citing delays and procedural irregularities, and imposed costs.
Application rejected with a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the 1st Respondent to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CA No. 106/2023 IN CA No.864/2004 IN COP No.30/1997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
CA NO. 106/2023 IN CA NO.864/2004 IN COP NO.30/1997
BETWEEN:
THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S MOTHER CARE (INDIA) LTD IN LIQN ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, D AND F WING, 4TH FLOOR, KENDRIYA SADANA, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034.
…APPLICANT
(BY SRI. ARAVIND M NEGLUR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.REVATHI ADINATH NARDE., ADVOCATE)
THIS APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER RULE 6 & 9 OF THE COMPANY COURT RULES 1956, PRAYING FOR CLAIMING A
CA No. 106/2023 IN CA No.864/2004 IN COP No.30/1997
TOTAL SUM OF RS.9,26,26,567/- (RUPEES NINE CRORE TWENTY SIX LAKH TWENTY SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN ONLY) WITH INTEREST TO BE RECOVERED FROM THE RESPONDENTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AND ETC.,
THIS APPLICATION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Application is moved by the 1st Respondent
seeking permission to further examine RW1. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent now submits that in paragraph No.3 of the Application reason has been assigned as to why he wants to lead further examination in chief, which reads as under:
“It is submitted that the Examination–inchief by inadvertence did not contain any deposition regarding the Points of claim No. VII, VIII AND IX IN the prayer column. This may be duet to the fact that this respondent at the relevant time was in USA and could not give instructions physically to his Advocate in India.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Official
Liquidator vehemently opposes the Application contending that at this stage of the recording of evidence, Application of the kind does not lie going by the version of any
standard books on law on evidence such as Rupert Cross’s Law of Evidence. Years have rolled after the examination in chief was accomplished way back in the year 2016 and cross-examination too has been accomplished. She also draws attention of the Court to what is stated at paragraph No.4 of the Application and the same reads as under:
“It is submitted that this Respondent noticed his inability to give necessary instruction has lead to certain short comings in the cross examination. Therefore, an application was filed on 22.06.2021 seeking to further cross examine the applicant. It was allowed and this Respondent cross examined the applicant on certain aspects of the matter. The present application may also be allowed on the same grounds of facts and principles.”
and having perused the paper, this Court is in complete agreement with the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator and therefore the subject Application is liable to be rejected with a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the 1st Respondent to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru,
CA No. 106/2023 IN CA No.864/2004 IN COP No.30/1997
within four weeks and delay if brooked, would attract additional levy of Rs.100 per day.
Ordered accordingly and CA No.106/2023 is disposed off.
Sd/JUDGE
Bsv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether permission to further examine a witness after cross-examination has concluded lies under the circumstances.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Official Liquidator of M/S Mother Care (India) Ltd
Sri. Prakash Lachman Ahuja
Sri. Bharath J Doshi
Prof. Ramaswamy P Aiyar
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
