Disposed

M/S Coffee Day Global Ltd. v. M/S Sundarya Graphics

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2024WP/2747/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order allowing the marking of document photocopies as exhibits. The Court kept all objections regarding admissibility and relevance open for the Trial Court's final disposal without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order permitting the marking of documents as exhibits was modified to keep objections for the Trial Court.

M/S Coffee Day Global Ltd. Vs M/S Sundarya Graphics — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:10770 WP No. 2747 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2747 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LTD A REGISTERED COMPANY UNDER COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 23/2, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BANGALORE 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR UPAKARAN GUPTA DESIGNATION SENIOR MANGER MERCHANDISE AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.DHARMENDRA CHATUR AND SRI. MANU KULKARNI.,ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

M/S SUNDARYA GRAPHICS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN

¶13

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

NO 26 A STREET, NEW GUDDADAHALLI

¶15

MYSORE ROAD

¶16

BANGALORE 560 026.

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR

¶18

MR S PREM ANAND.

¶19

MR V G SIDDARTHA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶20

MRS VASANTHI G HEGADE W/O MR GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHETTANAHALLI ESTATE CHEKANAHALLI POST CHIKMAGALUR 577 132.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:10770 WP No. 2747 of 2023

¶23

MRS MALVIKA HEGADE W/O LATE MR V G SIDDARATH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶24

MR ISHANYA HEGADE S/O LATE MR V G SIDDARATH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶25

MR AMARTHYA HEGADE S/O LATE MR V G SIDDARATH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶26

ALL RESIDING AT: NO. 28, 3^RD CROSS, 9^TH MAIN OPPOSITE TO CORPORATION BANK RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVNAGAR BANGALORE – 560 080.

¶27

MR A VENU MADHAV S/O SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO B 301 MANTRI ESPADA

¶28

KARIYAMMA AGRAHARA BELLANDUR NEXT TO SAKKARA HOSPITAL BENGALURU 560 103.

¶29

MR JAYRAJ C HUBLI S/O C S HUBBALI AGED AOBUT 66 YEARS, CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER AND

¶30

CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER M/S COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED NO 23/2 VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶31

MR SUBROTO LAHARI S/O LATE MR S K LAHARI AGED AOBUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO 68 FLAT NO 3C 1^ST MAIN ST BED 4^TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU 560 034.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. R. KIRAN.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1 NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-8 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED: 26.09.2023)

¶34

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10770 WP No. 2747 of 2023

¶35

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 17.01.2023 VIDE ANNX-D PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMERCIAL COURT JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-83 IN COM.O.S.25061/2017.

¶36

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

This petition by the defendant No.1 in

¶39

Comm.O.S.25061/2017 is directed against the impugned order dated 17.01.2023 whereby the Commercial Court permitted the Court Commissioner to mark photocopies of the documents produced by the respondent No.1-plaintiff as exhibits in the suit.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶41

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendants No.1 and other defendants for recovery of sum of Rs.4,82,76,262/- together with interest and other reliefs. The said suit is being contested by the defendants. The respondent No.1 examined PW.1 on its behalf and Court Commissioner was appointed for recording evidence of PW.1. During the course of recording the evidence of PW.1 by the Court

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10770 WP No. 2747 of 2023

¶43

Commissioner, certain Photostat copies were sought to be marked on behalf of the respondent No.1-plaintiff which were opposed by the petitioner despite which the Court Commissioner proceeded and marked the said documents as exhibits and the same having been confirmed by the Trial Court vide impugned order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶44

Though several contentions have urged by the both sides in support of their respective claims as regards admissibility, marking, proof, relevance, probative value etc., in relation to the documents sought to be marked on behalf of respondent No.1 (PW.1), without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, and in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs State of

¶45

Gujarat and Another SCC (2001) 3 SS, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by modifying the impugned order and by directing that all the documents marked on behalf of the respondent No.1-plaintiff through PW.1 would be subject to objections relating to admissibility, marking, proof, relevance, probative value etc., and the said issues/questions are left/kept

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10770 WP No. 2747 of 2023

¶47

open to be decided by the Trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit.

¶48

All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including the aforesaid aspects in relation to the documents are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶49

Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶50

Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to further cross-examine PW.1 on all aspects of the matter including the aforesaid documents.

¶51

SD/JUDGE

¶52

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

M/S Coffee Day Global Ltd. v. M/S Sundarya Graphics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Coffee Day Global Ltd. v. M/S Sundarya Graphics

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

Sri Medehal Reddy Basavaraja Goud, Vs Mr. Bollimekala Chandrasekhar

Sri H S Kalleshappa Vs Sri H P Veerabhadrappa

Sri K T Prakash Vs Sri Prasanna Kumara K P

Smt B a Rajeshwari Vs Smt. Gowramma

Mr Syed Zahid Ali Vs M/s. Ganapathi Vishnu Lakshmi

Anjan Kumar Barikh Vs M/S Veritas Finance Private Limited