Allowed

Director General of Training v. the Mysore Kirloskar Ltd., (in Liqn)

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2026CA/232/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence by marking photocopies of five documents. The judge accepted that government originals were destroyed as per normal practice but noted compliance with other evidence law requirements remains the applicant's duty.

What did the court decide?

Application C.A.No.232/2025 allowed; applicant permitted to mark photocopies of five documents as secondary evidence on 24.02.2026.

Director General of Training Vs the Mysore… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9798 CA NO. 232 OF 2025 IN CA.NO.607/2008 IN COP.NO.166/2001 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 232 OF 2025

¶7

¶8

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.607 OF 2008

¶9

¶10

COMPANY PETITION NO.166/2001 C/W 77 & 78/2000, 20, 21, 22, 60, 61 OF 2001, 1/2002, 105/02, 70/2003 AND 83/2000

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF TRAINING

¶13

FORMERLY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

¶14

…APPLICANT

¶15

(BY SRI. CHANDRACHUD A.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

THE MYSORE KIRLOSKAR LTD., (IN LIQN) REP BY OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 4^TH FLOR, D AND F WINF KENDRIYA SOUDHA KARNATAKA BENGALURU-34

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI.JAGADEESH GOUD PATIL .,ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 60 OF BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM PRAYING TO RESPONDENT HEREIN BE OREDERED AND DECREED TO PAY TO THE APPLICANT A SUM OF RS. 12,17,625.00 WITH INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM FROM 1.6.2008 TO TILL THE DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT AND FUTURE INTEREST AND ETC

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:9798 CA NO. 232 OF 2025 IN CA.NO.607/2008 IN COP.NO.166/2001 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS COMPANY APPLICATION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

1. The applicant is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶28

a) that the respondent herein be ordered and decreed to pay to the applicant a sum of Rs.12,17,625.00 with interest at 6% per annum from 1.6.2008 to till the date of the judgment and future interest and etc.,

¶29

The submission of Chandrachud A., learned counsel for

¶30

the applicant, is that a claim has been made against the applicant in C.A. No. 607/2008. Evidence has been led on the basis of the available original documents. However, certain other documents, of which the originals are not available, are required to be marked in evidence. It is for that purpose that the above application has been filed seeking permission to delete secondary evidence.

¶31

His submission is that the claim against the Company having been made only in the year 2008. The relevant documents had been destroyed much earlier, and it is

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:9798 CA NO. 232 OF 2025 IN CA.NO.607/2008 IN COP.NO.166/2001 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

only the scanned copies which are maintained by the applicant. Printouts of the scanned copies have been taken for the purpose of production during the course of evidence.

¶36

The applicant being the Director General of Training in Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi, I am of the considered opinion that the submission made by the Central Government undertaking would have to be accepted that the documents have been scanned and destroyed, which is a normal practice followed by the Government Department. As such, the application in C.A.No.232/2025 seeking for leading secondary evidence would have to be allowed, since the originals, which were in the custody of the applicant, have now been destroyed and only scanned copies are available.

¶37

Allowing of the application for leading secondary evidence does not substitute the proof of the contents of the said documents and compliance with the other requirements under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2024, which the applicant would have to fulfil.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:9798 CA NO. 232 OF 2025 IN CA.NO.607/2008 IN COP.NO.166/2001 AND CONNECTED MATTERS

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The application is allowed only for the limited purpose of

¶42

marking the photocopies of the documents. Hence, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) C.A.No.232/2025 is allowed .

¶45

ii) The applicant is permitted to mark the photocopies of the five documents indicated therein as secondary evidence, subject to the observation made herein.

¶46

iii) The marking of the documents should be done on 24.02.2026, which is a date already fixed.

¶47

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶48

KTY

Director General of Training v. the Mysore Kirloskar Ltd., (in Liqn)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Director General of Training v. the Mysore Kirloskar Ltd., (in Liqn)

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

Sri.Srinivasa, Vs the Chief Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal

Smt a P Vilasalathika Vs State of Karnataka

National Centre for Biological Sciences (Ncbs) Vs the Commissioner

M/S Gk Ispat Vs M/S. Blue Horizon Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

T N Jagadeesh Vs Chairman / Deputy Commissioner

The Official Liquidator of Vs Karnataka Industrial Ares Development Board