Appeal 523 of 2007 in Judges Order 146 of 2007 in Suit No. 1809 of 2006. Case: Sarvadaman Mansukhlal Doshi And Ors. Vs Deepak Mansukhlal Doshi. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Appeal 523 of 2007 in Judges Order 146 of 2007 in Suit No. 1809 of 2006 |
| Counsel | D J Khambatta, M S Doctor, Bachubhai Munim & Co, Sarvasri Virag Tulzapurkar, Bindi Dave, Jaidip Singh, Wadia Ghandy & Co |
| Judges | Judges |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 11, 43, 11, Rules 18, 1, 15, Section 2(9), 30; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 17B; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 137, 138(1)(b), 138 |
| Citation | 2007 (5) BomCR 569 |
| Judgement Date | July 13, 2007 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Heard. Admit. The learned Advocates appearing onbehalf of the respondents waive service. By consent,heard forthwith.
By the present appeal, the order dated 4-5-2007passed in Judges Order No.146 of 2007 in Suit No.1809 of2006 is under challenge. By the impugned order, theIncome-tax Department has been directed to depositcertain documents either in originals or the certifiedcopies thereof in the Court and also to give thenecessary information, as directed under the impugnedorder.
The challenge to the impugned order is on the groundthat the learned single Judge had no jurisdiction toorder production of the documents without ascertainingthe relevancy of the documents for adjudication of thematter in dispute. It is further contention on behalfof the appellants that the impugned order is on par withthe one in the nature of direction to the witness toproduce the documents by issuing summons under theprovisions of Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure,hereinafter called as "the Code", and the occasion forissuance of such summons can arise only when the issuesare framed and settled and not at any stage earlierthereto and the same having been totally ignored, theimpugned order is liable to be set aside. It is theircontention that Section 30 of the C.P.C. clearlyprovides that the exercise of power to order discoveryand the production of documents is subject to suchconditions and limitations as may be prescribed and thattherefore the same is subject to the provisions of Order16 of the Code which has been totally ignored by thelearned single Judge while passing the impugned order.It is their further contention that the impugned orderforecloses the right of the appellants to object to therelevancy and/or admissibility of such documents andinformation in evidence as the production of thedocuments and the disclosure of information is orderedeven without following the procedure prescribed for thesame under the law and in that context the impugnedorder affects the valuable rights of the appellants.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing forthe respondents has raised a preliminary objection aboutthe non-maintainability of the appeal in as much as thatthe impugned order is not a judgment within the meaningof the said expression under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent. It is their further contention that the theconditions and limitations which are prescribed forexercise of power under Section 30 of the Code are thoseenumerated under Order 11 of the Code and the same donot restrict the power of the Court to order theproduction of documents and/or disclosure of informationeven prior to the filing of the written statement by thedefendant and there is no restriction that such an ordercan be passed only after framing of the issues. It istheir further contention that the impugned order clearlydiscloses that the Court has clearly considered therelevancy of the documents and the production thereof atthe stage at which the same are ordered to be produced.In any case, since the impugned order has been passedfor further progress of the suit, it does not amount toa judgment and is purely an interlocutory order.
Both the counsel in support of their rivalcontentions have relied upon the decision of the ApexCourt in the matter of Shah Babulal Khimji v. JayabenD. Kania and another, reported in (1981) 4 SCC 8. Thelearned counsel appearing for the appellants has furtherdrawn our attention to Section 138 of the Income-TaxAct, 1961 to contend that nothing forbids therespondents from approaching the income-tax authoritiesfor necessary information and since there is a specificprovision and procedure laid down for obtaining theinformation from the income-tax authorities, theintervention of the civil Court to obtain suchinformation and the documents impliedly standsrestricted to in that regard. Reliance is also placedin the decision in the matter of M/s. Dagi Ram PindiLall and another v. Trilok...
To continue reading
Request your trial