| |
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 296
|
| Court : High Court of Karnataka |
| Case No : Company Application Nos. 34, 35 Of 2026, 318 of 2023 In Company Petition No.57 Of 2012 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE |
| Parties : Hitachi Payments Services Pvt. Ltd., Represented By Managing Director, Loney Antony, Chennai & Others Versus Official Liquidator Of M/S United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. (In Liqn), Bengaluru |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Applicants: Shreyas Acharya, Lakshmi Menon, Advocates. For the Respondent: Krutika Raghavan, OL. |
| Date of Judgment : 13-03-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Section 60(C) -
Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC 15026,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 60(C) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Rule 6 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959
- Rule 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959
- Order Viii Rule 1a(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (as referred to in point 5)
2. Catch Words:
secondary evidence, production of documents, admissibility, proof, original documents, office copies, objection
3. Summary:
The Court considered applications C.A.No.34/2026 and C.A.No.35/2026 seeking production of five documents as secondary evidence, alleging originals were unavailable. The Official Liquidator opposed, questioning the availability of originals, especially the license agreement. Applicants assured efforts to locate originals. The Court held that, subject to compliance with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the documents may be produced and marked for identification, without deciding on their admissibility or proof at this stage. The same approach was applied to additional documents sought in C.A.No.35/2026. Both applications were allowed, with final determination of admissibility deferred to the main hearing.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: This Company Application is filed under Section 60(C) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 read with Section 151 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Rule 6 and 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 that for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Applicant No.1 prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take photocopies of following documents on record in the interest of justice.
This Company Application is filed under Order Viii Rule 1a(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Rules 6 and 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 that for the reasons stated in the Accompanying Affidavit, the Applicant No.1 prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take photocopies of following documents on record in the interest of justice.)
Oral Order
1. CA.No.34/2026 is filed for production of five documents and all those documents according to the applicants are secondary evidence of the originals and the applicants claim that originals are not available and misplaced and on this ground seek production of secondary evidence.
2. Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator would oppose the application on the premise that no ground is made out to permit production of secondary evidence. It is also the contention that in case the original is not available with the applicants, it is quite possible that the original of the license agreement marked as Annexure-1 may be with other parties to the said license agreement.
3. Learned that for the applicants by way of reply would submit that the necessary efforts will be made to secure the originals of the license agreement if they are with the parties to the said agreement.
4. It is urged that rest of the documents sought to be produced are the office copies of the communication addressed by the applicants and there cannot be any objection for production of those office copies.
5. To produce the secondary evidence and to admit the same in evidence, the party must satisfy that the requirements for production of secondary evidence as contemplated under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
6. This Court is of the view that keeping open all objections permissible under law, production of documents may be allowed and the documents may be permitted to be marked in evidence for identification of the documents. The question on admissibility and proof be decided at the time of final hearing of the Company Application in which the application is filed for production of documents.
7. This order should not be construed as having held anything on the admissibility or proof of documents sought to be produced.
8. Accordingly, C.A.No.34/2026 allowed as indicated above.
9. C.A.No.35/2026 is filed for production of additional documents. The production of additional documents is allowed. Admissibility and proof is subject to law and all such questions shall be decided at the time of final disposal of C.A.No.318/2023. The documents can be marked in evidence for the purpose of identification.
10. Accordingly, C.A.No.35/2026 allowed to the above said extent.
|
| |
