Bombay High Court
Shrikant R. Patel And Anr vs Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. And Anr on 17 January, 2018
Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.158 OF 2018
1. Shrikant R. Patel, ]
Indian Inhabitant, ]
R/at 1, Adarsh Nagar Society, ]
Near Alkapuri, B/H, Mahagujarat Hospital, ]
College Road, Nadiad - 387 001. ]
2. Shailesh R. Patel, ]
R/at 25519, Beresford Dr. South Riding, ]
Chantily - 20152 - 3903 ] .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., ]
A Company incorporated under the ]
Companies Act, 1956, and having its ]
Registered Office at 'B' Wing, 2nd Floor, ]
Ahura Centre, Mahakali Caves Road, ]
Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 093. ]
2. M/s. Jay Ambe Distributors, ]
A Firm was carrying on business at ]
B.N. Chambers, R.C. Dutt Road, ]
Vadodara - 390 005. ] .... Respondents
Mr. Vishal Kanade, a/w. Ms. Tanmayee Salekar, Ms. Chhaya Parab and
Ms. Aditi Singh, i/by M/s. Shah & Sanghavi, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Prasad Dani, Senior Counsel, a/w. Mr. Kunal Mehta, Mr. Subradeep
Banerjee and Mr. Naishadh Bhatia, i/by M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co., for
the Respondents.
CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : 17 TH JANUARY 2018.
WP-158-18.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, at the stage
of admission itself, by consent of Mr. Kanade, learned counsel for the
Petitioners, and Mr. Dani, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that, he is restricting
this Petition only in respect of the documents produced at Exhibits "11",
"13" and "15" in Special Civil Suit No.9951 of 1988 pending before the
City Civil Court, Bombay. As regards the documents at Exhibits "11"
and "13", they are typed copies of the letters dated 20 th September 1986
and 28th November 1986, addressed by the Respondent-Plaintiff to the
Petitioner-Defendant No.1. It appears that, the Trial Court has exhibited
those letters even without following the procedure laid down in Section
65(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, which contemplates the notice to be
given, as laid down under Section 66 of the said Act.
3. In view thereof, learned counsel for the Respondents fairly
concedes that, he will issue such notice, as laid down under Section 66 of
the Indian Evidence Act, in respect of these two letters and, accordingly,
typed copies of the letters dated 20th September 1986 and 28th
November 1986 are de-exhibited and to that extent, the Petition needs
to be allowed.
WP-158-18.doc
4. As regards the photocopy of the letter dated 5 th December 1986,
issued by the Bank of Baroda and addressed to the Respondent-Plaintiff,
which the Trial Court has marked as "Exhibit-15", learned counsel for
the Respondents fairly concedes that, he will have to get the said letter
proved by examining the concerned Officer from the Bank of Baroda
and, therefore, the said letter also needs to be de-exhibited.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in the terms that, letters
dated 20th September 1986, 28th November 1986 and 5th December
1986, which were marked as "Exhibit-11", "Exhibit-13" and "Exhibit-
15" in Special Civil Suit No.9951 of 1988 pending before the City Civil
Court, Bombay, are de-exhibited.
6. Liberty is given to learned counsel for the Respondents to take
necessary steps of exhibiting those letters by following the due
procedure of law.
7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]
WP-158-18.doc
