OCD-61 WT 62 2017:CHC-OS:75
In the High Court at Calcutta
Commercial Division
Original Side
CS-COM/686/2024
[OLD NO CS/169/2013] [CSCOM/54/2024]
IA NO: GA/3/2013(Old No: GA/2390/2013),
GA/5/2013(Old No: GA/2558/2013),
GA/7/2018(Old No: GA/446/2018),
GA-COM/9/2025
WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD
VS
UCO BANK
WITH
CS/42/2024
UCO BANK
VS
WEST BENGAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
Date : 26th February, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Sabyasachi Choudhury, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Sreyaan Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Mr. Sourjya Roy, Adv.
...for UCO Bank.
Mr. Tilak Kr. Bose, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Vineeta Meharia, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Yamini Mookherjee, Adv.
Ms. Sharmistha Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Amit Ghosh, Adv.
...for WBIDFC.
In Re: GA-COM/9/2025:
The Court :- In this application though affidavit-in-opposition has been
filed by the respondent UCO bank, but the plaintiff submits it shall not file
any affidavit-in-reply and as such, the plaintiff shall proceed on the existing
record.
2
2017:CHC-OS:75
This is an application filed by the plaintiff with the following prayers;
"a. Produce the documents for inspection mentioned
in Paragraph 7 at an appropriate venue; and give sufficient
time to the Plaintiff to complete the inspection of the
documents mentioned in the Notice to Produce.
b. Any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit."
Upon the application being moved on several occasions, opportunities
were granted to the defendant to produce the documents. The documents are
more particularly and precisely stated in the notice to produce dated July 15,
2025, "Annexure-A" at page 8 to the application.
Ms. Yamini Mookherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has
referred to, inter alia, the orders dated July 24, 2025, September 8, 2025,
September 11, 2025 and thereafter, the orders dated September 15 and
September 16, 2025 wherefrom it would be evident that despite repeated
opportunities being granted to the defendant bank, the bank has failed to
produce the documents.
The stand taken by the bank in its affidavit-in-opposition would appear
from the paragraphs, which are quoted below;
"3. The notice to produce dated July 15, 2025 is not
in proper form and manner as prescribed Order XI Rule 5
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), as amended
by The Commercial courts Act, 2015 ("the 2015 Act"). The
suit is a commercial dispute within the meaning of the
2015 Act, tried by the Commercial Division of this Hon'ble
Court. Accordingly, the notice to produce documents ought
to have been issued under the provisions of Order XI Rule
5 of CPC.
CS-COM/686/2024
A.R., J.
2017:CHC-OS:75
4. The notice to produce dated July 15, 2025 has
been issued purportedly under Order XI Rule 16 of the
CPC. The said provision is not applicable to commercial
disputes.
5. The provisions of Order XI Rule 5 (2) of CPC
require that notice to produce a document shall be issued
in the form provided in Form No. 7 in Appendix C to CPC.
The defendant Bank reserves its right to make necessary
submissions at the time of hearing.
* * *
8. The records of the suit are voluminous. The
dispute in the suit pertains to the period 2012-13 and the
documents sought for are at least 10 years old, if not more.
It is not the intention of the bank to not to produce such
documents, if the same can be identified and recovered. In
view of the change of the personnel of the manager of the
bank at Circus Avenue Branch as well as officers below
the rank of the manager of the said manager and also by
reason of change in personnel/officers, both at the Zonal
Office and the Head Office of the bank, the documents
could not be immediately traced out for production."
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the Bank submits
that despite repeated endeavours on the part of the bank, the documents
could not be traced out and as such, could not be produced. He further
submits that documents are old. The appropriate authority of the bank
searched for but could not trace it out.
After considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of
the materials on record, it appears to this Court that, the defence taken by the
bank in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition is purely technical.
The notice to produce dated July 15, 2025 being Annexure-A to the
application has not been denied by the bank. It is also not denied that the said
CS-COM/686/2024
A.R., J.
notice to produce was served upon the bank. On perusal of the said notice to2017:CHC-OS:75
produce, it appears clearly what are the documents for which the bank has
been asked to produce before this Court for adjudication of the suit.
The bank is one. So, the plea taken by the learned Advocate for the
bank that the documents might have been under the custody of some
appropriate authority of the bank or such authority has searched for it, is not
tenable in law.
In view of the forgoing reasons and discussions, this Court is of the firm
and considered view that the bank has not been able to produce these
documents, despite repeated opportunities being given. Accordingly, at the
appropriate stage of trial of the suit, the law shall take its own course with
regard to adverse presumption. In an appropriate situation, the Court may
draw an adverse presumption against the bank insofar as the documents are
concerned as mentioned in the notice to produce dated July 15, 2025.
With the above observations, this application being GA-COM/9/2025
stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.
In Re: CS-COM/686/2024:
Mr. Tilak Kumar Bose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
plaintiff in CS-COM/686/2024 has been continuing with his cross-
examination and he shall continue on the next day.
The matter shall appear under the heading "Suits" tomorrow
(27.02.2026) as it is already fixed.
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
KB
AR(CR)
CS-COM/686/2024
A.R., J.
