Delhi High Court
Harishankar Sharma vs State Bank Of India on 29 July, 2009
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29.07.2009
+ W.P.(C) 10688/2006
HARISHANKAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
-Versus-
STATE BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:-
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Kapur and Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (oral)
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.01.2006
passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
(hereinafter referred to as „the MRTP Commission‟) dismissing the
application filed by the petitioner for taking on record certain documents.
The documents that the petitioner sought to place on record of the MRTP
Commission in C.A. No. 328/1998 were two CFSL reports dated 10.12.1999
and 06.03.2000 and charge sheets filed by the Police against three bank
officials.
Insofar as the charge sheets are concerned, we may straightaway say
that they are not, in any way, relevant for the purposes of the petitioner‟s
compensation application before the MRTP Commission. Arguments were,
therefore, heard on the question of taking the two CFSL reports on record.
According to the petitioner, he had moved an application in December, 2004
requesting the MRTP Commission to take on record the certified copies of
the said CFSL reports. It would be relevant to note that at that point of time,
the parties had already filed their documents, admission/denial had been
completed, issues had been framed and even the petitioner‟s evidence had
been closed. In point of fact, the petitioner had submitted its affidavit on
12.12.2002. His evidence was closed on 29.07.2003.
In the application filed by the petitioner before the MRTP
Commission, it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that he had been
"seriously ill for last few months" and, as a result of which, he was not in a
position to come to Delhi and discuss the matter with the counsel for the
petitioner. Some medical record has also been filed in support thereof. In
the said application, the petitioner also stated that the reports of the Central
Forensic Science Laboratories "were not available at the time of filing of
compensation claim and documents".
After considering the arguments advance by the counsel for the
parties, we note that the reports of the Central Forensic Science Laboratories
were dated 10.12.1999 and 06.03.2000. Although the compensation claim
was filed earlier, that is, on some date in 1998, the documents were filed
subsequently. We note that the application for certified copies of the CFSL
reports was made on 30.10.2004, that is, much after the petitioner‟s evidence
stood closed. The statement that the petitioner was ill for the last few
months is also of no use to the petitioner inasmuch as it would only account
for a few months prior to December, 2004. It would not explain as to why
the petitioner was unable to file the said documents prior to closing of
evidence on 29.07.2003.
The MRTP Commission had dismissed the petitioner‟s application by
the impugned order dated 12.01.2006. The operative portion of the said
order reads as under:-
"It is a fact that the evidence of the applicant
was closed on 29th July, 2003 and liberty was
given to the respondents to file their affidavit of
evidence etc. At this stage clearly these
documents cannot be permitted to be filed by the
applicant. Moreover, he will have the opportunity
to cross-examine the respondent‟s witness.
However, it is noted that some of these documents
relate to the period even before the compensation
application was filed and certainly before the date
when the evidence of the applicant closed. The
applicant should have taken care to produce these
documents before, if he thought that these are so
important. At this stage, when the respondents
have already filed affidavit of evidence and
documents, it will not be fair and legally correct to
permit him to adduce these documents. In the
circumstances, his application is not allowed."
In view of the circumstances narrated above, we see no reason to
interfere with the order passed by the MRTP Commission.
This writ petition is dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
VEENA BIRBAL, J
JULY 29, 2009
kks
