Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Dr A.K.Rath, J., dismissed the petition that was filed against an order of the trial court which rejected the application of the plaintiff to mark the documents as exhibits after closure of evidence.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner instituted a suit for partition. Thereafter the litigation started. After the closure of evidence, the plaintiff filed an application to exhibit a letter which they considered cardinal in the present litigation. The same was rejected which led to the present writ petition. Mr Udgata, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the convention that no application should be entertained once the trial or hearing is concluded and the case is reserved for judgment is not a straitjacket formula and if in the interest o justice it should be allowed. The counsel for the other party argued that the documents were no way connected to the present suit thus the application should not be allowed.

The Court dismissed the petition stating that there was no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance to admit the documents as exhibits. The documents were not relevant to the matter in issue and the application was filed to cover up the lacunae. [Binod Kishore Mohanty v. Hiramani Mohanty,2018 SCC OnLine Ori 427, decided on 12-12-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of Uday U. Lalit and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ., gave certain directions pertaining to its earlier order in the case of  “Amrapali Group of Companies Case” and stated that 7 premises have been sealed.

The Apex Court on hearing the submissions and progress stated that for all the sealed premises the keys shall be handed over to the Forensic Auditors. The Forensic Auditors have submitted that the documents in respect of 46 companies have not been kept in a proper manner and are lying in a completely scattered fashion and disorganized manner.

The first task while keeping the note in regard to the “disorganized manner” in which the documents have been kept, the Court stated that this task of organization and cataloguing of the documents correctly is the need at present and further the documents which are presently lying in the custody are not secreted away.

The Supreme Court has further laid down certain directions while keeping the submissions of the Forensic Auditors and others in mind:

  • All three applicants and such personnel from their companies must render complete assistance during the organization and cataloguing of the documents.
  • Applicants shall remain personally present for next 15 days for the time specified, every day.
  • Police officer concerned shall personally supervise and see to it that the seals are opened at the specified time every day and are again resealed after the completion of that day’s operation.
  • Forensic Auditors are requested to depute representatives who will personally supervise the operation of cataloguing.
  • At no given point more than one premise will be de-sealed.
  • Operation for the day will be brought to the notice of Forensic Auditors so that the next day’s operations shall be planned out accordingly.
  • Till the documents required are supplied to the satisfaction of Forensic Auditors, the operations shall go on.
  • Forensic Auditors shall consider the feasibility of transferring the record which stands sealed from Rajgir and Buxar to any of the sealed places in Noida or Greater Noida.

The Supreme Court while concluding its order requested the internal auditors, the external auditors and the CFO who had worked with 46 companies in question to render assistance during the time of operation. Also, the three applicants will every day be brought to Hotel Park Ascent where they won’t be allowed to access mobiles or telephones or facility of meeting anyone without authorization by police.

The proceedings before DRT, Delhi in pursuance to this Court’s order are fixed for 15-10-2018, for which the representatives of the applicants shall be sent for representation with all the relevant documents and information.

The matter has been further listed for 24-10-2018. [Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India,2018 SCC OnLine SC 1923, Order dated 11-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: This petition had been filed before a Single Judge Bench comprising of Vivek Kumar Birla, J., in order to quash the impugned order passed by District Magistrate.

Facts of the case were that petitioner had been accused of encroaching upon the land of Gaon Sabha which was recorded as navin parti in the Revenue Code due to which damages were imposed upon petitioner under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Petitioner aggrieved by the above filed an appeal before District Magistrate which was dismissed. This petition was filed against the above-impugned orders.

Petitioner contended that the impugned orders were arbitrary and illegal as petitioner’s ground was not considered. The orders also did not consider the claim filed in the appeal under Section 67-A. Whereas the respondent argued that the land in question was recorded as navin parti and it was not allotted to the petitioner.

The High Court while perusing impugned order found that notice was duly issued to petitioner whereby in reply he claimed that the land in question belonged to him but according to Code there is no allotment of land to petitioner and he is not eligible for the same. Court while perusing appellate order found that no documents to show allotment of land to petitioner were brought also petitioner was not eligible for allotment of land under Section 64 of the code. Court observed that not even this court had been presented with evidence to that effect. Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, petition was dismissed due to lack of merit. [Satyadev Tripathi v. State of U.P.,2018 SCC OnLine All 1813, order dated 03-10-2018]