w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. J.M. Constructions v/s M/s. Shamrock Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- A P IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB1992PTC012164

Company & Directors' Information:- C G IMPEX LTD [Active] CIN = L51909GJ1995PLC024991

Company & Directors' Information:- B L IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29199WB1997PTC085974

Company & Directors' Information:- V N G IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51505DL1996PTC075373

Company & Directors' Information:- P N G IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51491WB1998PTC087626

Company & Directors' Information:- P D K IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55101WB1995PTC075474

Company & Directors' Information:- J S R S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U25111DL2005PTC135946

Company & Directors' Information:- J S R S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC135946

Company & Directors' Information:- S M J IMPEX LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65993WB1991PLC051922

Company & Directors' Information:- N. S. IMPEX (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2009PTC140131

Company & Directors' Information:- S R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51225PB2000PTC023407

Company & Directors' Information:- B & G IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U14102KA2006PTC039961

Company & Directors' Information:- H R IMPEX PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51398PB1986PTC006721

Company & Directors' Information:- S C IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1979PTC021128

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED. [Active] CIN = U51311DL2003PTC122744

Company & Directors' Information:- K .S. IMPEX LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC074865

Company & Directors' Information:- IMPEX (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1946PLC005014

Company & Directors' Information:- S R I IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH1997PTC111715

Company & Directors' Information:- N E IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109442

Company & Directors' Information:- A G IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2003PTC141470

Company & Directors' Information:- H K IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2003PTC143024

Company & Directors' Information:- H. S. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101DL2007PTC159229

Company & Directors' Information:- C R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB1997PTC082747

Company & Directors' Information:- M. G. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2007PTC167538

Company & Directors' Information:- O M S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC057531

Company & Directors' Information:- V M IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC058635

Company & Directors' Information:- V E IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2006PTC153599

Company & Directors' Information:- V I IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1996PTC081324

Company & Directors' Information:- K D IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2005PTC150615

Company & Directors' Information:- P M K IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2008PTC175793

Company & Directors' Information:- R N IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U35921PB1995PTC016558

Company & Directors' Information:- U S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2000PTC103526

Company & Directors' Information:- J K P IMPEX (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101DL2007PTC163363

Company & Directors' Information:- N. F. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101DL2007PTC165325

Company & Directors' Information:- S. R. K. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2007PTC285169

Company & Directors' Information:- H K S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2005PTC151918

Company & Directors' Information:- M V IMPEX PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109DL1988PTC287346

Company & Directors' Information:- O P IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2013PTC247413

Company & Directors' Information:- H N IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2020PTC369457

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND V IMPEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2001PTC112962

Company & Directors' Information:- B D IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27106MH2001PTC132839

Company & Directors' Information:- P N R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1999PTC090747

Company & Directors' Information:- D T IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2004PTC127800

Company & Directors' Information:- A S IMPEX LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U51395DL1993PLC055717

Company & Directors' Information:- G M C IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL2008PTC179655

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51398UP2003PTC027331

Company & Directors' Information:- R G IMPEX PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U51109WB1990PTC048274

Company & Directors' Information:- G C IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80302DL1996PTC077507

Company & Directors' Information:- G P P IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51311DL2004PTC127328

Company & Directors' Information:- H M G IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC047995

Company & Directors' Information:- R K IMPEX PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1987PTC042220

Company & Directors' Information:- N N M IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63023WB2000PTC091984

Company & Directors' Information:- B S B IMPEX PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1993PTC059408

Company & Directors' Information:- SHAMROCK IMPEX PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51900MH1984PTC032765

Company & Directors' Information:- P R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071467

Company & Directors' Information:- R S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC057964

Company & Directors' Information:- V T M IMPEX LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36911RJ1993PLC007217

Company & Directors' Information:- P L IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1997PTC089507

Company & Directors' Information:- R. L. IMPEX PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1995PTC067449

Company & Directors' Information:- W C C IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1998PTC087112

Company & Directors' Information:- M B C IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51226KA1995PTC018540

Company & Directors' Information:- B & S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93090TN1994PTC027483

Company & Directors' Information:- S K G A IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060646

Company & Directors' Information:- B B S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC135140

Company & Directors' Information:- M A R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC135682

Company & Directors' Information:- R P M IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2003PTC138596

Company & Directors' Information:- V. O. V. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TN2012PTC084138

Company & Directors' Information:- T-7 IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01400KA2014PTC077990

Company & Directors' Information:- P R S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2008PTC174015

Company & Directors' Information:- S D M IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51102DL2006PTC155031

Company & Directors' Information:- R. D. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909CH1994PTC014201

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U05110TZ1999PTC009047

Company & Directors' Information:- B M N IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51909DL2004PTC126367

Company & Directors' Information:- H H IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC143406

Company & Directors' Information:- N M IMPEX PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51101WB1992PTC055885

Company & Directors' Information:- H V IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140GJ2009PTC056374

Company & Directors' Information:- R J IMPEX PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U52324WB1992PTC057284

Company & Directors' Information:- U B IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52100WB2009PTC135582

Company & Directors' Information:- Y D IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27101DL1997PTC087525

Company & Directors' Information:- N J IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999PB2000PTC023592

Company & Directors' Information:- M J IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB1997PTC085671

Company & Directors' Information:- K-7 IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2001PTC113326

Company & Directors' Information:- V O L IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51311DL1998PTC096983

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. J. IMPEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36900DL2017PTC325239

Company & Directors' Information:- F AND B IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909MH2003PTC139242

Company & Directors' Information:- N I C IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC031411

Company & Directors' Information:- H B IMPEX PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1984PTC019167

Company & Directors' Information:- D R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51903DL2005PTC133710

Company & Directors' Information:- S T S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC133711

Company & Directors' Information:- A C P IMPEX PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U31300WB1994PTC066253

Company & Directors' Information:- V. S. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB2007PTC120979

Company & Directors' Information:- J K D IMPEX PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1993PTC058052

Company & Directors' Information:- R B H IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52100KA2012PTC063394

Company & Directors' Information:- U & U IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2008PTC131235

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND H IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2006PTC146968

Company & Directors' Information:- B A IMPEX (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51219WB1986PTC041551

Company & Directors' Information:- V K IMPEX PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U01132WB1985PTC038722

Company & Directors' Information:- S G IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2001PTC024738

Company & Directors' Information:- S S V IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909MH2004PTC147718

Company & Directors' Information:- M L IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U05004WB2015PTC207604

Company & Directors' Information:- A Y IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50102DL2009PTC189573

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2007PTC167834

Company & Directors' Information:- P T IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15143DL1997PTC084454

Company & Directors' Information:- K M S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51311DL2004PTC125607

Company & Directors' Information:- A. C. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74990DL2007PTC167843

Company & Directors' Information:- J N L IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909HR2005PTC035604

Company & Directors' Information:- S K V IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1996PTC079075

Company & Directors' Information:- A S L I IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL1998PTC097302

Company & Directors' Information:- A V IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51393DL2000PTC103731

Company & Directors' Information:- R H IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52599TN1996PTC035971

Company & Directors' Information:- S M D IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2011PTC227037

Company & Directors' Information:- K N IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24297MH2015PTC260677

Company & Directors' Information:- G M T IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909JK2014PTC004175

Company & Directors' Information:- P G I IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29130DL2009PTC196307

Company & Directors' Information:- N S V R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC134266

Company & Directors' Information:- D D IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52322DL2003PTC120628

Company & Directors' Information:- V V P IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1996PTC080951

Company & Directors' Information:- C & V IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17119DL1999PTC098760

Company & Directors' Information:- D S A S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2003PTC122755

Company & Directors' Information:- A M P IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC052161

Company & Directors' Information:- D. M. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC015043

Company & Directors' Information:- R G N IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH1998PTC113729

Company & Directors' Information:- R V M IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC132572

Company & Directors' Information:- K K S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1997PTC083303

Company & Directors' Information:- T R P M IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900TN2009PTC073681

Company & Directors' Information:- K S S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1998PTC088329

Company & Directors' Information:- S G K IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100DL2009PTC195467

Company & Directors' Information:- M P G IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC135720

Company & Directors' Information:- O. E. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U15499UP2003PTC028093

Company & Directors' Information:- R L N IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900UP2014PTC063522

Company & Directors' Information:- S K J IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51495DL2001PTC112392

Company & Directors' Information:- S S P IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51909DL2012PTC243946

Company & Directors' Information:- J P R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900MH2010PTC202751

Company & Directors' Information:- J A IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909PB1995PTC016787

Company & Directors' Information:- 8 V IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2005PTC155015

Company & Directors' Information:- S K M IMPEX (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900TG2009PTC066061

Company & Directors' Information:- C L IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2011PTC164926

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. C. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50400DL2010PTC204936

Company & Directors' Information:- T S G IMPEX (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101DL2007PTC171102

Company & Directors' Information:- D B S IMPEX (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2002PTC115767

Company & Directors' Information:- V IMPEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2003PTC121587

Company & Directors' Information:- JM CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC064086

Company & Directors' Information:- S & V IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52100DL2011PTC219237

Company & Directors' Information:- S B IMPEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51220AP2021PTC119567

Company & Directors' Information:- S B IMPEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51220AP2021PTC119567

Company & Directors' Information:- V J IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909KL1998PTC012392

Company & Directors' Information:- J M B IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51225PB2000PTC023322

Company & Directors' Information:- R S S CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202JH1990PTC003927

Company & Directors' Information:- IMPEX PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51900WB1953PTC009794

Company & Directors' Information:- A J IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909PB1995PTC016340

Company & Directors' Information:- N K B INDIA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1999PTC099942

Company & Directors' Information:- S G IMPEX PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1996PTC076598

Company & Directors' Information:- K N R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1994PTC059797

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND B IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17125DL1995PTC067853

Company & Directors' Information:- L S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH2000PTC124580

Company & Directors' Information:- V K B IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2004PTC125513

Company & Directors' Information:- A M IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1993PTC052241

Company & Directors' Information:- S W IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC054423

Company & Directors' Information:- S I V IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2003PTC120358

Company & Directors' Information:- A V C IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51224PB1996PTC018652

Company & Directors' Information:- K C I IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TN2004PTC053918

Company & Directors' Information:- C P S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2002PTC114495

Company & Directors' Information:- J.M. IMPEX PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109PB1987PTC007721

Company & Directors' Information:- O S J IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109DL2000PTC106520

Company & Directors' Information:- P S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1982PTC027591

Company & Directors' Information:- S V L IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52100PY2011PTC002609

Company & Directors' Information:- S. D. K. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27209MH2011PTC218661

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND G IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51399RJ2003PTC018182

Company & Directors' Information:- AT 6 IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900TN2013PTC091925

Company & Directors' Information:- U K V IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52300MH2008PTC183352

Company & Directors' Information:- C & I IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51101PN2007PTC130201

Company & Directors' Information:- V I P IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51310MH2003PTC140018

Company & Directors' Information:- G K IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U51311MH2001PTC131241

Company & Directors' Information:- A I M IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909MH2003PTC142754

Company & Directors' Information:- M C S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TN2002PTC050065

Company & Directors' Information:- B F B IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TN2003PTC050738

Company & Directors' Information:- V S P IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TG2004PTC042989

Company & Directors' Information:- Q AND Q CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2004PTC043373

Company & Directors' Information:- A K K IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93091DL2006PTC149262

Company & Directors' Information:- T G R IMPEX PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U51397DL2001PTC111137

Company & Directors' Information:- R & R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51494DL2008PTC185431

Company & Directors' Information:- V G IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2002PTC116311

Company & Directors' Information:- S J R T IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2003PTC121671

Company & Directors' Information:- C K IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2003PTC122959

Company & Directors' Information:- S K D IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2004PTC124397

Company & Directors' Information:- G AND C IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2004PTC124724

Company & Directors' Information:- B T IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2004PTC127289

Company & Directors' Information:- G A IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2004PTC127568

Company & Directors' Information:- R K R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC133691

Company & Directors' Information:- D M A IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC135772

Company & Directors' Information:- S S G IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC137151

Company & Directors' Information:- S A B IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC139404

Company & Directors' Information:- M N M IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC144149

Company & Directors' Information:- N & N IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2007PTC158100

Company & Directors' Information:- S O IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2008PTC181578

Company & Directors' Information:- H & C IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2012PTC232170

Company & Directors' Information:- 3 S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2014PTC268206

Company & Directors' Information:- S S R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2004PTC129430

Company & Directors' Information:- H R G IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U51109DL2011PTC213035

Company & Directors' Information:- Q & D IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51219DL2012PTC232804

Company & Directors' Information:- B B IMPEX PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51222DL2001PTC111014

Company & Directors' Information:- S J R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51311DL2005PTC136322

Company & Directors' Information:- L & C IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51391DL2008PTC185084

Company & Directors' Information:- VERSUS IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC070311

Company & Directors' Information:- S P R D IMPEX PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2000PTC103850

Company & Directors' Information:- R V V IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2006PTC146405

Company & Directors' Information:- H A S N IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2013PTC259109

Company & Directors' Information:- K S S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200DL2006PTC156836

Company & Directors' Information:- W G IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100DL2010PTC205820

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND I IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52300DL2009PTC189916

Company & Directors' Information:- P V IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74950DL2002PTC114614

Company & Directors' Information:- S R J IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85191DL2008PTC173195

Company & Directors' Information:- V K M IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109HR2008PTC037574

Company & Directors' Information:- T N D IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00360KA1995PTC018522

Company & Directors' Information:- S & S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909HR2016PTC065165

Company & Directors' Information:- C G M IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109KA2011PTC057984

Company & Directors' Information:- A V A IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109GJ2010PTC061135

Company & Directors' Information:- D. A IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109GJ2010PTC062851

Company & Directors' Information:- A N IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909KL1996PTC009869

Company & Directors' Information:- J. P. V. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2018PTC048141

Company & Directors' Information:- K R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63030DL2021PTC383721

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND A IMPEX PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TG1985PTC005356

Company & Directors' Information:- B H IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC135947

Company & Directors' Information:- G L R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909PB1998PTC021944

Company & Directors' Information:- N T IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65923RJ1996PTC012314

Company & Directors' Information:- C S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC061825

Company & Directors' Information:- G P S IMPEX PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101RJ1995PTC009606

Company & Directors' Information:- G F I IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00000DL2000PTC108822

Company & Directors' Information:- K. C. IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109PB2008PTC032488

Company & Directors' Information:- L B IMPEX PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101TN1982PTC009200

Company & Directors' Information:- J P IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17100MH1999PTC121873

Company & Directors' Information:- S V Y IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900TG2008PTC060239

Company & Directors' Information:- S R B IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TG2005PTC045096

Company & Directors' Information:- S T R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18109DL2006PTC156645

Company & Directors' Information:- S S M IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2007PTC161812

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND A IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1996PTC075469

Company & Directors' Information:- A T IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2008PTC182162

Company & Directors' Information:- K B IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U41000DL2008PTC173196

Company & Directors' Information:- M S S R IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909AP2003PTC042061

Company & Directors' Information:- T T S IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1984PTC017835

    Writ Petition No. 5016 of 2018, 5017 of 2018

    Decided On, 28 June 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

    For the Appearing Parties: Charles J. De Souza, Sakshi Bhalla, Birendra Saraf, Rohan Sawant, Yogesh Adhia, Laxman Jain, Advocates.



Judgment Text


1. The petitioner in both the Writ petitions claims to be the landlord having succeeded its predecessor-in-interest. That predecessor inducted the first respondent into the property as a lessee. The petitioner, as the lessor, filed R.A.E. Suit No. 467/767 of 2005 for eviction. Its principle plea is that it bona fide needs the property. Issues framed, the trial began. Then the lessor filed Exhibit-A witness summons, requiring the Senior Police Inspector, L.T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, to produce eight documents. Through an order, dated 18.03.2016, the Trial Court allowed the lessor's application. Then, that order has led to two Writ petitions

2. The lessees filed WP No.4833 of 2016 and 4842 of 2016, assailing the trial Court's order. Eventually, they withdrew both the writ petitions. It was without prejudice to their right to question, during the trial, the relevance of those documents. Then, the police officer concerned produced all the documents except document no. 7. That is the Chief Police Prosecutor's opinion, dt.29.03.2005. But it emerged from the police officer's reply that the 7th document lies with another police authority.

3. In that context, the lessor filed another witness summons; the lessees, however, opposed it. Eventually, the Trial Court, through its order dated 16.01.2018, rejected the lessor's claim to have the document summoned from another police station. Aggrieved, the lessor has filed Writ Petition No. 5016 of 2018.

4. Besides that, when the lessor wanted to mark the documents the police officer already produced, the lessees objected to it. The Trial Court sustained that objection, through its order, dated 18.10.2016. Despite that rejection, the lessor filed a praecipe requiring the trial Court to reconsider its earlier decision. Even that praceipe met the same fate: dismissal. Thus aggrieved, the lessor filed WP No. 5017 of 2018.

Arguments in WP No.5016 of 2018:

Petitioner's:

5. In the above factual background, Ms. Sakshi Bhalla, the learned counsel for the lessor, has submitted that the trial Court, in the order assailed in Writ Petition No. 5016 of 2018, has presumed the irrelevance of the document sought to be summoned and then concluded that it need not be summoned. According to her, the trial Court has contradicted itself. To elaborate, she has submitted that initially the trial Court itself has allowed the lessor's plea to have all the documents summoned. When one document could not be produced, the parties realized that it was in the custody of some other police station. So the lessor filed another application to have that document summoned. Even though the lessees had not objected to the supposed irrelevance of that document, the trial Court, in fact, traveled beyond the pleadings and held that it was irrelevant.

6. In that context, Ms. Sakshi Bhalla has contended that consistency is a judicial virtue. The Trial Court ought not to have taken, according to her, contradictory stands on the same issue; that is, the production of a particular document. She has further submitted that it is for the party to rely on the document and to prove it ultimately. Neither the court nor the adversary, she has continued, could insist on the suitor's revealing how he is going to use that document in the trial. Thus, she urges this Court to allow the Writ petition No. 5016 of 2018. To buttress her contentions, she has relied on Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, 2001 AIR(SC).

Respondents':

7. Per contra, Dr. Birendra Saraf, the learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the trial Court has ample powers to decide whether a document is relevant before it allows a party to summon that document. Otherwise, the trial will drag on endlessly. So, even if the Court wanted to accept the lessor's entire plea about the document, in the end it is only an opinion the lessor wanted to rely on. According to Dr. Saraf, an opinion can be no piece of evidence-more particularly if it is sought to be produced and marked through a third party who has nothing to do with that opinion. Thus, he has contended that the Trial Court orders suffer from no legal infirmity.

Arguments in WP No.5017 of 2018:

Petitioner's:

8. In Writ petition No. 5017 of 2018, Ms. Sakshi Bhalla has submitted that Bipin Shantilal Panchal has categorically held that marking of documents is a distinct procedural step, detached from proving that document. Plainly put, mere marking of a document does not amount to its proof. Thus, she contends that the trial Court ought to have allowed the lessor to mark all the documents through the officer who produced them before the Court. It is entirely for the lessor, she asserts, to prove the veracity and relevance of the documents during the trial. So she finds fault with the trial Court's denying an opportunity to the lessor to have the documents marked. The trial Court's approach spells injustice, she concludes.

Respondents':

9. Dr. Saraf has asserted that the trial Court can receive the documents once an officer produces them answering the witness summons. But he cannot be the person through whom those documents can be marked. In that context, he submits that Bipin Shantilal Panchal has already been distinguished by this Court's Full Bench in Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia v. Subodh Mody, (2008) 6 MhLJ 886. Taking me through the material parts of Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia, Dr. Saraf has elaborated on them. He points out that it has divided the to-be-marked documents into three categories. Stressing on the second category, he has submitted that here the lessor wanted to mark that category document. And the trial Court has rightly upheld the respondents' objections. Dr. Saraf argues that if a document is a private document, it ought to be marked only through its author, lest it should prejudice the other party.

10. Dr. Saraf has further pointed out that a document allowed to be kept on record without it being properly marked would also prejudice the other party, for that would create confusion in the court's mind about its validity. In the end, he urges this Court to dismiss both the Writ Petitions.

Reply:

11. In reply, Shri Charles D'souza, the learned counsel for the lessor, supplementing Ms. Sakshi Bhalla's submissions, has submitted that trial Court has adopted a very strange procedure. Shri D'souza has also taken me through the material portions of Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia. According to him, the judgment, in fact, helps the lessor's cause rather than the lessees'. He emphasizes that the marking of the document is an intermediary step, and it does not authenticate the contents of the document. Plainly put, marking of the documents is nothing more than placing it on record.

12. Shri D'souza asserts unless the documents come on record, the lessor cannot prove their relevance or even veracity. That is, if a document is thrown out at the threshold, it is impossible for any party to prove that document. Thus, he urges this court to allow the writ petition. In the alternative, Shri D'souza has also submitted that the trial Court must allow the document to come on record for another reason: for the appellate court's scrutiny. According to him, even if the trial Court is disinclined to refer to the document, in appeal the Appellate Court may still find it admissible and relevant.

13. Heard Ms Sakshi Bhalla and Shri Chalres D'souza for the petitioner and Dr. Birendra Saraf for the respondents.

Discussion:

14. Elaborate were the rival submissions, but the issues lie in a narrow compass: summoning of a document and marking of already-summoned documents. The lessor filed Exhibit-A witness summons to a Senior Police Inspector and wanted the officer to produce eight documents. In March 2016, the trial Court allowed it. The officer produced the documents except one: the Chief Police Prosecutor's opinion, dt.29.03.2005.

15. As the opinion-document was lying with another police authority, the lessor filed another witness summons. In January 2018, the trial Court rejected the lessor's request. This has given rise to Writ Petition No. 5016 of 2018.

16. But the lessor wanted to mark the already summoned documents through the police officer who produced them. The lessees objected to it. In October 2016, the trial Court sustained the lessees' objection. Again, the lessor filed a praecipe for the trial Court to reconsider its earlier decision. That praceipe, too, was rejected. This has given rise to WP No. 5017 of 2018.

17. So the two issues we should address are these: (1) Can a document of opinion, if it were, be summoned by a third party to use that document in its support in a judicial proceeding? (2) Can a private document be marked through a witness who merely produced that document in answer to court's summons? The second issue opens that seemingly intractable question: an objection taken, how should a document be marked? In other words, when is a document marked and when is it proved? (1) Can a document of opinion, if it were, be summoned by a third party to use it in its support in a judicial proceeding?

18. As I have already noted, the trial Court permitted the lessor to summon a few documents. In answer to the witness summons the lessor took, the police officer in custody of those documents produced all but one. That one document is found with another police authority. So the lessor again applied to have that document, too, produced. This time, the trial Court rejected the lessor's request. Is it justified?

19. The lessees contend that the trial Court's action is justified. According to them, it is the Chief Police Prosecutor's opinion, dt.29.03.2005. They maintain that opinion is no piece of evidence. Even its production, according to them, serves no purpose. First, it is mere opinion. Second, it cannot be marked as a substantive document-especially through a person other than the opinion giver.

20. Before ruling on this controversy, we must note that earlier the trial Court, at the lessor's request, summoned the same document along with other documents. Only that document could not be produced. So the lessor applied for the second time; this time, to have it produced from the proper source-another police authority. But the trial Court took a contrary stand. It felt that the summoning of that document serves no purpose.

21. Indeed, consistency is a desirable, nay necessary, judicial virtue. The document being unavailable at one place is no substantial ground for the trial Court to take a different stand -to contradict itself. That answered, the lessees' second limb of attack is that it is an opinion and it has no evidentiary value. I am afraid the value of a document cannot be prejudged. The value of a piece of evidence cannot affect its admissibility in any way. Admissibility and the probative force of a piece of evidence are quite different things. When a document is to be proved and relied upon in evidence, as this Court has held in Zenna Sorabji v. Mirabelle Hotel Co. (P) Ltd, (1981) AIR Bombay 446, there are three aspects to be considered by the Court: (i) the proof of the execution of the document, (ii) proof of the contents of the documents and (iii) the evidentiary value of the document as a whole.

22. This assumes importance in the face of the fact that trial Court, in the first instance, permitted the party to seek its production. The document was looked for at a wrong place; the official concerned provided the correct source of its availability. So the lessor reapplied for its production from the proper source. In my view, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application, the questions about the document's efficacy or utility notwithstanding. Once it is produced, it is for the lessor to have it marked in the manner law permits. Its production is not be-all and end-all.

23. I accordingly answer the first question in the lessors' favour.

(2) Can a private document be marked through a witness who merely produced that document in answer to court's summons?

24. This issue opens seemingly an intractable question: (a) an objection taken, how should a document be marked? In other words, when is a document marked and when is it proved?

(a) The Production of Documents:

25. To begin with, Order 13, Rule 1 of CPC mandates that the original documents must be produced at or before the settlement of issues. Sub-Rule (1) compels the parties or their pleader to produce all the documentary evidence in original, on or before the settlement of issues. As per sub-rule (2), the Court shall receive the documents so produced if they come with an accurate list of those documents. But nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents (a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

26. Order 7, Rule 14 of CPC deals with the production of documents on which plaintiff sues. If a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it, as the sub-rule (1) mandates, in court when the plaint is presented. He should also, at the same time, deliver the document or its copy to the court. If the document is not within the plaintiff's possession or power to be produced, he should, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

27. Similarly, Order 8, Rule 1A speaks of the defendant's duty to produce documents upon which he relies. A defendant must produce the documents along with the written statement if they are in his possession or if he can produce them. Sub-rule (3) provides for the exception. The defendant may produce the document with the court's leave. Thus, both Orders 7 and 8 require the parties to state, wherever possible, before the court in whose possession or power a document lies. Of course, this mandate applies when the party cannot produce that document, in the first place.

(b) Acceptance or Rejection of Documents:

28. Under Order 13, Rule 3, the court can reject irrelevant or inadmissible documents. It can do so at any stage of the suit. But it must record the grounds of rejection. Once the documents are admitted, the court, under Rule 4, endorses on the documents admitted in evidence: (a) the number and title of the suit; (b) the name of the person producing the document; (c) the date on which it was produced, and (d) a statement of its having been so admitted. The Judge should sign or initial the endorsement.

29. Similarly, Rule 6 of Order 13 prescribes how the rejected documents should be dealt with. If the court considers a document relied on by either party inadmissible, it shall endorse the same particulars as mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of rule 4, sub-rule (1), together with a statement of its having been rejected. Each High Court's Civil Rules of Practice or Civil Manuals provide for the procedure to mark documents. As with this High Court, its Civil Manual (Act 99 of 1960) details the procedural nitty-gritty-especially clauses 254 and 259.

(b) Production from a Third Party:

30. Order 16 deals with the summoning and attendance of witnesses. Rule 6 concerns summons to produce a document. Any person may be summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence. And any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he gets the document produced instead of his attending personally to produce it.

31. Rule 15 of Order 16 deals with the duty of persons summoned to give evidence or produce a document. The person summoned to give evidence must appear before the court "for that purpose." But if he is summoned to produce a document, he may either "attend to produce it, or cause it to be produced, at such time and place." Therefore, a witness who is asked to produce a document need not even attend the court. It will suffice if he ensures the production of the document before the court by some other means or through someone else.

(c) Marking of Documents:

32. We will begin our discussion with Ram Rattan (Dead) by Lrs., v. Bajrang Lal, a three-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court. One of the questions in Ram Rattan is, can a party object to marking of an insufficiently stamped document?

33. Ram Rattan has held that when the plaintiff tenders a document in evidence while in the witness box, the defendant can object to its marking. The objection may be about the insufficient stamp on the document. Then, it is obligatory upon the trial judge to apply his mind to the objection raised and decide it in accordance with the law. Tendency sometimes is, as Ram Rattan notes, to postpone the decision to avoid interruption in the process of recording evidence. So, a very convenient device is resorted to: marking the document in evidence subject to objection. This, however, does not mean that the objection about the admissibility is judicially decided; it is merely postponed. In such a situation, at a later stage, before the suit is disposed of, the trial Court must decide the objection.

34. I must note Ram Rattan concerns the objection about the document, not about the person through whom the document should be marked. So its holding does not help us.

35. Let us now examine Bipin Shantilal Panchal. Another three-Judge Bench noticed the trial court's not proceeding with the matter in the face of an objection about the admissibility of any material in evidence. It termed this an archaic practice. The objections at that stage, according to Bipin Shantilal Panchal, lead to avoidable rounds of litigation. The proceedings would be put on hold interminably at an interlocutory stage.

36. So to remedy this malady, Bipin Shantilal Panchal suggested an alternative practice: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage about the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence, the trial court can note of such objection. Then, it should mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit subject to such objections to be decided "at the last stage in the final judgment." If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable, it can keep the evidence excluded from consideration.

37. Now let us examine the case holding of Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia. This Court's Full Bench has extensively treated the document marking, especially, in the backdrop of the Supreme Court's Bipin Shantilal Panchal. After exhaustively analyzing the issues, Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia has categorized, in paragraph 71 of the judgment, the objections about document marking into three categories: (i) the objection to the documents insufficiently stamped; (ii) the objection about the mode of proof; and (iii) the objection about the document ab initio inadmissible in evidence.

38. Then, Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia has gone on to explain the procedure the trial Court should adopt under each category. About the second category, the Full Bench has observed that once the objection is raised, it must be resolved there and then. So, if the court sustains that objection, the plaintiff or the defendant may mark the documents through a proper person or by adopting an acceptable procedure. According to Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia, if the other party does not object to the document marking, he should not be permitted to raise the admissibility in the midst of the trial. It observes:

58. [I]n the second category of the case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered. Once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not be admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. This proposition is rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would enable the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular.

. . .

60. If the objection to the proof of document is not decided and the document is taken on record giving tentative exhibit, then the right of the cross-examiner is seriously prejudiced. . . .

(italics supplied)

What Does Evidence Act Say?

39. Here the question is about through whom the lessors should mark the documents. To determine this, we should first determine whether the documents are private or public. Section 74 of the Evidence Act does not define "public document"; it rather enlists the types of public documents. According to that section, these are the public documents:

(1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts-

(i) of the sovereign authority,

(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and

(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country;

(2) public records kept in any State of private documents.

40. And all other documents, as Section 75 states, are private. To begin with, public documents enjoy a statutory presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Public documents are prepared by a public servant in discharge of his public duties; and they are available for inspection to the public, in public office, during the appointed time, sometimes for a fixed fee. A certified copy of a public document can be admitted in judicial proceedings and is, usually, proved by secondary evidence. That said, the court is bound to presume its genuineness from "the duly certified secondary copy."

41. Section 77 of the Act does allow certified copies to be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents. Indeed, the proof of different public documents is provided under Section 78 of the Act; and Section 79 speaks of the presumption about the genuineness of certified copies.

42. But if a document is private, it suffers from certain shortcomings. But once it is admitted in any judicial proceeding, it cannot be treated as inferior evidence. For getting a private document admitted, its original-the primary evidence-is the best choice, and its marking must be through its author. If it is secondary, without proving one of the conditions laid down under Section 65 of the Act, the secondary evidence of a private document cannot be admitted in judicial proceedings.

43. Section 65 of the Act permits the secondary evidence before the court under certain circumstances. We need not elaborate on them, though.

44. Parties may secure documents from public authorities. But all the documents the public authorities submit or supply cannot be termed public documents. In other words, if an official certifies and supplies a private document, which he has come to possess officially, it still remains a private document. Copies obtained from or produced by a public authority cannot be termed public documents or primary evidence. Only if the original qualifies to be a public document, then does its certified copy. But if the original is a private document, its copy secured from an official does not get transformed into a public document.

The Procedural Path:

45. As I have already noted, under Rule 15 of Order 16 of CPC, if a person is summoned to produce a document, he may either "attend to produce it, or cause it to be produced, at such time and place." Therefore, a witness who is asked to produce a document need not even attend the court. Then, the question of marking the documents through him does not arise. Instead, if it is a public document, the person through whom it is marked hardly matters. It can be marked through a party to the proceedings. It need not be through the official that issued it. But a private document must be marked through its originator or author. Here, the police officer was summoned to produce documents. He produced them. His role has ceased. In other words, on the summoned official's producing the documents, they were placed on the court's record. Then, the question is, what is the nature of these documents that have reached the court's record?

46. The Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Ambalal Maganlal Shah, (1966) CriLJ 967, has noted the distinction between "record of the Court" and "the record of the acts of the Court". A private document does not become a public document simply because it is filed in the Court. "To be a public document, it should be a record of the act of a public officer or Court." There is, according to Ambalal Maganlal Shah, a distinction between the record of the act of the Court and the record of the Court. So it has observed:

"[A] document which forms part of the record of the Court does not necessarily form record of the act of the Court. It may be that upon a private document, which is a record of the act of private parties a second act is done by the public officer or by the Court, namely filing the document or putting a number on the document. Only that portion of the document, which records the act of the Court in filing the document would be a public document. Therefore, that part of the document, namely the original part would be a private document forming the record of the act of the private parties and what is subsequently added to that document by the Court would be a public document." Therefore, it can clearly be deduced that simply because a document is filed before any Court/ Tribunal/ Authority in any form, the same would not acquire a 'public' character. In fact, it is not the record of the Court, rather, the record of acts of the Court which is considered as public document. Clearly, the pleadings or even private documents filed before the various Courts/ Tribunals/ Authorities would not make such documents 'public'. However, orders or decrees passed by the Courts/ Tribunals/ Authorities are public document, as they are the record of the acts of such Courts/ Tribunals/ Authorities.

(italics supplied)

How to Mark a Private Document:

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

47. In Smt. Rekha Rana v. Smt. Ratnashree Jain, (2006) AIR M.P. 107, a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, per R. V. Raveendra C.J., as his Lordship then was, has answered this question. A private document cannot be used in evidence unless its execution is admitted by the party against whom it is intended to be used, or it is established by proof that it is duly executed. In this context, Rekha Rana has held that a private document must be proved i. by examining the executants of the document; or ii. by examining a person in whose presence the signature/mark was affixed to the document; or iii. by referring the document to a handwriting expert and examining such expert; or iv. by examining a person acquainted with handwriting/signature of the person who is supposed to have written/signed the document; or v. by requesting the Court to compare the signature of the executant in the document with some admitted signature of the person shown as executants; or vi. by proving admission by the person who is said to have signed the document, that he signed it. 48. Therefore, the lessors' effort to mark the documents through the officer summoned under Order 16, Rule 15 of CPC cannot be sustained. The documents summoned may be public documents, or private documents, or a combination of both. They have come on record, but they have not yet become part of the record. So the party that summoned them must first determine which are public documents and which are private ones. As I have noted, the marking of public documents presents no problem. If the summoned documents is private, then, as held in Rekha Rana, the party must take steps to get the private document or documents marked through a proper person. The Answers: 49. A private document cannot be marked through a person who has merely produced that document in answer to the court's summons. 50. If the objection is about the mode of proof, the party that summoned the document must ensure that it is marked through a proper person. Thus marked, the document becomes a part of the court record. But its proof is altogether a different matter. Pithily put, document marking is procedural; document proving is adjudicatory-judicial. The proof of the document- that is, the veracity of its contents-depends, say, on the document's nature, source, the statutory presumptions it may carry with it. Even if all these aspects are satisfactory, still its relevance is yet another matter. A document emerging to be genuine still may be irrelevant for the court to adjudicate an issue before it. Thus, the proof and relevance may be tested on the touchstone of cross-examination. 51. So I answer the second question, with all its collateral questions, in the lessees' favour. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
O R