sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.
 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
  Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)
 Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
  In Re Hiten Ramanlal Mahimtura (ITAT Mumbai)

November, 21st 2013

%                                    Order delivered on: October 30, 2013

+                                 CM(M) 907/2013

      MAN MOHAN BATRA & ANR                   ..... Petitioners
                  Through Mr.B.B. Gupta, Adv. with Mr.Sarthak
                          Ghonkrokta, Adv.


      CITIZEN ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.                      ..... Respondent
                    Through  None.


1.    This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India against the order dated 28th February, 2013 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge whereby an application under Section 45 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed.

2.    The relevant facts were as under :-

(a)   On 1st April, 1981 petitioner No.1 started the business of trading and
      manufacturing electrical and electronic items under the name and
      style of M/S Citizen Electronics with a trade mark "Citizen".
(b)   In 1984, the petitioner No.1 converted the said sole proprietorship
      business into partnership business with the same trade mark and under
      the same name and style along with his brother, Umesh Batra and
      sister-in-law, Deepa Batra as partners.

CM (M) No.907/2013                                         Page 1 of 4
(c)   On 22nd July, 1985, the respondent company was incorporated under
      the provision of the Companies Act, 1956 and took over all the assets
      and liabilities of the said partnership business including the trade mark
      "Citizen". The petitioner No.1, Umesh Batra and Deepa Batra were
      promoters and directors of the said company.
(d)   Lalit Batra and petitioner No.2 were appointed as directors on 29th
      March, 1987 and 21st December, 1994 respectively.
(e)   Later, Umesh Batra, Lalit Batra and Deepa Batra resigned from
(f)   Bharat Bhushan Batra was also appointed as director on 26th May,
      1995 and resigned on 22nd August, 1995.
(g)   On 29th August, 1995, the minutes book of the director's meetings of
      the respondent company was lost and FIR was filed.
(h)   On 4th March, 1996 Lalit Batra in collusion with Umesh Batra, Bharat
      Bhushan Batra and Chander Kanta Batra instituted against the
      respondent company a civil suit on the records of the Delhi High
      Court and obtained a collusive decree against the respondent company
      on 8th March, 1996 with regard to registered trade mark "Citizen".
(i)   On 8th March, 1996 an application was filed by the respondent
      company for setting aside of the said judgment and decree.
(j)   On 12th May, 1996, notice under Order XI Rules 15 and 16 of the
      Code of Civil Procedure was given to the petitioners for production of
      the original minutes books.
(k)   On 29th July, 2009 Bharat Bhushan Batra during his cross examination
      deposed for the first time that the original minutes book was lost in

CM (M) No.907/2013                                           Page 2 of 4
3.      The petitioner No.1 filed an application before the Learned Court
under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, praying that the page numbers
in the said fabricated minutes book be verified through forensic science
4.      The above said application was dismissed by the impugned order
dated 28th February, 2013. The impugned order stated that the court cannot
be made on instrumentality to collect evidence on behalf of either of parties.
It is the job of the parties to collect their best evidence and to put forth the
same before the court for its perusal. The defendant could engage services of
a handwriting expert to ventilate his grievances that the plaintiffs have
fabricated certain pages of the minutes book filed on the record aggrieved
thereof the present petition is filed.
5.      Notice was issued to the respondent in the present petition but no one
appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service. Even counter affidavit
is not on record.
6.      Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view
that the present petition is liable to be allowed on the following ground :
     a) The learned court was not correct in asking the petitioner to verify it
        by engaging services of a hand writing expert. It could only be
        verified by a thorough scientific verification by Central Forensic
        Science Laboratory (CFSL) to reach a reliable conclusion. Even the
        report that shall be given by the forensic authorities of CFSL shall be
        required to be proved in accordance with law and as such will not
        amount to collecting the evidence on behalf of either of the parties.
     b) The learned trial court did not appreciate that the request made in the
        application was only to send the documents for comparison and report
        of CFSL as the petitioner cannot directly approach the CFSL.

CM (M) No.907/2013                                             Page 3 of 4
      c) In case the prayer made in the application under Section 45 of the
          Evidence Act, 1872 is not allowed, it would definitely affect the
          case of the petitioner on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice,
          equity and fair play, the application of the petitioner would have
          been allowed in view of facts and circumstances in the present
7.    In view of abovesaid reason, the present petition is allowed. The
application filed by the petitioner before the learned trial court is allowed.
The trial court will issue the necessary direction in view of prayer made in
the application. The impugned order is set-aside accordingly.
8.    No costs.

                                                     (MANMOHAN SINGH)
OCTOBER 30, 2013

CM (M) No.907/2013                                            Page 4 of 4
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Multi-level Marketing MLM India Affiliate Marketing Affiliate Marketing Software MLM Software MLM Solutions Multi level marketing solutions MLM Servi

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions