Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Shri C. M. Oberoi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that so far as the record of the Ghaziabad Court is concerned, the plaintiff is a stranger to the suit in the Ghaziabad Court and as a stranger he cannot obtain the copies of a judicial record during the pendency of the suit pending in judicial record after disposal. Undisputedly, the said proxies did not form part of the record of the suit pending in this court. Reliance is placed on Punjab High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. V, Chapter 5B, which are applicable to this court. Under it, a party can obtain a copy of the judicial record but it is urged that he has no right to obtain copies of documents that form part of the record of the file of the Civil Judge, Ghaziabad. Rule 1, Chapter 5B does not permit urges the counsel, the issue of copies of the record of the Ghaziabad Court by this court. Another submission is that in the scheme of the Companies Act, 1956, there is no provision for any member or shareholder to obtain copies of proxies lodge with the company or the specimen signatures of the shareholders maintained with the company. There is only a very limited right of inspection granted to a shareholder in connection with the proxies lodged with the company after issue of there days' notice to it and such a right does not entitle, says the counsel, any shareholder to obtain copies of the proxies or the signatures or the writings thereon.

13. We may recall that the relief claimed in the suit is on the allegations that the instrument of proxies in favor of proxies who voted for Dr. Rajaram Jaipuria and his nominee, which were counted, were illegal and invalid and instruments of proxies by virtue of which votes were cast in favor of Shri Mahindra Swarup and his nominee, which were disallowed, were valid. The proxies are thus material and relevant documents for the purpose of the disposal of the suit. The learned single judge in the order under appeal had upheld the order made by the Registrar for supply of certified copies as per rules and expressed that it does not affect the right of the appellant. In our view, he is perfectly justified in saying so. The learned single judge had by an ex parte order made on April 5, 1986, directed the defendants to deposit the proxies in court on April 7, 1986, and on the next date, i.e., April 7, 1986, directed in the presence of counsel for the parties that the order of deposit of proxies be complied with by April 9, 1986. The appellant moved an application dated April 9, 1986, under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being I. A. No. 2351 of 1986, in which it was stated that the registered office of the company is at Ghaziabad where the proxies and records have been kept and where the annual general meeting had taken place and that the secretary of defendant No. 2 company, Shri Anil Jhala, had gone to Ghaziabad that morning with a view to collect proxies in order to have the same deposited in this court and sealed . The inability to file the proxies was then expressed as the same had been seized by a Commissioner appointed by the Court of Sub-Civil Judge, Ghaziabad. The appellant had thus expressed his willingness to deposit stand of the appellant is that the proxies form part of the record of the civil suit of Ghaziabad Court, and similarly it would have formed part of record of this court, if filed. It is not disputed that if the appellant had deposited the proxies in this court, the plaintiff would be entitled to obtain certified copies. We see no prejudice to the appellant if the copies are obtained out of the summoned record because it was filed in Ghaziabad Court and not in this court.

16. The learned single judge had exercised the power and discretion under order XIII, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for summoning the records from the Ghaziabad court. The plaintiff had shown in the application supported by an affidavit for calling for the record that those documents are material and he had also shown that he could not obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record or such portion thereof and that the production of the original record is necessary for the purposes of justice. The appellants has no grievance against that order and it has become final. The production of the record not obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record from the Ghaziabad court. At the trial, the proxies will be scrutinised and referred to in oral evidence because of the issues formed in the suit. The proxies may be admitted in evidence and their certified copies will have to form part of the record of the suit in this court. The ordinary copies prepared at the trial by the witness may be objectionable. The learned single judge has done substantial justice between the parties. His order does not decide any aspect of the trial or even an ancillary proceeding in the suit. The issue of certified copies does not adversely affect any right of the company who is the appellants before us. The company should, on the contrary, assist in the ascertaining and determining by the court whether the election to the board of directors is legal and valid or not. We cannot comprehend even remote prejudice to the company by the impugned order. Applying the ratio of Shah Babulal's case, , that every order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned, we find that the order under appeal cannot be treated as a "judgment" within the meaning of section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act.