Court Rules Applications Maintainable, Affirms Authority to File Affidavit, Admits Delayed Documents

The court found the applications filed by the applicant-company to be maintainable as they were crucial for the case and not filed after the trial had started. It ruled that the retainer had the authority to file an affidavit based on a valid Power of Attorney. The court exercised discretion to admit documents filed after a delay, emphasizing their importance. It interpreted the amended provisions of the CPC to allow document filing with court permission. The court used its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to ensure justice, allowing the applicant to produce necessary documents.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the applications filed by the applicant-company.
2. Locus standi of the retainer to file an affidavit.
3. Admissibility of documents filed after a significant delay.
4. Applicability of amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the filing of documents.
5. Exercise of inherent powers by the Court under Section 151 of the CPC.

Comprehensive Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Applications Filed by the Applicant-Company:
The applicant-company, M/s. Cable Corporation of India Limited, filed two Company Applications under various provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The respondent-company argued that the applications were not maintainable as they were filed after a gap of more than three years from the date of the Company Petition. The court, however, found that the applications were maintainable as the trial had not yet started, and the documents sought to be produced were crucial for the applicant's case.

2. Locus Standi of the Retainer to File an Affidavit:
The respondent-company contended that Mr. K.G. Narasimhan, a retainer of the applicant-company, had no locus standi to file an affidavit as he did not possess a General Power of Attorney from the Board of Directors nor had he obtained permission from the Court. The court rejected this contention, stating that a Power of Attorney executed on 4-7-2002 authorized Mr. Narasimhan and Mr. Ashok Gupta to act on behalf of the applicant-company.

3. Admissibility of Documents Filed After a Significant Delay:
The respondent-company argued that the documents could not be admitted as they were filed after a delay of more than three years and without an application to condone the delay. The court noted that the documents were crucial to the applicant's case and that the delay was not intentional but due to the documents being located in different offices and retained by excise authorities. The court exercised its discretion to condone the delay and admitted the documents.

4. Applicability of Amended Provisions of the CPC Regarding the Filing of Documents:
The respondent-company relied on the amended provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XIII of the CPC, which came into effect on 1-7-2002, arguing that no documents should be filed subsequent to the filing of the plaint or written statement. The court examined the amendments to Order VII, Rule 14, Order VIII, Rule 1A, and Order XIII, Rules 1 and 2, and concluded that the Code allows for the production of documents at the hearing of the suit with the leave of the Court, as provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII and sub-rule (3) of Rule 1A of Order VIII.

5. Exercise of Inherent Powers by the Court Under Section 151 of the CPC:
The court emphasized that procedures should facilitate justice and not obstruct it. It referred to Rule 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959, which preserves the inherent powers of the Court to pass orders necessary for the ends of justice. The court decided to exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to allow the applicant-company to produce the documents, stating that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-company as they would have the opportunity to rebut the evidence.

Conclusion:
The court allowed both applications filed by the applicant-company, permitting them to produce the list of documents and the xerox copies of the Letter of Intent and the Purchase Order placed by the respondent-company. The delay in filing these documents was condoned in the interest of justice, and no costs were awarded.

---