Supreme Court Upholds Decision on Relevance of Summoned Documents

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Joint Registrar and the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, concluding that the documents sought to be summoned were not relevant for the resolution of the suit. The Court emphasized its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and found no grounds to interfere, as the earlier findings on the relevance of the documents had been upheld. Previous applications seeking similar documents had been dismissed, with the Court noting that the suit was a simple recovery matter and the documents were needed for separate investigations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Relevance of the documents sought to be summoned.
2. Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
3. Previous applications and their dismissal.
4. Nature of the suit and its implications on the necessity of the documents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Relevance of the documents sought to be summoned:
The petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application No.6903 of 2012 under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC seeking to summon the record of business transactions of the respondent company. This application was dismissed by the Joint Registrar of the Delhi High Court on 06.12.2012. The Joint Registrar framed the question, "What is to be seen is as to whether the documents sought to be summoned would be relevant for effective disposal of the present suit" and concluded that the documents were not relevant for the adjudication of the suit. This conclusion was based on an earlier finding by the High Court in its order dated 19.01.2009, which was upheld by a Division Bench on 03.03.2009. The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, in the impugned order, also did not interfere with the Joint Registrar's decision, noting that the documents were sought for investigation purposes in collateral proceedings and not for the suit's resolution.

2. Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India:
The Supreme Court noted that its jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary. It emphasized that if the impugned order could be sustained by proper and valid reasons, the fact that the reasons recorded by the High Court for its conclusion are untenable need not necessarily call for the exercise of the Court's discretion under Article 136. The Court found that the Joint Registrar's order, confirmed by the learned Single Judge, correctly identified the question of relevance of the documents and concluded that they were not relevant to the suit. This conclusion was based on an earlier finding which had become final.

3. Previous applications and their dismissal:
The petitioner had earlier filed two Interlocutory Applications Nos.5120 of 2007 and 15164 of 2007, both dismissed with costs by the learned Single Judge on 19.01.2009. The applications sought the disclosure of certain documents mentioned in letters dated 14.08.2003, 26.09.2003, and 03.11.2003, which were not the subject matter of the suit but of another suit filed by the plaintiff before the High Court of Calcutta. The learned Single Judge held that the suit was merely for recovery of the amount and that the application was belated and appeared to have been filed to delay the suit's progress.

4. Nature of the suit and its implications on the necessity of the documents:
The suit filed by the respondent was a simple suit for recovery of the amount paid under protest. The learned Single Judge noted that the defendant sought the production of documents for an investigation pending in collateral proceedings. The power of investigation under Section 11C of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, lies with the Securities Exchange Board of India. Furthermore, the operation of the letters issued by the defendant had been stayed by the Calcutta High Court. The documents could not be summoned from the plaintiff during the cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses as they were required for pending investigations in collateral proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, agreeing with the Joint Registrar's and the learned Single Judge's findings that the documents sought were not relevant for the suit's disposal. The Court found no miscarriage of justice and decided not to interfere in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136.

---