<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (11) TMI 535 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456682</link>
    <description>Order 11 Rule 14 CPC is a discretionary discovery provision and cannot be used as a substitute for notice to produce, inspection, certified copies, or the evidentiary consequences of non-production. Bank statements and related records, especially where obtainable through court records or from third parties/public authorities, should be sought through the proper procedural route rather than by a coercive order against the opposing party. Income tax returns are treated with similar procedural restraint: the party should first be called upon to produce them, and non-production may then support secondary evidence or an adverse inference. The commentary states that coercive production under Order 11 Rule 14 was therefore not the correct remedy for either category of documents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 16:05:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 535 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456682</link>
      <description>Order 11 Rule 14 CPC is a discretionary discovery provision and cannot be used as a substitute for notice to produce, inspection, certified copies, or the evidentiary consequences of non-production. Bank statements and related records, especially where obtainable through court records or from third parties/public authorities, should be sought through the proper procedural route rather than by a coercive order against the opposing party. Income tax returns are treated with similar procedural restraint: the party should first be called upon to produce them, and non-production may then support secondary evidence or an adverse inference. The commentary states that coercive production under Order 11 Rule 14 was therefore not the correct remedy for either category of documents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>