D) Costs Of And Incidental To This … vs P.Rajkumar.Represented By His on 2 August, 2025

0
1

Calcutta High Court

D) Costs Of And Incidental To This … vs P.Rajkumar.Represented By His on 2 August, 2025

                                            1

 OD-13
                          IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                                    ORIGINAL SIDE
                           Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction


                                    C.S.No./49/2010
                                           In
                                    G.A.No./2/2023

                        NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. AND ORS.



 Before:
 The Hon'ble Justice BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
 Date: 02th AUGUST 2025

                                                                                     Appearance:

                                                                  Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Sr. Adv.
                                                                  Mr. Aniket Agarwal, Adv.
                                                                  Ms. Madhurima Halder, Adv.
                                                                  Mr. B. Chakraborty, Adv.
                                                                                   ...for ITC ltd.
                                                                  Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv.
                                                                  Mr. Amit Kr. Nag, Adv.
                                                                  Mr. P. Banerjee, Adv.
                                                                  Mr. Y. Bhattacharyya, Adv.
                                                                               ...for defendants.
The Court: This application is filed by Defendant no-1 praying for the following reliefs:

      a) An order be passed directing the Registrar of Companies Kolkata, West

         Bengal to depute a competent officer for production of the original report of

         Mr. T.Pandian Deputy Director (Inspection), Registrar of Companies

         Kolkata, West Bengal dated 26th October 2009 to produce before this

         Hon'ble Court.

      b) Alternatively an order directing issuance of Summons/Sub-poena through

         the concerned Department of this Hon'ble Court for production of the

         original report of Mr. T. Pandian, Deputy Director (Inspection), Registrar of

         Companies, West Bengal dated 26th October 2009 before this Hon'ble Court

         on such date as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

      c) Ad interim order in terms of prayers above.

      d) Costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the plaintiff.
                                      2

e) Such further or other order or orders and/or direction or directions as this

   Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.


The contention of the defendant/petitioner may be summed up thus;

1. After service of the summons in the suit the Defendants through their

   Advocate entered appearance and have filed a written statement. The

   primary defence as urged in the Written Statement is that the news

   published alleged to be defamatory reports the violation of various

   provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 by the plaintiff based on Inspection

   Report of the Deputy Director (Inspection), Registrar of Companies Kolkata,

   West Bengal conducted in terms of the order/direction passed by the

   Ministry vide its letter No. 3/111/2007/CL.II dated 19/09/2007. According

   to the applicant as a News Channel the applicant is entitled to news item

   based on the said Inspection Report which is an available record pertaining

   to the case and therefore, question of defamation in any manner does not

   and cannot arise.

2. After considering the issue suggested by the parties by an Order dated 1st

   February 2023 the following issues were framed:-

   A. Did the defendants cause publication of the said news programme on 9th

      and 10th February 2010 as pleaded in the plaint?

   B. Were the statements made in the said news programme defamatory in

      nature as alleged in the plaint?

   C. Is the defendant entitled to take the defence of fair comment and

      justification as alleged in written statement?

   D. Did the defendants exercise due care and diligence in making the

      statements in the news programme?

   E. Is the plaintiff entitled to any damages from the defendants or any of

      them?
                                        3

   F. To what relief (if any) is the plaintiff entitled?

   G. Whether the suit is maintainable?

   H. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree against the defendant for

      publishing article?

3. As is evident from the issues framed one of the issues for adjudication is

   whether the statements made in the news programmes were defamatory in

   nature as has been alleged in the plaint. Similarly another issue for

   adjudication as to whether the defendant is entitled to take the defence of

   fair comment and justification as alleged in the written statement.

4. Pursuant to framing of ISSUES by Order dated 1st February 2023 plaintiff

   was permitted three weeks time to file Judges Brief of Documents, and the

   petitioner was granted opportunity to take inspection of the said document

   within one week and the suit was fixed for witness action on 2nd March

   2023.

5. By Order dated 20th July 2023 the suit was fixed on 1st September 2023. In

   the meantime the petitioner proposing to disclose another document gave

   liberty to the plaintiff to take inspection of such additional document

   disclosed. But the plaintiff has not completed inspection till today.

6. Again by letter dated 7th September 2023 issued by the Learned Advocate

   for the defendant, the defendant sought to rely on another document being

   Report of Mr. T. Pandian Deputy Director (Inspection) Registrar of

   Companies West Bengal dated 26th October 2009.

7. The plaintiff by letter dated 12th September 2023 intimated that they shall

   take inspection of the original report upon receipt of the complete set of

   documents.

8. The applicant does not have in its control power or possession of the

   original of the Inspection Report of the Deputy Director (Inspection)
                                          4

        Registrar of Companies Kolkata West Bengal. The said document is in the

        power, control and possession of the Deputy Director (Inspection) Registrar

        of Companies Kolkata, West Bengal.


     The plaintiff/Respondent has contested this application by filing Affidavit in

opposition. The contention of the plaintiff in the affidavit in opposition may be

summed up thus:

1. The application is mala-fide misconceived, harassing and not maintainable

and is liable be dismissed with costs.

2. The spirit of the said application is to bring on record of this Hon’ble Court

a document which the applicant has received through some undisclosed

source. The Applicant has claimed that the purported inspection report is

an available document. However the Applicant has not averred as to how

the Defendants had come into Possession of the copy of the said report who

in Defendant No. 1’s organization received the said report, or who from the

ROC gave a copy of the said report.

3. Any internal document of a government department which may or may not

be a part of the documents collected or generated by such department for

the purpose of conducting an inquiry are privileged, until such inquiry

culminates in an accusations and becomes part of a judicial or quasi-

judicial proceedings. The applicant has no right of whatsoever manner to

seek its production. The applicant and the other Defendants know that the

balance sheets and profit and loss account of the plaintiff for the Financial

years 2006-07, and 2007.08 were published two years and one year

respectively prior to the telecast of the defamatory news programme. The

said accounts were audited by the statutory auditor appointed by approval

of the Shareholders of the plaintiff Company and also filed with statutory

and regulatory authorities. Prior to making any accusation of falsification of
5

account for those years the Applicant and its officers who were responsible

for publication of such statements had a duty to verify whether such

statements were true and whether they had evidence to support that the

accounts for the relevant years were in fact falsified as stated in the

impugned news programme.

4. The plaintiff has denied that the suit is not maintainable and have further

denied that the applicant has been fair in reporting or that it has also

telecast the plaintiff’s response as soon as the same was available as alleged

or at all.

5. That the said purported inspection report which is an internal document of

the ROC contained interim observations of the Deputy Director (Inspection).

In fact any such inspection mentioned in the said report did not result into

any adverse final findings or any penal proceedings precipitating against the

plaintiff, therefore, no reliance can be placed on by the applicant on such an

interim document which bears no trials of finality.

6. In the said application and in the written statement the defendants have

failed to mention that how they have got hold of a copy of the Report of ROC

which is an internal document of the ROC. Therefore no reliance whatsoever

can be placed on the same by this Hon’ble Court. The defendants have also

failed to explain the basis on which such document would be admissible as

evidence in the instant suit before this Hon’ble Court. Permitting the

Applicant now to bring the original version of such report on record would

only aggravate and perpetuate the same by inviting it to become a part of

judicial proceedings.

7. After perusal of the copy of the said inspection report it still manifests

therefrom that the defendants have telecast the defamatory news

programme in a risky fashion and with the sole intention to damage the
6

reputation of the plaintiff. Throughout the telecast with an intention to

attract large viewership, the defendants have deliberately sensationalized it

and used words such as “account malpractices” “fudging of accounts,”

falsification of accounts” all Smoke at Itc” etc. even though such critical

words have nowhere been used in the report.

8. That such report is merely an observation and not conclusive and therefore

no purpose will be served by bringing the same on record.

The defendant/petitioner in his Affidavit in reply has denied that the

document which is an inspection report dated October 26 2009 is an

internal document of the Registrar of Companies West Bengal. The

applicant has further denied that applicants have misused the contents of

the report for their own benefit and sensationalized the same in a news

programme.

The applicant in its affidavit in reply has contended that the applicant is

entitled to rely upon the inspection report filed against the respondent/plaintiff,

which formed the basis of the news reported by applicant and hence prays for leave

to bring on record the said document. The applicant further contends that the

applicant being a news channel of repute has published/telecast the news

programme based on the findings contained in the said report and is thus entitled to

rely upon the same. It is also contended that it is not necessary for the applicants to

disclose how the applicants have come into possession of the copy of the said report.

Heard Learned Advocate for the Applicant/Defendant no-1 and Learned

Advocate for the plaintiff/opposite party, perused the petition filed and the Affidavits

submitted in the case.

Mr. Sen Learned Counsel for the applicant/defendant no-1 submits that trial

in the suit has not commenced yet. The plaintiff’s Advocate by letter dated 12th

September 2023 requested the defendant’s Advocate to provide inspection of the
7

Original Inspection Report. The Defendant’s Advocate has offered inspection of copy

of the Inspection Report to the Plaintiff’s Advocate on 8 September 2023 at 4.30 P.m.

as the original of such report is not available with the defendant. One of the pages of

the Inspection Report was also not available with the copy that was available with the

defendant. Learned Advocate further submits that the Inspection Report being part of

the defence pleaded in the written statement and the same being in the custody of

the office of Registrar of Companies West Bengal having originated from the said

office the prayer has been made in the instant application for production of the said

document by an appropriate officer of the Registrar of Companies and alternatively

for issuance of a sub-poena to produce the same. The defendant does not and/or

could not have had in it’s control, power and possession the original of the Inspection

Report which is lying at the office of the Deputy Director (Inspection) Registrar of

Companies. Learned Advocate also submits that the purpose of the present

application is not to have the Inspection Report proved and have it received as

defendant’s evidence by marking it as an Exhibit. The only object sought to be

achieved by the present application is production of the Inspection Report in original,

failing which it is impossible for the defendant to either offer inspection of the said

original Inspection Report to the plaintiff or disclose the missing page of the

Inspection Report.

With regard to the plea of plaintiff that the document is inadmissible learned

Advocate submits that such plea can be taken when the document is tendered. With

regard to the plea of the plaintiff that the document is not relied upon in the written

statement Learned Advocate submits that on a plain reading of the written statement

it shall be evident that the defendant’s entire case hinges upon the Inspection Report

and the contents thereof which has been specifically pleaded in paragraphs 8(VII),

8(XII), 12 and 13 of the written statement.

Learned Advocate further submits that procedure is the handmaid of justice.
8

Procedural and technical hurdles should not be allowed to come in the way of the

court while doing substantial justice. It is also submitted that if the procedural

violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, Courts must lean

towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical

violation.

Learned Advocate submits that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the

Code relied upon by the plaintiff has no manner of application to the facts of the

present case. This provision is applicable at a stage of the suit when a document is

being received in evidence.

Learned Advocate also submit that the provisions of Order XIII Rule 1 of the

Code relied upon by the plaintiff is inapplicable. The said provision applies in cases

where a party has filed copies of documentary evidence along with plaint or written

statement. The question of the party or it’s pleader producing all documentary

evidence in original before the settlement of issues will only arise if a party has filed

copies of documentary evidence along with plaint or written statement. In the present

case the defendant has not filed copy of documentary evidence, being the Inspection

Report with the written statement. Thus the provisions of Order XIII Rule 1 of the

Code do not apply in this case.

Learned Advocate for the Defendant no-1/petitioner relies upon the following

Judicial Division.

Sugandhi (Dead) By Legal Representative VS P.Rajkumar.Represented by his

power Agent Imam Oli.

Reported in (2020) 10 SCC. P-706.

Mr. Ghosh Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/opposite party submits that when

the examination-in-chief of the first witness of the plaintiff was about to commence,

the defendants, with mala-fide intentions and to unnecessarily stall the proceedings

sought to disclose a new document a photocopy whereof was sent to the advocate of
9

the plaintiff under cover of a letter dated 7th September 2023. The plaintiff

immediately sought inspection of the original document and leave to inspect was

given by this Hon’ble Court by its order dated 8th September 2023. Upon inspection it

was discovered by the plaintiff’s advocate that the document sought to be relied on

was incomplete and as such by a letter dated 12th September 2023, the plaintiff’s

Advocate requested the defendant to provide a complete copy.

Learned Advocate further submits that instead of providing a complete set of

the original copy in their possession the defendant has filed the instant application.

It is submitted that this application is made more than 13 years after the institution

of the suit and post the settlement of issues and is liable to be dismissed with costs

because inter alia. 1) it seeks to rectify a fatal lacuna in their defence-the defendants

clearly did not possess the complete set of the document in question at the time of

making the broadcast/and does not possess the same even till date) ii) The defendant

has not been able to show that it is entitled to the said document (which is not a

public document) in any way whatsoever and by this application is trying to use this

Hon’ble Court to fish out evidence on their behalf and till date no leave has been

sought nor granted to the defendants to rely on any such document. Learned

Advocate also submits that the document is an internal ROC document and is

inadmissible as evidence in this suit. Learned Advocate submits that prior to making

any accusation of falsification of accounts for those years it was incumbent on the

defendants to verify whether the accusations made out in the programme were

indeed borne out by the financial statements however no such attempt was made by

the Defendants. Even if the Defendant had relied/replicated/published the contents

of the said interim internal report of the ROC, without any embellishment (which is

not the case) the same would not be relevant in deciding whether the statements

made by the Defendants was defamatory unless the defendant has independently

verified the contents of the report to be factually correct. accordingly the production
10

of this document is neither relevant not necessary to decide the issues in the present

matter.

Learned Counsel relies upon the following Judicial decision.

The Institution of Engineers (India) and anr. VS Bishnu Pada Bag and anr.

Reported in 1977 SCC Online cal-266.

Padam Sen and Anr. VS State of Uttar Pradesh.

Reported in 1960 SCC Online S.C. 77.

Before proceeding to decide the material in issue at first it is necessary to hold

that as the issue is with regard to permission to produce a document and to summon

the Registrar of Companies to produce the same the argument with regard to

verification of the authenticity of the said documents before making statement of

falsification of account cannot be considered at this stage and the same has to be

considered at the time of trial of suit.

Similarly the question of source of receiving copy of the said document cannot

also be gone into at this stage as the same can be clarified at the time of adducing

evidence. Thirdly whether the document is inadmissible can also be considered at the

time of evidence.

Thus at this stage this Court is to consider whether petitioner should be

permitted to rely upon the document and whether prayer for summons to be issued

upon the concerned authority in whose custody the document is lying should be

granted.

In order to decide the issue it is necessary to consider the provisions contained

in Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, Order XIII of the Code of Civil

Procedure and Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

1[1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is

claimed or relied upon by him.-Where the defendant bases his defence upon a
11

document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his

defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list,

and shall produce it in court when the written statement is presented by him and

shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the

written statement.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the

defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

2[(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under

this rule, but, is not so produced shall not without the leave of the Court be received

in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit].

(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents-

(a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory].

Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

1[Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of

issues.-(1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of

issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been

filed along with plaint or written statement.

(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced:

Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in

such form as the High Court directs.

(3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents-

(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.]

Order XVI. Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

6. Summons to produce document.-Any person may be summoned to

produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence; and any person
12

summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the

summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally

to produce the same.

Right to defend is a basic right A person has a right to defend any case whether

civil or criminal brought against him in any Court or tribunal or any authority in

accordance with law. Thus all reasonable opportunities should be granted to a

person or institution to defend a case brought against him unless the same is barred

under Law.

As it is observed in different judicial pronouncements that procedure is the

hand maid of justice, and procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to

come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice, rigid view with regard to

procedure should not be taken by Court and wherever permissible Court may use

discretion to do substantial justice, without being rigid on the procedure.

In the case of Sugandha (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Another (supra)

the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

7. Sub-rule (1) mandates the defendant to produce the documents in his

possession before the court and file the same along with his written statement. He

must list out the documents which are in his possession or power as well as those

which are not. In case the defendant does not file any document or copy thereof

along with his written statement, such a document shall not be allowed to be

received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit. However,

this will not apply to a document produced for cross-examination of the plaintiff’s

witnesses or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Sub-rule (3)

states that a document which is not produced at the time of filing of the written

statement, shall not be received in evidence except with the leave of the court. Rule

1(1) of Order 13 CPC again makes it mandatory for the parties to produce their

original documents before settlement of issues.

13

8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the

defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court

along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred

upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no

straitjacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being

shown by the defendant.

9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and

technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing

substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to

the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than

relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that

litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice

and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth

in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application

is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3).’

In the case of Padam Sen and Anr (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed

as follows:

‘9. The question for determination is whether the impugned order of the

Additional Munsif appointing Sri Raghubir Pershad Commissioner for

seizing the plaintiff’s books of account can be said to be an order which is

passed by the Court in the exercise of its inherent powers. The inherent

powers saved by s. 151 of the Code are with respect to the procedure to be

followed by the Court in deciding the cause before it. These powers are not

powers over the substantive rights which any litigant possesses. Specific

powers have to be conferred on the Courts for passing such orders which

would affect such rights of a party. Such powers cannot come within the

scope of inherent powers of the Court in the matters of procedure, which
14

powers have their source in the Court possessing all the essential powers to

regulate its practice and procedure. A party has full rights over its books of

account. The Court has no inherent power forcibly to seize its property. If it

does so, it invades the private rights of the party. Specific procedure is laid

down in the Code for getting the relevant documents or books in Court for

the purpose of using them as evidence. A party is free to produce such

documents or books in support of its case as be relevant. A party can ask

the help of the Court to have produced in Court by the other party such

documents as it would like to be used in evidence and are admitted by that

party to be in its possession. If a party does not produce the documents it is

lawfully called upon to produce, the Court has the power to penalize it, in

accordance with the provisions of the Code. The Court has the further

power to draw any presumption against such a party who does not produce

the relevant document in its possession, especially after it has been

summoned from it. Even in such cases where the Court summons a

document from a party, the Court has not been given any power to get hold

of the document forcibly from the possession of the defaulting party.

9. The defendants had no rights to these account books. They could not lay

any claim to them. They applied for the seizure of these books because they

apprehended that the plaintiff might make such entries in those account

books which could go against the case they were setting up in Court. The

defendants’ request really amounted to the Court’s collecting documentary

evidence which the defendants considered to be in their favour at that point

of time. It is no business of the Court to collect evidence for a party or even

to protect the rival party from the evil consequences of making forged

entries in those ac. count books. If the plaintiff does forge entries and uses
15

forged entries as evidence in the case, the defendants would have ample

opportunity to dispute those entries and to prove them forgeries.’

In the case of The Institution of Engineers (India) and anr (supra) the Hon’ble

Supreme Court observed as follows:

‘5. Mr. Maitra next contended that irregularities about the counting of ballot

papers and proxy votes were referred to in Annexure E/1 to the plaint and as such it

cannot be contended that the dispute was related only to the proxy votes of Orissa.

Mr. Maitra, further contended that for passing an order under Or. 39 R. 7 of the C.P.

Code it is not necessary that the said provision must confine to the subject matter of

the suit itself and appropriate order can be passed under Order 39 R. 7 C.P. Code

even in respect of matters in respect of which any question may arise in the suit and

for this proposition Mr. Maitra relied on a decision reported in AIR 1975 All page 399.

It may be stated in this connection that even assuming that the provision of Or. 39 R.

7 may be stated in this connection relate not only to the subject matter of the suit

but also in other matters in which any question may arise relating to the suit, no

commission can be issued for the purpose of collecting evidence in a suit. In any

event, such commission should not be issued for making inventories relating to ballot

papers by ex parte orders without proper verification as to the essential requirement

of such a step even in a case where Or. 39 R. 7 C.P. Code is otherwise applicable. Mr.

Maitra, further contended that in appropriate cases, the Election Tribunal has looked

into the ballot papers for ascertaining the position and in this context he refers to a

decision reported in AIR 1964 SC page 1249. It may be stated that as a proposition of

law it cannot be said that even in appropriate cases the ballot papers cannot be

looked into by the Court for proper adjudication of a dispute between the parties but

what is emphasized is that such action should not be taken without extreme care

and caution and only in such cases where inspection of ballot papers is essentially

necessary for proper adjudication and the Court is satisfied on evidence that such
16

extreme step is necessary. Mr. Maitra further contended that issue of an inventory

commission is a matter of discretion of the Court and if the Court has exercised such

discretion there should be no interference under S. 115 C.P. Code particularly when

such exercise of discretion is not perverse. The question of exercising discretion,

however, does not arise in this case because we are of the view that an inventory

commission cannot be issued for the purpose of fishing out some evidence which

may be adduced by either of the parties in the suit. It is, therefore, an improper

exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below and such improper exercise has

occasioned material failure of justice. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute. There

will however, be no order as to costs. The prayer for stay of the operation of the order

is refused.’

As sub-rule 3 of Rule 1A of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers

a Court to permit a defendant to produce a document which ought to have been

produced with written statement a liberal view should be taken so that a defendant

has a reasonable opportunity to defend his case. A defendant does not come to Court

voluntarily but he has to appear to answer the case brought against him by the

plaintiff thus all reasonable opportunity should be given in accordance with law for

the defendant to defend his case. Although the defendant/petitioner has not taken

out a separate application for grant of leave but in the said application in which he

seeks summons for production of the document he has shown the necessity of

producing the said document which has to be considered in the interest of justice.

Although a plain reading of Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure

does not suggest that the application is required to be ordered automatically without

considering the bona fides of the application but in this case considering the nature

of allegations made against the defendant the relief sought, and the defence taken by

the defendant and the authority with whom the document is lying this Court is of the

view that to do justice and to expedite the matter the prayer of the defendant should
17

be allowed.

The argument of the plaintiff that the petition is filed to fish out evidence

cannot be sustained considering the facts of the case and the provision of Order XVI

Rule 6 CPC, and the fact no application for issuance of Commission is made nor the

plaintiff is directed to produce any of the document in their, custody. Thus the

decisions of the Institution of Engineers (supra) and Padam Sen (supra) are not

applicable in this case.

Thus the petition filed by the petitioner Defendant no-1 should be allowed.

Let there be an order in terms of prayer (b) of the Notice of Motion dated 17th

day of November 2023.

The Registrar of Companies West Bengal is directed to produce the original

report of Mr. T. Pandian Deputy Director (Inspection) Registrar of Companies West

Bengal dated 26th October 2009 in a sealed cover on or before 26th August 2025.

GA No-2 of 2023 stands disposed.

Fix the matter on 26/08/2025.

(BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.)

A.Bhar(P.A)



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here