-1. flN13HBHflmH(XflHWPCflNKARRAIAKA,BANGADQRE DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JULY, " BEFORE THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE T COMPANY APPLICATION No_.'156/296$ 1 : IN COMPANY APPLICATION NC..9'29V/2:065" k IN 00.13. NO.16Q2;',2uO02'--- " V BEWNEEN: DCM FINA'N€3_IAL sE::§:v1cEs LIMETED CGMPANY R'E(;1.$TER.Ea.,%U«1~;DER THE COMPAEIES ACT 'i+IAVH'§G=I'Ff:"~_ REGISTEREDAMOFFICE'AT---.___ No.75, AMRI'_I'H. NAGAR; NEW BELHI, REPRE3SE'N'PED . BY n"-Es AUTHORISED___SiGNATORY 'JIJ'AYA1%i'UMA12. . . APPLI CANT 1.
fiucdfi WIRES LTD.
REPVVBY ITS OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
‘ms NUCOR WIRES WORKERS UNION
PLVENA BUEDING
OPP: KEB OFFICE ANEKAL ROAD
‘ JIGANI, BANGALORE 562 106
REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
SHRI S.A.SYED
-2…
3. N.’I’.SABAS’I’1N
No.59/1, 4TH MAIN
1s’r (mess, HAL 111 STAGE
BANGALORE 560 075
4. GEORGE JOSEPH
R/A APARTMENT NO.P
LAKESHORE MANOR . _
GANGADHAR cmzrrv STREET’~~
ULSOOR, BANGALORE. A A A “‘
_ “;1n,REsPoND£9bITS
THIS COMPANY APPLiCATIQ_i§i’» ‘LS FIjjLEd13_U [S 446(2)(B)
OF THE COMPANIES A(L5!f_AND RU;LE’;”9 0.1:’ THE COMPANY
COURT RULES PRAYING TC)» RPERMIT “me APPLICANT TO
PRODUCE THE DQ(3UM:EN’§’S”MENTI{)4N.ED THEREIN.
“mas Fiégv ‘F’£a)RVuQR’I3ERS THIS DAY, THE
eoum %MApe .THE;§’QLLOWENG_; V
In order dated 31.1.2908, the
~. application seeking leave of the
t,e’~p’red~uce the documents viz, photostat copies
(if. ‘the drafts for having made payment to
Pvt. Limited, in six numbers and
A 57 report of DOM financial Services Limited.
application by the purchaser deserves to be
rejected for the following reasons: D flK
-3-
The learned counsel for the applicant having made
an application on 31.1.2008 that he would’
necessary documents available, has produced %
copies of documents purporting be l
paid to Maxon Engineering Pvt.
copy of schedule to a dOC~”l:.’1II}._V(31″1tV” ;
Though in the appnmson it _is””1nentioned: it is the
13*» annual report tl;1e Services
limited, the documents’ in evidence.
If the snbstantiate his claim ) must
establishlllnl.a_nianne1*.l§ndWn to law by producing
V. re1ei$’;antA’IsateT1’ial.con.stjtuting substantial legal evidence
“a.fact,~t in the circumstances admittedly is in
dispute A the parties. Having not done so,
photosstathcopies are inadmissible. The only explanafion
V’ L? Sszjl.S.N.Bhat, learned counsel for the applicantief
V’ for not producing the original records relating to the
invoices is that they were reduced to ashes in a fire
accident, which is a statement set out in the main
Nx
.4-
application. The fact as to whether invoice’;
reduced to ashes in a fire accident is a matt-if ”
decided by this Court. Therefo1’e,””it-is’ 2
accept such explaxlaticn V at A’ S –. def ” ._
proceedings.
Reserving liberty produce such
other legal evidamce law over its
claim, this rejected.
Sd/-
Judge
9..-