Skip to main content

Court Empowered To Direct Production Of Documents Relevant To The Issue

The Delhi High Court through Justice Vipin Sanghi, in the case of Naveen Jindal vs M/S Zee Media Corporation and Anr, noted that under Order 11 Rule 14 of the CPC, the Court has the power to direct production of documents relevant to the issue in question and necessary for the fair disposal of the case and which are in the possession of the person against whom the discovery has been sought. The Court further noted that though the onus of proving defamation is on the person alleging the same, no evidence needs to be led towards the facts and issues which aren’t disputed by the parties.

In this case, Naveen Jindal sought permanent, prohibitory and mandatory injunction and damages against Zee Media Corp. for having aired and published some mala fide and defamatory news articles against him. The High Court had granted an interim injunction prohibiting the airing and publishing of the said content.

An application was moved under Order 11 Rule 14 of the CPC to direct Zee Media Corp to hand over the original news article and telecasted programme. The Joint Registrar, allowing the production of the documents, noted that in order to shorten the trial, Courts have been empowered to order the production and also have the discretion to examine the documents material to the trial.

The counsel for the defendants argued that the onus to prove defamation lies on the party alleging it and therefore, the defendants should not be called upon to produce any material which could be used against them.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that since the defendants hadn’t denied the airing and publication of the defamatory material and were in possession of the originals, the same are entitled to discovery under Order 11 Rule 14 of the CP, in order to expedite the examination of such documents by the Court.

The Court allowed the application for production of documents.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a