judicial references in a criminal appeal

 

 

 

District : South 24 Parganas.

 

In the Court of the Learned Fast Track 3^rd Court of Additional District Session Judge, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

 

                                                          Criminal Appeal no. 192 of 2018.

 

                                                          In the matter of :

 

                                                          Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh,

_______Complainant.

 

-          Versus –

-           

Smt. Indira Pal,

                   _________Accused.

 

F I R I S H T I

{ Enclosure }

 

 

Judicial References

 

 

On Legal Liability :

 

 

 

1.   The accused had discharged his burden that the subject cheques were completed by the complainant for a non existence debt and therefore the accused could not be penalized in case such cheque were dishonoured by him.

 

{ Pyramind Finance Limited – Versus – Ram Krishna Iyer – AIR 2007 ( NOC ) 1092 ( Bom ) }

 

 

2.   It is not obligatory on the accused to separately adduced evidence or to enter the witness box if he can successfully gather material from the evidence of the complainant which would sufficiently disprove the presumptive facts, particularly, in relation to the pre-existence of legal liability or the debt for discharge of which the cheque was issued.

 

{ Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal – versus Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha – 2008 Cri. L.J. 2955 ( Bom ) }

 

 

3.   The maxim is therefore, intimately connected with the more comprehensive rule of our law, ex turpi causa non oritur action, on account of which no court will allow itself to be made the instrument of enforcing obligations alleged to arise out of a contract or transaction which is illegal.

 

{ Virender Singh – Versus – Laxmi Narain – AIR 2007 ( NOC ) 2039;  2007 Cri. L.J. 2262 }

 

4.   There must be legally enforceable debt, otherwise, no cheque bounce case should be maintainable.“A statutory presumption has an evidentiary value. The question as to whether the presumption stood rebutted or not, must, therefore, be determined keeping in view the other evidences on record. For the said purpose, stepping into the witness box by the appellant is not imperative......."

 

{ Muthukumaran – Versus Periyasamy – Madurai Bench of Madras High Court – CRL. R.C. ( MD ) No. 764 of 2010 }

 

 

5.   Thus, bearing in mind the relevant provisions of the N.I. Act, it must be emphasized that only legally enforceable debt or liability can be enforced in the proceedings under section 138 of the said Act, because the explanation to the penal provision is abundantly clear that the dishonoured cheque must have been received by the complainant against a legally enforceable debt or liability.

 

{ Smt. Nanda – Versus – Nandkishor – High Court Judicature at Bombasy – Bench at Nagpur – Criminal Apeeal no. 467 / 2009 }

 

 

 

On presumption :

 

 

 

6.   Ss. 138 & 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption against accused - Rebuttal of - Mode of - Necessary considerations by court - Stepping into the witness box by the accused, held, not imperative for said rebuttal - Question whether the presumption stood rebutted or not must be determined keeping in view the other evidence on record - Where chances of false implication cannot be ruled out, the background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration - Courts must be on guard to see that merely on the application of presumption as contemplated under S. 139, the same may not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction – Other principles of legal jurisprudence, namely, presumption of innocence as a human right and the doctrine of reverse burden introduced by S. 139 should be delicately balanced - Such balancing acts would largely depend upon the factual matrix of each case, the materials brought on record and having regard to legal principles governing the same - Complaint filed under NI Act alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs 1.5 lakhs to the appellant and the latter on his own went to the house of the complainant to return the loan by an account payee cheque which got dishonoured when presented - Plea of appellant that his power-of-attorney holder (with whom appellant was having differences) misutilised his signed blank cheques through his relative, the complainant - Raising presumption under S. 139, NI Act, complainant's case primarily accepted for the reason that the appellant did not step into the witness box - Trial court not drawing any inference as to the probability of the complainant advancing a sum of Rs 1.5 lakhs on mere asking and that too without keeping any documentary proof or requiring presence of any witness - Purported story that the appellant would himself come forward to return the amount by a cheque knowing fully well that he did not have any sufficient funds was difficult to believe - Further, complainant did not say that he had friendship with appellant - No indication as to any business transactions between them - Complainant failed to produce any books of accounts or any other proof to show that he got so much money from Bank - Courts below failed to notice that ordinarily in terms of S. 269-SS, Income Tax Act, any advance taken by way of loan of more than Rs 20,000 had to be made by an account payee cheque only – Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, held, courts below approached the matter on wrong application of the legal principles to the fact situation of the case - Hence, conviction and sentence set aside,

 

{ Krishna Janardhan Bhat – Versus – Dattatraya G. Hegde - (2008) 4 SCC 54 }

 

 

7.   Ss. 139 and 138 - Presumption that cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability - Presumption how to be displaced - Declaration made by the complainant himself to the Sales Tax Department that no sale had taken place - Accepted as a valid proof that cheques were not issued by accused in discharge of any debt or liability to complainant - Accused therefore by producing this evidence, held to have displaced the presumption under S. 139 and therefore offence under S. 138 not proved against accused, S. 118 - Presumptions under - Purpose of, held, is to facilitate negotiability of an instrument - It is for this purpose S. 118 has departed from general law of contract wherein existence of consideration has to be proved in the first instance - The Act also creates special rules of evidence for negotiable instruments,

 

{ Kumar Exports – Versus – Sharma Carpets - (2009) 2 SCC 513 }

 

 

8.   Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Section 138 and 139 – Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption – Accused has denied the transaction with the complainant – Instrument was given in blank form signature as security for loan – it demands strict scrutiny – A court is expected to examine whether the transaction covered by the cheque was genuine and boafide – where the materials produced disclosed suspicious, circumstances surrounding the treansaction, unless satisfactory explanation removing such suspicion is tendered by the holder of the instrument no conviction is legally permissible solely banking upon the statutory presumptions – Acquital upheld – Law explained ( para 8 )

 

{ Bhaskaran Nair – Versus – Mohanan, 2009(4) AICLR ( Ker ) 447 }

 

 

9.   The Act raises two presumptions : firstly, in regard to the passing of consideration as contained in Section 118(a) therein, and Secondly, a presumption that the holder of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 139 discharged in whole or in part any debt or other liability. Presumptions both under Section 118 (a) and 139 are rebuttable in nature. Having regard to the definition of terms “proved” and “disproved” as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act as also the nature of the said burden upon the prosecution vis a vis an accused it is not necessary that the accused must step into the witness box to discharge the burden of proof in terms of the aforementioned provision.

 

{ K. Prakashan – Versus – P.K. Surendran, (2008) 1 C Cr LR ( SC ) 384 }

 

 

The Golden thread of administration of justice in criminal case :

 

 

 

10.               The burden of proof in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt – the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accoused beyond all reasonable doubt and it is also rule of justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

 

{ Umakant & Anr – Versus – State of Chhatisgarh, 2014 (40 Crimes 93 ( SC ) }

 

 

11.               In Bhagwan Singh & Others v. State of M.P. (2002) 4 SCC 85, the Court repeated one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The Court observed as under:- "7. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. Such is not a jurisdiction limitation on the appellate court but a Judge made guidelines for circumspection. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided."

 

{ State of U.P. Versus Banne @ Baijnath & Ors, - Supreme Court of India – Crminal Appeal No. 1100 of 2001, decided on 10 February – 2009 }

 

 

 

 

application for production of documents in consumer case proceeding - references

 

Before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kolkata Unit – III, ( Kolkata South ), at Alipore, Kolkata – 700 027, West Bengal.

                                                          MA /           / 2019

{ arising out of CC / 70 / 2018 }

 

                                                          In the matter of :

                                                          Dr. Biswajit Paul,

                                                                            __________Complainant

-      Versus –

Smt. Mina Basu, and another.

                   _______Opposite parties.

 

An application by the Opposite Party No. 1 Smt. Mina Basu, for Production of Original Documents, being Unregistered Power of Attorney dated 11^th October’ 2007, herein.

The humble petition on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 Smt. Mina Basu, above named;

 

Most Respectfully Sheweth as under :

 

1)   That this opposite party states that one Title Suit has been instituted by Sri Utpal Roy, Son of Late Ramesh Chandra Roy, Sri Tapan Nag, Son of Late Ramani Kanta Nag, and Smt. Sutapa Roy, Wife of Utpal Roy, being Partners of M/s. Skylark Construction, having its office at premises no. 28A, Raja S.C. Mullick Road, Police Station – Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 032, against Smt. Mina Basu, widow of Late Amiya Kumar Basu, residing at premises no. 6, Shiba Temple Lane, Police Station – Kasba, Kolkata – 700 078, viz. Title Suit no. 14 of 2008. The case of the plaintiffs in a nutshell is that the defendant is the owner of the suit property. Plaintiff with an intention to develop the said suit premises by way of construction of multi storied building consisting of several flats, car parking space etc. Entered into an agreement on 17-08-2001, with M/s. Skylark Construction a partnership firm represented by it’s partners. The Plaintiff decided to take the project for construction of partly G + 3 and partly three storied building on the suit plot in accordance with the sanction plan of K.M.C. It was settled between the parties that one flat on first floor front side south west and another one on the second floor front side south west and one car parking space of the proposed building will be given to the owners. Also Rs. 3,75,000/- will be given in addition. Plaintiff already paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the defendant by way of cheque dated 17-08-2001, drawn on Bank of Baroda, Moore Avenue Branch. It was settled that balance amount will be payable at the time of delivery of possession of flats. It was further agreed that the defendant will execute a general power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff in order to facilitate the construction work. In terms of the agreement dated 17-08-2001, plaintiff submitted draft plan of proposed building before K.M.C. There was a clause in that agreement that the proposed construction of the building shall be completed within 24 months but if there is any delay due to non compliance of the terms of agreement by defendant the construction period shall be extended. Defendant delivered all relevant title deeds save and except mutation certificate from B.L. & L.R.O. defendant assured that she will deliver the mutation certificate from B.L. & L.R.O. but did not do the same for which there was delay in getting sanction from K.M.C. However the plaintiff started construction and completed sixty per cent of the work. Defendant also did not execute any Power of Attorney, as agreed upon. Thereafter on 05-01-2008, defendant issued a notice through her advocate Sri Malay Sengupta on the plaintiff stating that the agreement dated 17-08-2001, stand cancelled. In that letter defendant also demanded to take back the original documents. According to the plaintiff defendant has got no right to cancel the agreement unilaterally without any reason. Due to such acts of defendants, plaintiff suffered enormous loss, therefore the suit being Title Suit no. 14 of 2008, has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant before the Learned 5^th Court of Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) at Alipoire, South 24 Parganas.

 

2)   That this opposite party states that in the said Title Suit no. 14 of 2008, before the Learned 5^th Court of Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) at Alipoire, South 24 Parganas, Smt. Mina Basu, widow of Late Amiya Kumar Basu, residing at premises no. 6, Shiba Temple Lane, Police Station – Kasba, Kolkata – 700 078, being the defendant therein in the said Suit before the Learned Court, contested the said Suit by filling her written statement. Defendant stated that the suit is not maintainable. Defendant denied all the allegation made against her by the plaintiff. The defendant case is that it was agreed between the parties that the construction will be completed within a period of 24 months after getting the sanction plan but plaintiff neglected to complete the same. Defendant denied that due to non supply of mutation certificate plaintiff failed to obtain sanction plan from K.M.C. The plan was sanctioned on 24-03-2004, and it was valid upto 23-03-2007. But even after lapses of 24 months plaintiff failed to complete construction and even they did not handover the owner’s allocation to the defendant. Due to non performance of plaintiff the agreement dated 17-08-2001, already stood cancelled, and thereafter defendant gave a letter to plaintiff asking them to return the original documents, but till date the plaintiff did not do so. It is also stated that the plaintiff did not insist defendant to execute any general power of attorney, on all these grounds defendant prays for dismissal of the suit.

 

3)   That this opposite party states that to prove said Suit, before the Learned Court, the Plaintiff no. 1, Shri Utpal Roy, deposed as P.W. 1, the documents filed by the plaintiff are marked as Exbt. 1, Agreement for development dated 17-08-2001, marked as Exbt. 2, Sanctioned plan no. 797/03, marked as Exbt. 3. Letter dated 18-02-2008, addressed to the plaintiffs firm along with envelop, marked as Exbt. 4. (Series ) copy of letter dated 28-02-2008, along with postal receipt and A.D. card marked as Exbt. 5. Letter addressed to Utpal Roy, marked as Exbt. 6, A/D card marked as Exbt. 7, Letter dated 12-06-2009.

 

4)   That this opposite party states that in the said Suit, before the Learned Court, it is admitted by both the parties that defendant who is the owqner of the suit premises entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, which is a partnership firm for development of the suit property by raising multistoried building. It was also agreed that the construction will be completed within 24 months after receiving the sanctioned plan from K.M.C. The plaintiff alleged that though defendant handed over the title deed but did not handover the mutation certificate from B.L. & L.R.O. for which obtaining sanctioned plan from K.M.C. got delayed. It is further alleged that even defendant did not execute any power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff for undertaking the construction work. However, the plaintiff constructed sixty percent of the proposed building, and thereafter requested defendant again to execute the power of attorney. But without doing so defendant by a letter dated 05-01-2008, cancelled the agreement. On the other hand, defendant denied all such allegations and stated that though the plaintiff obtained sanctioned plan on 24-03-2004, but failed to raise construction within the stipulated period.

 

5)    That this opposite party states that PW 1, in his affidavit in chief corroborated his plaint case. In cross examination he admitted that though exbt.1, is dated 17-08-2001, but on the notorised page the date of execution is mentioned as 28-08-2001. He stated that he does not have any documents to show that they have sent the draft copy of power of attorney to the defendant. He also stated that it is not mentioned in exbt. 1, that without any mutation certificate they will not be able to obtain any sanction plan. From his evidence it also appears that he has got no documents to show that he is authorized by other partners to depose in the case nor his partnership business / partnership firm is registered under societies act.

 

6)   That this opposite party states that PW 1, also stated that he did not assign any reason to defendant specifying any reason for delay in completion of the said project. He also did not give any letter to the defendant asking her to execute any power of attorney in his favour. Corporation did not give him any letter informing him that without mutation of B.L. & L.R.O. no plan could be sanctioned. He did not file any report of chartered engineer and it is his own assumption that he has completed ninety five percent of the construction work. He admitted that exbt. 1, does not bear signature of owner. He also admitted that the defendant did not take any consideration money. He also admitted that there is no initial of defendant in page – 2 of exbt 1, where there is a handwritten portion. Though his learned lawyer Sri Prasanta Mukherjee drafted the agreement but nowhere it has been written that he drafted the same. He also admitted that sanction plan was valid upto 23-03-2009, and he did not get any completion certificate from K.M.C. upto 23-03-2009. He also admitted that stipulated time expired long ago. He also stated that though her original documents of defendant are lying with him but he will not return those documents.

 

7)   That this opposite party states that on the other hand defendant deposed as DW1 and she is in her affidavit in chief corroborated her case. At the time of cross examination DW1 only tendered exbts. 5, 6, and 7, and no other question was put to her.

 

8)   That this opposite party states that thereafter the said Title Suit no. 14 of 2008, { Sri Utpal Roy and Others – Versus – Smt. Mina Basu } has get it finality in terms of the Judgment delivered on Friday the 20^th day of August’ 2010, by the Learned 5^th Court of Civil Judge ( Senior Division ), at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, which ordered as “that the Suit be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost”.

 

9)   That this opposite party states that thereafter on defeating the said Suit, the plaintiff preferred an appeal from the Original Decree being the Judgment delivered on Friday the 20^th day of August’ 2010, by the Learned 5^th Court of Civil Judge ( Senior Division ), at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, which ordered as “that the Suit be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost”, before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta, viz. FA / 46 / 2011, which consequentially dismissed by the Order dated February’ 14, 2011.

 

10)          That this opposite party states that in view of the facts of the Judgment delivered on Friday the 20^th day of August’ 2010, by the Learned 5^th Court of Civil Judge ( Senior Division ), at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, which ordered as “that the Suit be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost”, there is no agreement and or contract between Smt. Mina Basu, and M/s. Skylark Construction, Sri Utpal Roy, Sri Tapan Nag, and Smt. Sutapa Roy, in any manner, whatsoever.

 

11)          That this opposite party states that this opposite party, have no iota of any knowledge of the present complainant, and her false story, so far, and therefore this opposite party, is in now related to the complainant and his false story, as stated by him in his petition of complaint, in any form, whatsoever.

 

12)          That this opposite party states that the said Title Suit no. 14 of 2008 { Sri Utpal Roy and Others – Versus – Smt. Mina Basu }, has been filed and instituted as on 29-01-2008, by Sri Utpal Roy, Son of Late Ramesh Chandra Roy, Sri Tapan Nag, Son of Late Ramani Kanta Nag, and Smt. Sutapa Roy, Wife of Utpal Roy, being Partners of M/s. Skylark Construction, having its office at premises no. 28A, Raja S.C. Mullick Road, Police Station – Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 032, against Smt. Mina Basu, widow of Late Amiya Kumar Basu, residing at premises no. 6, Shiba Temple Lane, Police Station – Kasba, Kolkata – 700 078, before the Learned 5^th Court of Civil Judge ( Senior Division ), at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, which has get it finality in terms of the Judgment delivered on Friday the 20^th day of August’ 2010, by the Learned 5^th Court of Civil Judge ( Senior Division ), at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, which ordered as “that the Suit be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost”.

 

13)          That this Opposite Party states that the complainant’s story in nutshell is as follows ( as stated by the complainant in the petition of complaint ), which has been specifically disputed and denied and  put to the strict proof thereof :

 

a)    The Complainant is a purchaser of Flat no. 6 South/East/West with a Car Parking Space in the 2^nd Floor (front) in the Building Constructed by M/s. Skylark Construction, the Developer (Opposite Parties No. 2) on the Land of the Owner Smt. Mina Basu (Opposite Parties No.1) at 112, kalitala Road, Police Station – Kasba, Kolkata – 700078, by virtue of a Developer Agreement dated 17.01.2001 made between Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2.

 

b)   The Complainant into an Agreement dated 09/09/2008 with the Owner and the Developer to purchase a flat being Flat No. 6, measuring super built up area of 1300 Sq. Ft. In the 2^nd Floor South/ East/ North and a car parking space of super built  up area of 130 Sq. Ft. On the ground floor of the building under construction lying and situate at 112, kalitala Road, Police Station – Kasba, Kolkata – 700078, for the consideration of Rs. 19,00,000/- ( Nineteen lakh rupees) only to be paid on different dates with the progress of the works.

 

c)    That at the time entering into aforesaid Agreement for Sale dated 09/09/2008, your petitioner came to know from Developer Agreement dated 17/01/2001 made between the Owner of the land Smt. Mina Basu Opposite Party No. 1 of 6, Shib Temple Lane, Kolkata – 70078 and the Developer M/s. Skylark Construction represented by its partners (1) Sri Utpal Roy (2) Sri Tapan Nag and (3) Smt. Sutapa Roy that the developer would develop the land of the owner at 112, kalitala Road, Police Station – Kasba, Kolkata – 700078 by constructing a partly G + 3 and partly 3 storied building on the basis of a plan would be sanctioned from Kolkata Municipal Corporation and on completion of the building the Owner shall get her own allocation and the Developer shall be entitle to sell his allocation portion as mentioned in the said Developer Agreement and would take purchase price of the flat from the prospective buyers and by entering into Agreement for Sale with the buyers would be executed by the owner, develop and respective purchasers.

 

d)   The said Development Agreement dated 17/01/2001 contained several terms and conditions amongst themselves that included provision of Power of Attorney and that the Owner executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the two partners namely Utpal Roy and Tapan Nag of the Skylark Construction, the Developer to act on behalf of the Owner Smt. Mina Basu.

 

e)    The Agreement for Sale dated 09/09/2008 between the Owner Opposite Partly No. 1 Developer Opposite Party No. 2 and the Purchased for sale of flat no. 6 in the 2^nd floor South/ East/ North with car parking space (front) within the Developer’s allocation was signed by the Owner by the pen of Utpal Roy, the Attorney of the Owner the Developer and the Purchaser the Complainant herein.

 

f)     The Complainant had to take Housing Loan from the Bank, your Petitioner paid the purchase price amounting to Rs. 15, 00,000/- (Fifteen Lakh rupees) only to the developer, leaving of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lakh rupees)only was to be paid to the Developer on Registration of the flat, according to the terms of the Agreement.

 

g)    The Complainant states that the Developer on completion of the building handed over possession of the flat on 10^th August 2010 to the purchaser with possession letter.

 

h)   The complainant wrote his first letter only on 08-06-2013, to the developer, for the registration of deed of conveyance in her favour.

 

i)     The Complainant wrote his first letter to this opposite party, only on 22-06-2017, through his Learned Advocate, which has been replied by this opposite party, through her letter dated 24-07-2017.

 

14)          That the Complainant relied on the following documents and or papers and the same has been annexed with the petition of complaint :

a)    Unregistered Development Agreement dated 17^th day of August’ 2001;

b)   Unregistered Power of Attorney dated 11^th October’ 2007;

c)    Unregistered Agreement for Sale made as on 9^th day of September’ 2008;

d)   Possession Letter, dated 10-08-2010;

e)    Letter dated 08-06-2013;

f)     Letter dated 22-06-2017;

g)    Letter dated 27-07-2017;

h)   Letter dated 24-07-2017;

i)     Letter dated 23-10-2017;

j)     Letter dated 22-11-2017;

k)   Letter dated NIL;

l)     Letter dated 17-11-2017;

 

15)          That the Opposite Party no.1, Smt. Mina Basu, beg to states that She did never execute any General Power of Attorney, as annexed at Page number 36 to 45, of the Petition of Complaint, and therefore such alleged Power of Attorney as relied on by the Complaint is a manufactured and false document, thus the Opposite Party no.1, herein seeks the Production of Original Documents as contained in running page number 36 to 45, of the Petition of Complaint.

 

16)          That the Opposite Party no.1, Smt. Mina Basu, beg to states that the Opposite Party made one appropriate application for production of original documents being Unregistered Power of Attorney dated 11^th October’ 2007, which was registered as MA/115/2019, and whereas the Complainant submitted written objection contended inter alia that the complainant do not possess the said purported Unregistered Power of Attorney dated 11^th October’ 2007, and whereas the xerox copy only has been given by the opposite party no.2, herein in the present consumer proceeding, and consequently the Hon’ble Forum Pass necessary order dated 01-08-2019.

 

17)          That the Opposite Party no.1, Smt. Mina Basu, beg to states that since no General Power of Attorney has ever been executed by this opposite party in any one favour and more particularly in favour of the opposite party no.2, herein in the present consumer proceeding, and more particularly in entirety of facts since inception, there has never been any power of attorney executed by this opposite party, thus the story of power of attorney is fabricated, concocted, and afterthought, as the same has not ever been in existence, so far. Even though the complainant claiming that the complainant in receipt of such power of attorney being photocopy from the opposite party no.2, herein, thus the necessary requirement has raised to bring in picture the original one such alleged power of attorney from the said opposite party no.2, herein, in the interest of appropriate adjudication and faire justice.

 

18)          That the Opposite Party no.1, Smt. Mina Basu, beg to states that the entirety of the alleged facts of the Complainant is at stake for appropriate verification and thus require the production of original documents, relied on by the Complainant in her petition of Complaint, more particularly the Documents as appeared at running page number 36 to 45, with her petition of complaint, in the interest of administration of justice. Thus reasonable necessity has arisen for the production of the said purported alleged Unregistered Power of Attorney dated 11^th October’ 2007, in original in the present consumer proceeding before the Hon’ble Forum, in the interest of administration of justice.

 

19)          That unless the Hon’ble Forum, direct the Opposite Party no.2, for the production of the Original Documents, being such alleged Unregistered Power of Attorney dated 11^th October’ 2007, the Opposite Party no.1, Smt. Mina Basu, will highly prejudice and suffer with irreparable loss and injury, thereof.

 

20)          That the balance of convenience and in conveniences are in favour of the Opposite Party no. 1, herein, and either the Complainant or the opposite party no.2, herein, will not prejudice, in any manner, whatsoever.

 

21)          That this application is made bonafide, in the interest of administration of justice.

 

It is therefore prayed that Your Honour would graciously be pleased to allow this application and to direct the Opposite Party no.2, to produce the Original Documents being the alleged Unregistered Power of Attorney dated 11^th October’ 2007, in the interest of administration of justice, and or to pass such other necessary order or orders as your Honour may deem, fit, and proper for the end of justice.

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner, as in duty bound shall ever pray.

Verification

 

I, Smt. Mina Basu, being the Opposite Party no.1, in the instant Complaint matter, states that I am well conversant with all the material facts and circumstances as stated in the foregoing paragraphs of the petition and I am well acquainted thereto. And I verify and sign this instant Written Version, as on _______________2019, at Alipore, Kolkata - 700027.

 

 

The Opposite Party

Identified by me,

 

Advocate.

Prepared in my Chamber,

 

Advocate.

Dated : _______________________2019.

Place : Alipore, Kolkata.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A F F I D A V I T

 

I Smt. Mina Basu, wife of Late Amiya Kumar Basu, aged about ______years, by faith Hindu, by Occupation House Wife. Residing at premises being no. 6, Shib Temple Lane, Kolkata – 700078, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows :

 

1.   That I being the Opposite Party no. 1, in the instant case being filed by the Complainant herein, and I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the said consumer case.

                                This is true to my knowledge.

 

2.   That the statements made in paragraphs 1 to __________of my application are true to the best of  my knowledge and belief and the rests are my humble submissions before your Honour’s Forum.

 

 

 

D E P O N E N T

 Identified by me

 

Advocate.

Prepared in my Chamber,

 

Advocate.

Date : _________________________2019.

Place : Alipore, Kolkata.

 

N O T A R Y