W.P.(C) No. 10688/2006 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 29.07.2009 + W.P.(C) 10688/2006 HARISHANKAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner -Versus- STATE BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Kapur and Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocates. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (oral) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.01.2006 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as „the MRTP Commission‟) dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for taking on record certain documents. The documents that the petitioner sought to place on record of the MRTP Commission in C.A. No. 328/1998 were two CFSL reports dated 10.12.1999 and 06.03.2000 and charge sheets filed by the Police against three bank officials. W.P.(C) No. 10688/2006 Page 2 of 3 Insofar as the charge sheets are concerned, we may straightaway say that they are not, in any way, relevant for the purposes of the petitioner‟s compensation application before the MRTP Commission. Arguments were, therefore, heard on the question of taking the two CFSL reports on record. According to the petitioner, he had moved an application in December, 2004 requesting the MRTP Commission to take on record the certified copies of the said CFSL reports. It would be relevant to note that at that point of time, the parties had already filed their documents, admission/denial had been completed, issues had been framed and even the petitioner‟s evidence had been closed. In point of fact, the petitioner had submitted its affidavit on 12.12.2002. His evidence was closed on 29.07.2003. In the application filed by the petitioner before the MRTP Commission, it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that he had been “seriously ill for last few months” and, as a result of which, he was not in a position to come to Delhi and discuss the matter with the counsel for the petitioner. Some medical record has also been filed in support thereof. In the said application, the petitioner also stated that the reports of the Central Forensic Science Laboratories “were not available at the time of filing of compensation claim and documents”. After considering the arguments advance by the counsel for the parties, we note that the reports of the Central Forensic Science Laboratories were dated 10.12.1999 and 06.03.2000. Although the compensation claim was filed earlier, that is, on some date in 1998, the documents were filed subsequently. We note that the application for certified copies of the CFSL reports was made on 30.10.2004, that is, much after the petitioner‟s evidence W.P.(C) No. 10688/2006 Page 3 of 3 stood closed. The statement that the petitioner was ill for the last few months is also of no use to the petitioner inasmuch as it would only account for a few months prior to December, 2004. It would not explain as to why the petitioner was unable to file the said documents prior to closing of evidence on 29.07.2003. The MRTP Commission had dismissed the petitioner‟s application by the impugned order dated 12.01.2006. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:- “It is a fact that the evidence of the applicant was closed on 29th July, 2003 and liberty was given to the respondents to file their affidavit of evidence etc. At this stage clearly these documents cannot be permitted to be filed by the applicant. Moreover, he will have the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent‟s witness. However, it is noted that some of these documents relate to the period even before the compensation application was filed and certainly before the date when the evidence of the applicant closed. The applicant should have taken care to produce these documents before, if he thought that these are so important. At this stage, when the respondents have already filed affidavit of evidence and documents, it will not be fair and legally correct to permit him to adduce these documents. In the circumstances, his application is not allowed.” In view of the circumstances narrated above, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the MRTP Commission. This writ petition is dismissed. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VEENA BIRBAL, J JULY 29, 2009 kks