1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Appeal No.552 of 2009 In Chamber Summons No.69 of 2008 In Chamber Summons No.109 of 2006 In Suit No.3414 of 2004 The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai Appellants Vs. S. G. Mistry Respondent With Appeal No.553 of 2009 In Chamber Summons No.171 of 2008 In Chamber Summons No.110 of 2006 In Suit No.3276 of 2004 The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai Appellants Vs. Capt. D.K. Tewari Respondents 2 Appeal No.554 of 2009 In Chamber Summons No.70 of 2008 In Chamber Summons No.106 of 2006 In Suit No. 3275 of 2004 The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai Appellants Vs. S.K. Nanal Respondent Ms.Usha Srivastava with Ms.Sonali Shinde for appellants. Mr.Zuber Dada with Mr.Ajaz Diamondwala i/b. Divya Shah Associates for respondents. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. January 18, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant – company which has filed these three Appeals against similar orders arising from Suit Nos.3414 of 2004, 3276 of 2004 and 3275 of 2004 respectively. Three different 3 Chamber Summons i.e. Chamber Summons Nos.106 of 2006, 109 of 2006 and 110 of 2006 were taken out in the respective suits by the defendants praying for directions to give inspection of certain documents. By a common order dated 29/8/2006 the learned trial Judge allowed the Chamber Summons partly and directed the plaintiffs to give inspection of the documents mentioned in paragraph 16 at Sr.Nos.(a) and (b) of the Chamber Summons. It appears that the documents concerned were not offered for inspection and, therefore, on the motion taken out for extension of time period, as per the order dated 22nd July 2008 the time was extended and it was directed that the earlier order dated 29/8/2006 shall be complied with on or before 30/9/2008 failing which the Chamber Summons was directed to be made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). These appeals are directed against these two orders. 2. We do not see any ground to entertain these Appeals and the document at Sr.No.(a) of Paragraph 16 was the notice received by the plaintiff company from the concerned Tax Authorities for recovery of the arrears of tax or tax on the balance of income whereas the document at Sr.No.(b) was regarding the receipt. If any of these documents was a common document for more than one employees, it is the responsibility of 4 the plaintiff – company to show and give inspection of such common document to the defendants and despite the fact that the period to give inspection expired on 30/9/2008, the company seems to be delay dallying giving of such inspection and appeals are being moved against such orders. We do not approve of such practice being followed. 3. However, the learned counsel for the appellant – company states that the inspection of documents either individual or common, as the case may be, shall be furnished within four weeks from today. 4. On failure to give such inspection within the prescribed time, the defendants would be at liberty to take appropriate defence in the pending Suits. 5. Save and except the above clarifications, the Appeals stand dismissed. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)