AMARJEET SINGH BAMMI & ANR. vs MASTER FATEHVIR SINGH (MINOR) & ORS.
$~48.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 24.01.2024
+ FAO(OS) 6/2024 and CM APPL. 3453/2024 & 3454/2024
AMARJEET SINGH BAMMI & ANR. ….. Appellants
Through: Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr. Namit Suri, Ms. Purnima Singh & Mr. Kartikey Singh, Advocates.
versus
MASTER FATEHVIR SINGH (MINOR) & ORS…… Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. Yesterday, i.e., 23.01.2024, a coordinate bench had heard the matter at some length, whereupon certain observations were made to enable Mr Praveen Kumar to obtain instructions in the matter. For convenience, relevant parts of the order dated 23.01.2024, which are extracted hereafter:
3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. Mr Sameer Rohatgi, who appears on behalf of the appellants, says that he would be satisfied if the impugned order is modified to the extent that the access to the records of GS Service Station Petrol Pump, which the appellant intends to file is given to the respondents and their Chartered Accountant (CA).
5. Besides this, Mr Rohatgi says that it would be of help if the respondent no.2 files an undertaking with this court that the information gleaned from the records will only be used for the instant litigation and not otherwise.
6. Mr Praveen Kumar, who appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, says that he will obtain instructions in the matter.
7. List the matter on 24.01.2024.
2. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned senior counsel, who appears for respondents nos.1 & 2, on instructions from Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate, states that the offer made by Mr. Sameer Rohatgi on behalf of the appellants is acceptable.
3. That said, Mr. Sibal seeks liberty to approach the court if certain information emerges on examination of the records, which requires intervention of the court.
4. According to us, at this juncture, no such liberty can be granted. However, as and when information emerges of the nature which, according to respondent no.2, requires intervention of the court, upon an appropriate application being moved, the concerned court would, to our mind, be free to examine the same.
5. For the moment, as agreed by the counsel for the parties, the appeal is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The appellants will file the entire record concerning G.S. Service Station Petrol Pump with the Registry of this Court within one (1) week.
(ii) Respondent No.2 would have access to the record, albeit via their lawyer, Mr. Praveen Kumar and an authorised Chartered Accountant.
(iii) As indicated hereinabove, if and when information emerges which shows that the accounts are not maintained in accordance with the law, the respondents would have leave to approach the Court.
(iv) Respondent No.2 will file an undertaking with this Court that information gleaned from the record will be used only for the purpose of the present litigation and not otherwise. The undertaking be furnished by respondent No.2, i.e. Ms. Sukhmani Kaur Oberoi to the Court, in terms of what is indicated hereinabove, within the next two (2) weeks. Needless to add, respondent no.2s undertaking will also bind Mr Praveen Kumar and the Chartered Accountant appointed to examine the record.
6. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications are closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
JANUARY 24, 2024/rt
FAO(OS) 6/2024 Page 2 of 2