(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.08.2013 passed in OS No. 4171/2010 on the file of XXXVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH -38), Bangalore City (herein after referred to as the trial Court), where under the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code requesting the Court to direct the defendant Bank to produce the Inspection Report of RBI dated 26.04.2011. The petitioner is the defendant before the trial Court. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant praying for a declaration that the currency option contract bearing No. OPT1013 trade dated 27th November, 2007 being illegal and against the public policy and opposed to RBI Guidelines and obtained fraudulently is void ab -initio and therefore unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiff and with a further prayer for declaring that the currency option contract bearing No. OPT1015 trade dated 29th November, 2007, being illegal in law and against the public policy opposed to the RBI Guidelines and obtained fraudulently is void -ab -initio and is therefore unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiff and also along with other prayers connected there with. The defendant filed the written statement and thereafter the plaintiff filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requesting the Court to direct the defendant to furnish the copy of the report of the inspection/scrutiny conducted by the Reserve Bank of India of the defendant Bank.
(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that, the RBI has imposed penalties on the defendant Bank for failure to comply with the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, in respect of derivative transactions and the same has been stated in the Press Release of the Reserve Bank of India bearing No. 2010 -2011/1555 dated 26.04.2011, a copy of such Press Release issued by the Reserve Bank of India has been filed along with the application and affidavit in support of the application.
(3.) HEARD Sri N.V. Srinivasa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Dhananjay Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondent.