NORSK HYDRO ASA Vs. SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1.

(2.) THIS petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside order dated 18. 02. 2009 rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jamnagar, below application at Exhibit 24 in Special Civil Suit No. 89 of 2000, whereby, the said application for production of documents has been ordered to be `filed'.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case, relevant to the decision of the petition, are that the respondent No. 1, who is a registered Company, had purchased 33000 metric tonnes of Di Ammonium Phosphate Fertilizer Grade through its Power of Attorney holder, from one Wilson Impex Private Limited, Singapore. The petitioner herein is the Charterer of the Ship MV Otrada in which the said consignment of goods was loaded from Tampa Florida, U. S. A. , in the month of April, 1999. The cargo was unloaded at Bedi Bandar, Jamnagar, where it was found that 257. 380 metric tonnes of material was damaged due to ingress of sea-water in the cargo hold. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit for damages against the petitioner and the owner of the vessel. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application at Ex. 24 for production of documents, namely (a) agreement No. # FH-498 between Wilson Impex Private Limited (original purchaser of the Fertilizer) as a buyer and Hydro Agri. , North America Inc. for the Farmland Hydro L. P. And separate contract, if any, between Wilson Impex Private Limited and the plaintiff, which, according to the petitioner, are material and important documents regarding the suit, (b) documents regarding voyage insurance and details of the voyage insurer which are material and important documents as the Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff is the Insurance Company, documents filed before the Port Authority as well as the Customs Authority at Jamnagar in which the plaintiff has declared the condition of the cargo as well as the condition of goods, and (d) fax letter dated 29. 07. 1999 written to the petitioner (defendant No. 1 in the suit) regarding recovery of claim from the vessel owner. According to the petitioner, the documents, as mentioned above, are necessary as they go to the root of the triable issues which arise in the suit. Upon this application, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order directing that the said application be `filed'. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the petition.