VYSYA BANK LTD Vs. B SEETHARAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Bank questions the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Anantapur in LA.No. 436 of 1989 in I O.S.No. 28 of 1988 dated 4-11-1989 allowing the said I.A. and directing the petitioner "either to file true authenticated copy of entire minutes book or they should file original minutes book". That order was made in an application made under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The respondent herein filed the said O.S.No. 28 of 1988 against the petitioner herein for declaring that its order dated 27-8-1986 directing compulsory retirement of the respondent and the order dated 5-1-1987 of the appellate authority are illegal, void and inoperative and to direct the petitioner-Bank to reinstate the respondent in his post as Divisional Manager of the Bank with all consequential benefits. It is stated in the affidavit of the respondent filed in support of the present application that by order dated 27-8-1986 of the working committee of the petitioner-Bank, the respondent was compulsorily retired from service and that his appeal against the said order was disposed of without hearing him on 5-1-1987. It is also stated in the said affidavit that the respondent herein served a notice on the counsel of the petitioner-Bank to cause production of the minutes pertaining to the disposal of the appeal and "a photostat copy of extract of incomplete minutes purported to have been recorded at the relevant time was produced into Court. It is further averred that the said document was not complete and that it was a copy and totally inadmissible and that therefore he sought a direction for "production of the original minutes book in its full shape pertaining to the disposal of the case by the working committee and the Board of Directors". In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner-Bank, it is stated that the Bank could not be compelled to produce the original minutes book in view of Section 4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') and that the original minutes book contained highly confidential and privileged information pertaining to other important matters and that the said book was necessary for the Bank in the course of their day to day business. It is also stated that a true copy of the relevant resolutions as recorded in the original minutes book certified by the Bank's Secretary was produced along with the said affidavit.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge in his order observes that "some extracts of the minutes book", were filed, whereas the respondent herein wanted the production in full shape. He also observes that the Act does not give any privilege to the Bank to refuse to produce the minutes book in question. He also observes that "when the Bank filed a true copy of resolution of the minutes book nothing prevented them from filing of the true copy of entire minutes book that have been taken place on that date". As already stated above, the learned Subordinate Judge directed the petitioner herein to file true authenticated copy of the entire minutes book or to produce the original minutes book.