Prince J Thoppil vs. Rindhad P Kareem

Respondent filed an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking interim relief pending the arbitration proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal. He sought an injunction restraining the petitioner herein from operating in the name and style of “Ocean Hospitality” with TIN number 32071159293 and CST number 32071159293C and from collecting any amounts due to the partnership firm M/s.Ocean Hospitality. By Ext.P4 order, an interim injunction was granted by the court below. Thereafter, alleging that the petitioner herein has violated the order of injunction, he was sought to be prosecuted by filing I.A.No.406 of 2018 before the District Court. Petitioner herein filed objections. In the meanwhile, respondent filed Ext.P7 application invoking order XI Rule 14 of the CPC for a direction to the petitioner herein to produce the invoices raised by the firm “Ocean Hospitality” with GSTIN 32AEDPT4713J1Z, for the period from November 2017 to January 2017 and the returns filed before the GST authorities. Court below passed Ext.P9 application by which the petitioner herein was directed to file affidavits stating whether they are in possession of the documents called for and whether they are willing to produce them.

The above order is assailed in the present proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order contending that, it amounts to self incrimination and against statutory provision and the Constitution. One person cannot be called upon to produce documents which are likely to incriminate him. It was also contended that the Court could not have passed such an order. It was also contended that the injunction sought was in relation to the name Ocean Hospitality suffixed by the GST and TIN number. It was admitted by the respondent that, he was conducting another business with a separate registration number. Hence, there was no violation of injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision in Shri M.L.Sethi v. Shri R.P.Kapur ((1972)2 SCC 427) to contend that, in an apparently criminal prosecution proceeding, discovery cannot be invoked. It was also contended that the respondent is not entitled to fish out the evidence to prosecute the petitioner herein.

It seems that, order XI Rule 14 specifically empowers the Court to pass order calling upon the respondent to produce any document in relation to the subject matter in issue. The issue in the present case is whether the petitioner has violated the order of injunction. Having considered this, I am inclined to hold that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard cannot be sustained. It is also to be further held that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Court exercising juri iction under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has no juri iction to order the discovery. I feel that, Court which is invested with statutory powers, should be deemed to have all such powers, except which are specifically excluded, which are essential for proper enforcement of the powers granted under the Statute. Having considered this, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Original petition fails and is dismissed. No comment is made regarding the contention that, violation of injunction can be invoked only if there is a violation of the order to the extent of using “Ocean Hospitality” with any suffix only. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the injunction order granted was in relation to the name “Ocean Hospitality” followed by the TIN and CST numbers and the petitioner herein was conducting business under the trade name 'Ocean Hospitality' with a different GST number. Hence, there was no violation of injunction. This is a contention, which, the petitioner can advance before the court below and request the court below for an adjudication on it. SUNIL THOMAS Sbna JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBITP1OF THE PETITION IN OP(ARB) NO.1138/2017 OF DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P2OF THE INJUNCTION PETITION OF THE RESPONDENTS IN I.A NO.5459/2017 EXHIBITP3OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBITP2 PETITION EXHIBIT P4OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL