Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court in a recent order firmly rejected the practice of allowing litigants to submit documents or information in sealed covers, asserting the importance of transparency and openness in legal proceedings. The order was passed by a division bench comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata.

The case at the center of this landmark decision involved a writ petition filed by Sonali Ashok Tandle, a 67-year-old woman, against developer Ranka Lifestyle Ventures. Tandle, a former tenant of a building slated for redevelopment, argued that she was entitled to a larger flat in the redeveloped structure and claimed that she was being offered a smaller area compared to other tenants.

Previously, another bench led by Justice GS Kulkarni had expressed concerns about the developer's consistent violations of court orders and non-compliance with appearances. In response, show cause notices were issued to both the developer and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) regarding potential contempt proceedings. This bench had also directed the developer to submit a disclosure affidavit containing information on unsold flats, bank details, and IT returns in a sealed envelope.

However, the bench of Justice Patel and Justice Khata took a strong stance against this practice. They emphasized that no litigant should be allowed to disadvantage the opposing party by submitting information in sealed covers. The court declared that such "sealed cover material" cannot be relied upon to the detriment of the other party, and no court should permit this practice, citing principles of fairness, justice, openness, and transparency.

The court underscored that any material presented to the court should be accessible to the opposing party, with exceptions narrowly defined in accordance with laws such as the Evidence Act. They highlighted that while jurisdictions like the UK might allow limited or non-disclosure of certain information, such practices are typically governed by statutory regulations and subject to judicial oversight.

In a stern message, the bench asserted that "anything that the Court can see, the opposing party must be allowed to see." Parties seeking immunity from disclosures must apply to the court and obtain a judicial order.

Additionally, the court criticized the developer for submitting an excessively detailed affidavit, describing the move as an attempt to inundate the court with paperwork in hopes of delaying proceedings.

Resolving the case, the court accepted the developer's proposal to reserve two flats for Tandle, allowing her to move into one immediately. She may potentially shift to the larger flat if the court determines her entitlement at a later stage. The court also lifted the stay on the issuance of an Occupancy Certificate for the redeveloped building and released the unsold flats, with instructions to maintain comprehensive records of apartment sales by Ranka Lifestyle Ventures.

Case Title: Sonali Ashok Tandle v. Ranka Lifestyle Ventures and Ors.