In a landmark decision, the Bombay High Court has firmly stated that courts should not allow litigants to submit documents or information in sealed covers. This ruling was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata.
The case in question revolved around 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 set for redevelopment, contended that she was entitled to a larger flat in the redeveloped structure. She further alleged that she was being offered a smaller area compared to other tenants.
Earlier, a different bench led by Justice GS Kulkarni had observed that the developer consistently violated court orders and failed to make appearances. Consequently, show cause notices were issued to both the developer and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), seeking explanations for potential contempt proceedings. This bench had also directed the developer to provide a disclosure affidavit detailing unsold flats, bank details, and IT returns in a sealed envelope.
However, the bench of Justice Patel and Justice Khata took exception to this practice. They emphasized,
“No litigant can disadvantage the opponent by squirrelling some information into the court record ‘in sealed cover’. No party is entitled can rely on such ‘sealed cover material’ to the prejudice of the other side, and no court should permit it. To do so flies in the face of every concept of fair justice and openness and transparency in the decision-making process. It is time to bury this thoroughly pernicious practice.”
The court further elaborated that any material presented to the court should be accessible to the opposing party. Exceptions to this rule should be narrowly defined, adhering to laws like the Evidence Act. They also noted that while jurisdictions like the UK might allow limited or non-disclosure of certain information, such practices are typically governed by statutory regulations and are subject to judicial oversight.
In a stern message, the bench stated,
“The simplest general principle is that anything that the Court can see, the opposing party must be allowed to see.”
They further clarified that if a party seeks immunity from disclosures, they must apply to the court and secure a judicial order.
The court also criticized the developer for submitting an excessively detailed affidavit, stating,
“This attempt to inundate the Court with paperwork in the faint hope that this will somehow intimidate a Bench into constantly adjourning the matter will not succeed.”
In a resolution to the case, the court accepted the developer’s proposal to reserve two flats for Tandle. She was granted permission to move into one flat immediately and could potentially shift to the larger flat if the court later determines her entitlement. The court also lifted the stay on the issuance of an Occupancy Certificate for the redeveloped building and released the unsold flats. Ranka Lifestyle Ventures was instructed to maintain comprehensive records of all apartment sales.
The case is set for a final hearing on October 12, 2023.
Case Details: Writ Petition (L) No. 39511 of 2022, Sonali Ashok Tandle v. Ranka Lifestyle Ventures and Ors.