Balasubramanian Parandhanman v. B. Paramanandhan

Santosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6538 OF 2026 Balasubramanian Parandhanman

...Petitioner

Versus

B. Paramanandhan and Others

...Respondents

Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar, a/w Ms. Raufa Shaikh, for the Petitioner. Mr. G. S. Godbole, Senior Advocate, a/w Kunal Bhanage and Akshay Pawar, for Respondent No.1.

Smt. Pooja Patil, AGP, for the State - Respondent No.4. SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.06.10 10:00:29 +0530

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED:

8th JUNE, 2026 Oral Order:- 1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

The challenge in this petition is to the orders passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner-3, Thane, whereby the documents which the petitioner intended to rely upon in support of Change Report No.3320/2021 were not admitted and marked in evidence.

3.

Mr. Narvankar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner could not have refused to mark the documents on the ground that the documents did not appear to be relevant. It was further submitted that, few of the documents were declined to 1/4

be marked on the ground that the petitioner is not the author of those documents or the mode of proof was not appropriate. 4.

Mr. Godbole, the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent No.1, submitted that, the petitioner sought to place on record the documents which have no concern with the determination of the legality and validity of the change reported in Change Report No.3320/2021 as a part of the dilatory tactics. Despite the orders passed by this Court fixing a strict time-line for the determination of Change Report No.3320/2021, by adopting dilatory tactics, the petitioner has derailed the proceedings. Even otherwise, such orders of refusal to admit the documents are not susceptible to interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction.

5.

To the extent the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has recorded findings that the documents did not appear to be relevant, this Court is not inclined to embark upon an enquiry about the relevancy of documents in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. So far as the documents at Sr. Nos.1 to 4 in the table at page 14 of the petition, it appears that the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner was not inclined to mark those documents as the petitioner did not appear to be the author of those documents and those documents could not be otherwise 2/4

proved in the evidence of the petitioner. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner was also of the view that the mode of proof was not appropriate.

6.

Thus, so far as the document at Sr. Nos.1 to 4 in the table at page 14 under paragraph 32 of the petition, it would be appropriate to clarify that, in the event, the petitioner is in a position to adduce further evidence in proof of those documents, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner shall consider the issue of admissibility and proof of those documents afresh.

7.

In regard to the order passed by the Bar Council of India in DC Appeal No.78/2024, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner was not persuaded to mark the documents in evidence as those documents appeared to be the printouts of the documents shared on the mobile phone.

8.

The petitioner shall be at liberty to produce the certified copies of the proceedings in DC Appeal No.78/2024 against Advocate N. Siva Bharathi. In the event such certified copies are produced, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner shall have due regard to them if those documents bear upon the determination of the change report.

3/4

9.

Thus, keeping open the liberty to the petitioner to adduce further evidence to prove the documents at Sr. Nos.1 to 4 in the table below paragraph 32 of the petition and produce certified copies of the proceedings in DC Appeal No.78/2024, the petition stands disposed.

10.

The petitioner shall co-operate with the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in the expeditious disposal of the Change Report and shall not seek any adjournment.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4