The court upheld the discretion of the Prothonotary to grant certified copies to a third party with legitimate interest, emphasizing the necessity of showing sufficient cause under Rule 268.

ORDER :

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

1. The Applicant has filed the above Interim Application seeking to set aside order dated 11^th June, 2024 and 19^th June, 2024 passed by the Additional Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court of allowing the Third Party Application filed under Rule 268 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 (the “OS Rules”), directing issuance of certified copy of the proceedings in Writ Petition No. 2545 of 2021 (the “Writ Petition”) to the third party Applicant viz. the Respondent herein.

2. Mr. Nankani, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the order dated 11^th June, 2024 is liable to be set aside on the following grounds:-

i) It is ex-facie arbitrary, contrary to law, suffers from vice of non-application of mind and perverse

ii) It is based on findings which are ex-facie erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law as regards grant of certified copies to a third-party applicant and

iii) That, the learned Additional Prothonotary has erred in holding that the Respondent had established sufficient cause for grant of certified copies of the Writ Petition.

3. The facts are that the Respondent had filed Third Party Application (L) No. 6221 of 2024 seeking certified copies of the records and proceedings of the above Writ Petition on the premise that the Respondent is a former director of International Marine Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (“IMTC”), which had sought a term loan facility from Bank of Baroda, the Respondent No. 2 in the Writ Petition. The account of IMTC was declared a Non Performing Asset (NPA) by the Bank and proceedings were initiated against IMTC under the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the “SARFAESI Act”) and proceedings were also initiated against the directors of the IMTC to declare the directors as willful defaulters in terms of Master Circular dated 1^st July, 2015 on willful defaulters issued by the Reserve Bank of India (the “Master Circular”). The Reserve Bank of India (the “RBI”) is the Respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition.

4. The Respondent herein had contended that he is also barred from taking any financial assistance from banks in view of the penal measure stipulated in paragraph 2.5(a) of the Master Circular.

5. It has been submitted that the Petitioners have filed the Writ Petition, inter-alia seeking a declaration that continued penal measure stipulated in paragraph 2.5(a) of the Master Circular are inapplicable in case of a successful compromise / settlement and consequent recall / withdrawal of declaration of willful defaulter by the lender bank by removal from the list of willful defaulters and also in a case of recall of erroneous declaration of willful defaulter by removal from the list of willful defaulters.

6. It has been submitted that no reliefs are claimed against the Respondent in the Writ Petition and the Respondent cannot claim any prejudice to his purported rights in determination of a plea of the Petitioners in the Writ Petition.

7. Mr. Nankani, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Interim Applicant submits that Rule 268 of the OS Rules provides that the Additional Prothonotary and Senior Master may, on an application of a person not a party to a suit or matter, on sufficient cause being shown, allow search or grant certified copies of such papers and proceedings as the learned Additional Prothonotary and Senior Master may think fit, on payment of the prescribed fees and charges. It is submitted that while doing so, the Prothonotary and Senior Master has to consider whether the applicant (the Respondent in this case) has interest in the Suit or matter and such interest has to be a tangible interest. That no cause or interest much less tangible interest is shown by the Respondent.

8. Mr. Nankani, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Additional Prothonotary and Senior Master has erred in holding that the reasons stated in paragraph 5 of the additional affidavit