Back
2006 Supreme(Del) 1534
High Court Of Delhi
REVA KHETRAPAL
SOCIETE DES PRODUCTS NESTLE S.A. - Appellant
Versus
ESSAR INDUSTRIES - Respondents
CS (OS) 985 Of 2005
Decided On : 09/04/2006
DUSHYANT DAVE, HEMANT SINGH, K.MAHANT, Sachin Gupta, SURYAKANT SINGLA
The judgment established the admissibility of electronic records and the conditions required for their admissibility under Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Indian Evidence Act - Section 65 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 65, Section 65a, Section 65b, Section 63(2), Section 65(c), Section 65(d) - The court allowed the plaintiffs to file supplementary affidavits and electronic data under Section 65b after complying with the provisions of the Act. The court emphasized the admissibility of electronic records and the conditions required for their admissibility under Section 65b. The court also highlighted the provisions for adducing secondary evidence under Section 63 and Section 65 of the Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to place on record supplementary affidavits and electronic data. The defendants contested the application, alleging it was filed to delay the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the plaintiffs to file the supplementary affidavits and electronic data, except documents without English translations. The defendants were granted the liberty to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits and the enclosed documents.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of the supplementary affidavits and electronic data under the Indian Evidence Act, as well as the defendants' allegation of the application being filed to delay the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the admissibility of electronic records and the conditions required for their admissibility under Section 65b. The court also highlighted the provisions for adducing secondary evidence under Section 63 and Section 65 of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The application was allowed to the extent that the affidavits and electronic data were taken on record, except documents without English translations. The defendants were granted the liberty to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits and the enclosed documents.
REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
( 1 ) THE plaintiffs have filed the present application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure praying for leave to place on record the supplementary affidavit of mr. Balasubramaniam Murli ( (PW-1) and affidavit of Ms. Venita Gabriel, both dated 29th April, 2005.
( 2 ) LEAVE is sought by the plaintiffs to file supplementary affidavit of mr. Balasubramaniam Murli ( (PW-1) on the ground that the Power of Attorneys in favour of Mr. M. S. I. Lakdawala, Ex. P-1-B and Ex. P-53, the originals of which were with the plaintiffs, have been lost/misplaced and despite all reasonable efforts made by PW-1 Mr. Balasubramaniam Murli, the same could not be traced out. Accordingly, it is prayed that the photocopies of the same, already on record, be accepted and allowed to be proved as secondary evidence.
( 3 ) LEAVE is also sought by the plaintiffs to file the affidavit of ms. Venita Gabriel in view of the amendment of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence act, 1872. According to the plaintiff, inadvertently, the said amendment, incorporating sections 65a and 65b, which deal with the mode and manner in which electronic data can be proved in a court of law, escaped the plaintiffs' attention. The proposed affidavit of Ms. Venita Gabriel seeks to comply with the requirements of sections 65a and 65b of the Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of electronic data maintained and relied upon by the plaintiffs in support of their case as on 1999. In addition, the plaintiffs also wish to place on record the updated data as on April, 2005, pertaining to their trademark 'maggi', registered worldwide, along with copies of the registration certificates.
( 4 ) THE application is contested by the defendants by filing a reply alleging that the application has been filed with the sole object of delaying the disposal of the case. According to the defendants, had the originals of ex. P-1-B and Ex. P-53 been available with the plaintiffs, the same would have been produced by the plaintiffs when PW-1 Mr. Balasubramaniam Murli was examined on 20th August, 2001 and 21st August, 2001. It is categorically denied by the defendants that the said documents were available with the plaintiff while preparing and swearing the affidavits filed by PW-1 Mr. Balasubramaniam Murli, and have been lost/misplaced subsequently.
( 5 ) AS regards the electronic data sought to be proved in evidence by the plaintiffs, after complying with the provisions of Sections 65a and 65b of the evidence Act, the defendants assert that the updated data as on April, 2005 is not essential for determination of controversies between the parties and, in any case, the documents sought to be produced are not in the court language and for this reason the same cannot be taken on record.
( 6 ) IN the course of hearing of the application, learned counsel for the plaintiffs fairly conceded that the documents which were not in the court language and were not English translations of the electronic copies be ignored. With regard to the remaining electronic data, my attention was drawn to Ex. P-6 (Collectively), being the 'protection Lists' at pages 23 to 70 of the documents file, filed by the plaintiffs in the year 1999 with the affidavit of Mr. B. Murli. Counsel for the plaintiffs points out that the said 'protection Lists' (Ex. P-6 colly.) are electronic data placed on record by the plaintiffs in respect of their trademark 'maggi' in the year 1999, and the said electronic data having since been updated, the updated data reflecting change of status from the year 1999 to 2005, was sought to be proved.
( 7 ) AS regards the Power of Attorneys Ex. P-1-B and Ex. P-53, it was submitted by counsel for the plaintiffs that photocopies of the same were misplaced and could not be traced out despite best endeavours of the plaintiff.
( 8 ) ON scrutiny of the record, it clearly emerges that the photocopies of the Power of Attorneys (Ex. P-1-B and Ex
