JUDGEMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral): I.A. 25181/2023 (seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner for recording the evidence through video conferencing)

1. The Plaintiff through this application seeks directions for appointment of a Local Commissioner to record the statement of Plaintiff witnesses - Mr. Stephen P. Meleen (PW1) and Mr. Craig Stone (PW2), remotely, via video conferencing mechanism. Notably, the prayer in paragraph 8(b) of the application has been rendered infructuous.

CS(COMM) 281/2022 Page 2 of 11

2. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff, highlights that the Plaintiff’s witnesses, residing in the United States of America, are professionals engaged with significant responsibilities in their law firm, rendering them unable to travel to India for cross-examination due to these professional commitments. Furthermore, Mr. Rao emphasizes the personal circumstances of Mr. Craig Stone, who has young children under his care. The obligation to look after his children, coupled with the logistical challenges and the substantial burden that international travel imposes, would make his physical presence for the proceedings exceedingly difficult.

3. The application is strongly opposed by Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Counsel, as well as Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, who addressed further submissions independently today, on behalf of the Defendant. Mr. Mehta firstly underscores lack of prior consent on the part of the defendant to the request made in the application, which according to him is essential for considering the instant application. On this issue, he also emphasises non-compliance of Chapter 3, Rule 6.2 of the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021 [hereinafter, ‘VC Rules, 2021’] which mandates that any proposal to move a request for video conferencing should first be discussed with the other party or parties to the proceeding. Further, he argues that the traditional preference for in-person cross-examination, enables the Court to directly observe the demeanour of the witness, an aspect, he deems, crucial for assessing credibility of the witness. He posits that the physical courtroom setting inherently fosters a more transparent and fair examination process. Furthermore, Mr. Mehta highlights practical challenges associated with presenting documents to the witnesses during cross-examination, suggesting that these tasks are more effectively managed CS(COMM) 281/2022 Page 3 of 11 in person. Mr. Mehta also questions the merits of the grounds urged, particularly, targeting the frivolity of the reasons outlined in paragraph No. 4 as insufficient. He contends that the Plaintiff has failed to disclose any urgent circumstances that would necessitate the deviation from standard courtroom procedures, suggesting that acceding to such a request without substantial justification would encroach upon the Defendant's right to a fair trial. Additionally, Mr. Wadhwa, relying upon decision of Karnataka High Court, in T.G. Veeraprasad and Ors. Vs. Prakash Gandhi,1 argues that Plaintiff cannot insist on recording evidence through video conferencing as a matter of right. This Court must examine the reasons behind the request for filing the application and it should be in strict compliance of the Rules. Mr. Wadhwa, concedes that video conferencing holds a valuable position within the legal framework, but emphasizes that the objective is not to reject its use outright but to employ it judiciously. He contends that the Court must weigh in the nuanced differences in communication dynamics that distinguish video conferencing from traditional in-person interactions. This distinction becomes particularly critical in cases where the Defendant has raised complex issues such as fraud and forgery, necess