Back
Supreme Court Slams Reliance Industries for Obstruction, Upholds Evidence in NTPC Suit
In a stinging rebuke, the
dismissed an appeal by
, upholding a
order that redacted portions of the company's witness affidavits in a long-running commercial suit. The Court imposed
of Rs 10 lakh for what it described as RIL's
"
"
the proceedings.
A Suit Stalled for Two Decades
The dispute traces back to , when filed a suit seeking of a contract for the supply of natural gas. The core issue was whether a binding contract existed following a issued and allegedly accepted by RIL in . For nearly 20 years, the case has been stuck at the evidence stage, with multiple rounds of litigation over the of documents and oral testimony.
RIL's Repeated Attempts to Introduce Internal Documents
As early as , RIL sought discovery and inspection of NTPC's internal documents, but the High Court dismissed the application as a , noting "gross delay." Undeterred, RIL filed for permission to produce its own internal correspondence. The High Court again rejected these, holding that internal documents of a party, not shared with the other side, are "irrelevant" to the question of whether a contract was concluded.
Despite a against that order being withdrawn, RIL's witness, Mr B.K. Ganguly, submitted two affidavits that attempted to bring in about those very internal communications. NTPC moved for , leading to a fresh round of litigation.
The Supreme Court's 2019 Mandate
In
, the Supreme Court stepped in. It set aside the High Court's earlier order that had permitted
on internal discussions. The Apex Court ruled that once internal documents were held to be irrelevant and refused to be taken on record,
"the parties cannot be permitted to adduce
as to them by an indirect method."
The order was binding on the trial court.
Meticulous Scrutiny by the High Court
Pursuant to that mandate, the in meticulously examined each paragraph of the two affidavits. It redacted portions that referred to internal emails or summaries of internal meetings, while retaining parts that reflected the witness's perception or state of mind. For example, a paragraph that began with internal communication was partially redacted, but the witness's statement about his understanding of a letter from NTPC was allowed. The High Court also allowed retention of portions referring to correspondence exchanged between the parties.
Apex Court Endorses the Legal Framework
The Supreme Court upheld this detailed exercise.
"We are of the opinion that the High Court has neither committed any error in understanding the directions of this Court nor in applying its mandate,"
the Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed. The Court rejected RIL's attempt to reargue the
of
under
, noting that the issue had already been conclusively decided in 2019 and could not be reopened.
"Perhaps It Is Lucrative for RIL to Raise Objections"
The judgment was scathing in its assessment of RIL's litigation strategy.
"The facts would reveal that the power of the RIL to litigate and obstruct progress of the suit seems unlimited,"
the Court wrote. It noted that
"there is no dearth of financial resources, no obligation to aid and assist the court to cope with pending backlog of cases, perhaps it is lucrative for RIL to raise some objection or the other at every stage."
The Court expressed dismay that despite its 2019 direction to conclude the trial within nine months, more than seven years had passed with the suit still pending.
"Permitting a party to a suit to prolong the litigation is also a sad reflection of the way courts conduct their proceedings,"
it added.
Appeal Dismissed with
The Supreme Court dismissed RIL's appeal, directing the company to pay Rs 10 lakh to the within five weeks. The Court reiterated its request to the to dispose of the suit "as expeditiously as possible."
Implication for Commercial Litigation
The ruling reinforces the on evidence and bars litigants from circumventing previous court decisions by introducing the same evidence through oral testimony. The strong stance on also signals the judiciary's intolerance towards tactics that deliberately stall proceedings in commercial suits.
