Delhi High Court Allows Examination Of Two Witnesses In US Through Video Conferencing In Commercial Suit

The Delhi High Court has allowed examination of two witnesses in a commercial suit, residing in the United States of America (USA), to be conducted through video conferencing mode as per the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021.

Justice Sanjeev Narula said courts must foster an environment where the reliability of testimony, whether delivered in person or remotely, remains unimpeachable.

“An effective cross-examination is undeniably central to both civil and criminal trials, serving as a fundamental mechanism for challenging witnesses and scrutinizing evidence. The goal, then, is not to replace the traditional method but to ensure that cross examination via video conferencing replicates the rigor and thoroughness of in-person proceedings as closely as possible,” the court said.

It added that apprehensions regarding use of video conferencing for examination and cross examination of witnesses would assume significance where the witnesses are vulnerable, or not tech savvy. 

“However, in the context of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) bench of this court, where we deliberate on matters of intellectual property rights, both the legal professionals and the parties involved are sophisticated users of technology. This bench deals with counsels who are not only accustomed to, but also proficient in the use of digital platforms for professional and personal communication. The assertion that the use of video conferencing technology might be inherently disadvantageous overlooks this crucial aspect of our proceedings,” the court said.

Justice Narula appointed retired District and Sessions Judge, Vinay Gupta, as the Commissioner and said that he shall preside over the proceedings at Court point for recording of evidence and for determining the granular details regarding recording of testimonies of the two witnesses.

The court ordered that the witnesses will be examined on the date and time as may be fixed by the Commissioner in consultation with the Remote Point Co-ordinator.

Justice Narula was dealing with a commercial suit filed by Phillips 66 Company against Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited. The plaintiff entity moved an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner to record the statement of the witnesses via video conferencing mechanism as they were residing in USA.

It was the entity's case that the witnesses were professionals engaged with significant responsibilities in their law firm, and thus, they were unable to travel to India for cross-examination due to professional commitments.

Disposing of the application, the court said that if a party harbours reservations about the efficacy of video conferencing for cross-examination, they must be afforded the opportunity to articulate their concerns and request an in-person examination, provided their reasons are compelling and justifiable.

“On this aspect, the only points that were time and again reiterated by counsel for Defendant were the concerns over document handling and witness demeanour assessment. Both these issues, in the opinion of the court can be easily handled and are adequately provided for in the Rules,” the court said.

It added: “Specifically, the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) legal community here demonstrates a significant capacity for adapting and refining courtroom practices in line with technological advancements, such as video conferencing. This adaptability, fuelled by real-time feedback, underscores a readiness within this specific legal context that may not be directly comparable to the broader concerns addressed by the Karnataka High Court [in T.G. Veeraprasad and Ors. Vs. Prakash Gandhi].”

Counsel for Plaintiff: Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Ms. Priya Adalakha, Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth, Ms. Aishwarya Debadarshini and Mr. Areeb Amanullah, Advocates

Counsel for Defendant: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kapil Wadhwa and Ms. Tejasvini Puri, Advocates

Title: PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY v. RAAJ UNOCAL LUBRICANTS LIMITED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 175

Click Here To Read Order