The Delhi High Court in the case Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Quess Corp Limited observed and has stated that the commercial courts can permit recording of cross-examination of overseas or outstation witnesses, through video conferencing after following the prescribed procedure, who cannot travel due to any reason due to any reason, if the reason is found to be genuine and bona fide.
The bench headed by Justice Prathiba M Singh in the case observed and has stated that this court would ensure that the cross-examination of witnesses is not conducted in a never-ending manner and such witnesses are not inconvenienced, especially, if they are to travel from foreign countries.
The court in the case observed that whenever there are the outstation and overseas witnesses, thus, the District Courts ought to ensure that such witnesses are not repeatedly called before court for cross-examination.
The bench of Justice Singh in the case stated that in commercial suits, the Commercial Courts would be fully empowered to pass directions wherein it restricted the time limit for the cross-examination for ensuring that the unreasonable inconvenience is not cause to such witnesses who may be required to travel repeatedly.
The court stated that in case of overseas or outstation witnesses if for any reason such witnesses cannot travel and the reason is found to be genuine and bona fide, record Al of cross-examination, after following the prescribed procedure can also be permitted in the matter through video conferencing.
It has also been directed by the Registrar General of the High Court to circulate the order to all District Judges, the Commercial court judges and in district courts in the national capital.
The bench of Justice Singh while dealing with the two cross petitions moved by Inter Ikea Systems BV and Quess Corp Limited stated that unending filing of documents, producing a large number of witnesses, cross-examination over several hearings and the unnecessary inconvenience being caused to witnesses especially coming from outstation or overseas etc has become a malaise. The court stated that there are the attempts that ought to be avoided by parties especially in commercial suit.
It has also been noted by the said court that issue of denial of public documents such as trademark registrations and records from the office of Registrar of Companies such as incorporation certificate, MoA and AoA of the Company and the other similar public records.
The court observed that it is usual to note in such matters that the parties tend to deny all documents which belongs to the other party. In the opinion of the Court neither party should be allowed to make unreasonable blanket denials of documents which are publicly accessible such as trademark registration, records which relates to Registrar of Companies, etc.
Adding to it, the court stated that there can be no doubt that if there is any ground as to genuinity or authenticity of the documents, thus, the same can be denied in the matter.
The counsel, Advocates, Mr. Samar Bansal, Ms. Tanya Varma, Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth and Ms. Parkhi appeared for the Plaintiff.
The counsel, Advocates, Mr. Sandeep Seth, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manu Seshadri, Mr. Aveak Ganguly, Mr. Abhijit Lal, Mr. Anubhav Mishra & Mr. Sahil represented the defendant.