Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a commercial suit filed by NTPC Limited against Reliance Industries Limited seeking a declaration that a binding contract existed for supply of natural gas, and consequently specific performance of the contract for supply of 132 trillion BTU of natural gas over 17 years. The background involved a Request for Qualification for supply of natural gas to NTPC's power plants, RIL's financial proposal, and issuance of a Letter of Intent dated 16 June 2004, which RIL accepted subject to negotiation of a Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement. NTPC alleged non-compliance with obligations under the LOI and filed the suit. The litigation was marked by multiple interlocutory rounds. In the first round, RIL filed Chamber Summons No. 201 of 2010 seeking discovery and inspection of internal NTPC documents, which was dismissed by the High Court on 20 February 2014 on grounds that the documents were vague, irrelevant, and a fishing enquiry. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on 20 March 2014, emphasizing that the question of concluded contract would be determined on documents already produced, not internal notings. In the second round, after RIL submitted its first evidence affidavit of B.K. Ganguly on 24 February 2015, RIL filed Chamber Summons No. 629 of 2015 seeking leave to produce additional internal RIL documents. The High Court dismissed it on 29 January 2016, holding that internal documents unilaterally prepared and not shared with the other party could not throw light on the common intention of parties and were irrelevant to prove a concluded contract. Only certain listed documents were allowed. RIL's special leave petition against that order was dismissed as withdrawn on 18 July 2016. On 10 August 2016, RIL submitted a second evidence affidavit. NTPC sought redaction of portions of both affidavits, leading to High Court order dated 31 March 2017 that redacted some portions but allowed oral evidence on some documents, later corrected on 13 April 2017; review was dismissed on 2 February 2018. NTPC challenged these orders before the Supreme Court, which by judgment dated 28 February 2019 allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court order insofar as it permitted oral evidence on excluded documents, holding that previous orders had attained finality and operated as res judicata, binding the trial court; what was directly precluded could not be indirectly introduced through oral evidence. The present appeal arose from a Bombay High Court order dated 22 August 2024 in Commercial Suit No. 189 of 2021 redacting certain portions of the first and second evidence affidavits. The Supreme Court, in the provided text, examined the procedural history and reiterated the principles on relevance of internal documents and binding nature of prior orders. The judgment excerpt ends before the final operative direction, but the earlier reasoning strongly disapproved repetitive obstructive applications and upheld the exclusion of internal documents.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Discovery and Inspection - Relevance of Documents - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Order 11 Rule 12 - The High Court dismissed a chamber summons seeking discovery of internal NTPC documents as vague and a fishing enquiry; the Division Bench upheld that the principal issue of concluded contract would be decided on documents already produced, not internal notings - Held that a party cannot keep making repetitive applications to frustrate trial progress (Paras 6-7). B) Civil Procedure - Admissibility of Internal Documents - Unilateral Internal Documents Irrelevant - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Order 11 Rule 12 - The High Court held that internal documents/correspondence of a party unilaterally prepared and not shared cannot throw light on what parties together meant; hence irrelevant for proving existence of a concluded contract - Held that only certain documents listed in the schedule were allowed to be produced (Paras 8-9). C) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata and Finality of Orders - Binding Effect of Interlocutory Orders - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Order 11 Rule 12 and Rule 21 - Previous orders excluding documents attained finality and operated as res judicata binding the trial court; it was not open to indirectly adduce oral evidence of the same excluded documents - Held that what was directly precluded could not be done indirectly by deposing oral evidence of internal discussions (Paras 12-13). D) Evidence - Oral Evidence and Excluded Documents - Distinction Between Document and Fact of Discussions - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - The High Court had earlier distinguished between the document itself and the fact of discussions, permitting limited oral evidence; however this Court set aside that order to the extent it permitted oral evidence on documents already held irrelevant - Held that exclusion orders must be respected and prior orders bind (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether oral evidence can be adduced with respect to content of documents or correspondence already held irrelevant; whether the High Court order permitting such oral evidence was valid in view of prior final orders; whether redaction of portions of evidence affidavits was justified under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC.
Final Decision
Final decision not provided in the judgment excerpt; earlier Supreme Court judgment dated 28 February 2019 allowed NTPC's appeals and set aside High Court order insofar as it permitted oral evidence on excluded documents.
Law Points
- Discovery under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC must be relevant and not vague
- internal documents unilaterally prepared and not shared are irrelevant to prove concluded contract
- oral evidence cannot be used to indirectly introduce excluded documents
- previous interlocutory orders attaining finality operate as res judicata and bind trial court
- repetitive applications to frustrate trial are impermissible
- gross delay in filing discovery application is fatal
- what is directly precluded cannot be done indirectly.
