Dismissed

M/S M.P. Electronics v. M/S Sarthak Electronics P. Ltd.

Delhi HC20 Nov 2024CM(M)/3855/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the dismissal of an application to place a voice recording transcript on record in a commercial suit. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that since the primary mobile phone evidence was sold and timelines were violated, no justification existed for late admission.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; application to place voice recording transcript on record rejected.

M/S M.P. Electronics Vs M/S Sarthak… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~72

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 3855/2024

¶4

M/S M.P. ELECTRONICS .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S SARTHAK ELECTRONICS P. LTD. .....Respondent Through:

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 20.11.2024 CM APPL. 67381/2024 (exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

This application stands disposed of.

¶13

CM(M) 3855/2024

¶14

This petition impugns the order dated 06.07.2024 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Commercial Court-03, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC was dismissed in CS (COMM) 05/2019, titled as, “ M/S M.P. Electronics vs. M/S Sarthak Electronics Pvt. Ltd. ”.

¶15

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery before the Commercial Court. He filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC for placing on record the transcript of voice recording conversation between him and the respondent. According to him, such recording was available in the memory of his mobile phone and such recording reveals that the respondent accepted

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 03:38:22

¶17

his liability regarding the payment. Petitioner sought the permission of Court to place the recording in a pendrive before the Court.

¶18

The impugned order reveals that an application under Section 151 of CPC was filed by the respondent seeking direction to the petitioner to deposit the mobile phone for obtaining the expert opinion to verify as to whether there was any tempering made by the petitioner with regard to the recording.

¶19

The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that recorded conversation would show that the respondent admitted his liability, and therefore, the recorded conversation is very much essential for the proper adjudication of the case.

¶20

Order VII Rule 14 of CPC provides that where the plaintiff relies upon a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter it in a list and produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall also deliver a copy of the same with the plaint. 6. It is admitted stand of the petitioner that conversation was recorded in the mobile phone of the petitioner, which was in his power and possession. The suit was filed in 2019. Admittedly, the transcript of the conversation was not filed with the suit. Timelines are provided for the disposal of cases of commercial nature, and therefore, they need to be strictly adhered to by the parties. There is no explanation as to why despite having the mobile phone in his possession, the transcript of the conversation, if was to be relied upon by the plaintiff in support of his case, was not filed with the plaint.

¶21

Moreover, the mobile phone which contained the recorded conversation has already been sold by the petitioner, and therefore, the primary evidence is not available for proving the transcript of conversation.

¶22

¶23

The evidence of plaintiff has already been closed. The case is, at present, pending for defendant’s evidence. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, Court does not find any justification for permitting the petitioner to place the transcript of conversation on record at such a belated stage. There is no illegality or impropriety in order passed by the learned Trial Court.

¶24

Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶26

NOVEMBER 20, 2024/ vp

¶27

M/S M.P. Electronics v. M/S Sarthak Electronics P. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S M.P. Electronics v. M/S Sarthak Electronics P. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satbir Singh Sehwag Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Ms. Sheena Goel Vs Mr. Neeraj Gupta

Sh. Mahabir Singh Vs Sh. Anil Kumar & Ors.

Palamou Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs M/S Mishra Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Sunita Devi & Anr. Vs Mobin & Ors.

Shri Surinder Gupta Vs Smt. Anita Jain

Devanand Verma Vs Parvej Mian & Ors.

Mohd Zarif Vs Parvej Mian & Ors.

Satbir Singh Sehwag Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Ms. Sheena Goel Vs Mr. Neeraj Gupta

Sh. Mahabir Singh Vs Sh. Anil Kumar & Ors.

Jagveer Vs Asha Devi

Kuldeep Singh Vs Tara Devi & Ors.

Shri Ved Prakash Vs National Council of Education Research and Training & Ors.