Dismissed¶¶77

Smt Meenakshi Oberg v. Sh. Karun Dube & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Nov 2025RFA(COMM)/136/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Electronic evidence admissibility; Section 65-B(4) IEA certificate insufficiency; source device and scanner non-production; chain of custody; best evidence rule adverse inference; non-production of original loan agreement; Section 65(c) IEA explanation for lost document; Order VIII Rules 4 and 5 CPC evasive denial treated as admission; settlement agreement not an admission of liability; forfeiture of Rs.2,00,000/- instalment; recovery suit for Rs.70,20,172.53/- dismissed; RFA(COMM) Delhi High Court.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment of the District Judge was allowed to stand. ¶¶77

Smt Meenakshi Oberg Vs Sh. Karun Dube & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment of the District Judge was allowed to stand.

¶¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether the scanned copy of the LA satisfied the mandatory certification requirements of Section 65-B IEA for admissibility of electronic records, given that the acceptance of receipt of loan was urged as foundational evidence. +4 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

Producing a certification under Section 65-B IEA is a mandatory pre-requisite for admissibility of an electronic record; the acceptance of receipt of loan by Defendant No.1 does not constitute foundational evidence satisfying Section 65-B, and the contention to the contrary is legally unsustainable.

¶¶48

Ratio / Principle

Failure of Plaintiff No.1 to produce the source computer/laptop and scanner cast doubts on the integrity of the source device and undermined the chain of custody; consequently the Section 65-B certificate provided was insufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 65-B IEA.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

The cross-examination excerpts warrant an adverse inference against Plaintiff No.1 under the best evidence rule, as she claimed possession of the original LA but failed to produce it, merely stating it could not be traced.ratio¶¶58
Plaintiff No.1 neither examined any attesting witness nor explained the loss of the original LA in terms of Section 65(c) IEA; accordingly the DJ rightly concluded that the scanned copy of the LA could not be relied upon for want of admissibility under the IEA.ratio¶¶61
There is no unequivocal or implicit admission by the Defendants acknowledging the alleged loan transaction; their denial cannot be termed evasive or insufficient, so the reliance on Order VIII Rules 4 and 5 CPC is misplaced and the argument premised on those provisions cannot be accepted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anil Kshetarpal, J.; bench including Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, J.), judgment pronounced 13.11.2025, dismisses RFA(COMM) 136/2024, upholding the District Judge, Saket Court Delhi's order dated 22.12.2023 dismissing the suit by Meenakshi Oberg and Praveen Chawhan to recover Rs.70,20,172.53/- arising from a loan agreement dated 21.11.2013 between Late Smt. Shanti Devi and Karun Dube (Rs.50,00,000/- at 18% p.a., with post-dated cheque No.000102 dated 21.11.2016). Holds: (i) a Section 65-B IEA certificate is a mandatory pre-requisite for admissibility of electronic records, and acceptance of receipt of the loan is not 'foundational evidence' satisfying it; (ii) failure to produce the source laptop and scanner undermined the chain of custody, rendering the certificate insufficient under Section 65-B(4) IEA; (iii) non-production of the original LA despite claimed possession attracts an adverse inference under the best evidence rule (Sections 61-64 IEA), no attesting witness was examined and no explanation was given in terms of Section 65(c) IEA, so the DJ rightly refused reliance on the scanned copy; (iv) the Defendants' written-statement denials were categorical, not evasive, so Order VIII Rules 4 and 5 CPC do not apply; (v) the abandoned Settlement Agreement dated 19.04.2023 is neither a binding admission of liability nor conclusive, and the Plaintiff, having forfeited Rs.2,00,000/- and abandoned it, cannot cherry-pick its favourable portions. No illegality, perversity or procedural impropriety found in the impugned judgment; appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Judgment reserved on: 14.10.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 13.11.2025

¶4

- RFA(COMM) 136/2024

¶5

SMT MEENAKSHI OBERG .....Appellant Through: Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Mr. Shivam Gaur, Mr. Aryan Kumar, Ms. Rashi Singh and Ms. Shabina, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

SH. KARUN DUBE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dinesh Monga, Ms. Merlin Mathew & Ms. Vrinda Awasthi, Advs. for R-1 and R- 2.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶10

J U D G M E N T

¶11

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶12

The present Appeal has been filed assailing the correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.2023 [hereinafter referred to as “IJ”] passed by the learned District Judge, Saket Court Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “DJ”], whereby the civil suit filed by the Appellant and Respondent No.3 (Plaintiffs before the Trial Court), for recovery of Rs.70,20,172.53/- was dismissed on account of failure to discharge the burden of proof necessary to establish their claim.

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 3.11.2025 11:59:16

¶15

RFA(COMM) 136/2024 Page 1 of 10

¶16

FACTUAL MATRIX:

¶17

For the sake of convenience, the parties before this Court shall be referred in accordance with their status before the DJ.

¶18

In substance, the brief facts culminating in the present Appeal and relevant for adjudication, revolve solely around the loan agreement dated 21.11.2013 [hereinafter referred to as “LA”] executed between Mr. Karun Dube (Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1) and Late Smt. Shanti Devi, whereby the latter purportedly advanced a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- to the former, along with an interest at the rate of 18% per annum, repayable at the end of the period of LA, i.e. of three years from the date of execution of the LA.

¶19

Additionally, under the terms of the LA a post-dated cheque bearing No.000102 dated 21.11.2016 was drawn in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi. However, on 05.07.2017, she passed away leaving behind three children, namely Mrs. Meenakshi Oberg (Plaintiff No.1/Appellant), Mr. Praveen Chawhan (Plaintiff No.2/Respondent No.3) and Mr. Brijesh Singh Chauhan (Defendant No.2/Respondent No.2). Following the demise of Smt. Shanti Devi, legal notices dated 20.01.2018 and 14.06.2018 were issued by Plaintiff No.1 to Defendant No.1, seeking recovery of Rs. 50,00,000/- repayable with an interest at the rate of 18% per annum, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the LA.

¶20

Subsequently, the Plaintiff No.1, on account of failure of Defendant No.1 to make payment, instituted a civil suit against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. During the course of trial, the dispute, with

¶21

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 3.11.2025 11:59:16

¶22

RFA(COMM) 136/2024 Page 2 of 10

¶23

the consent of the parties was referred to mediation by the DJ. Consequently, the matter was settled between the Plaintiff No.1 and Defendants by way of a Settlement Agreement dated 19.04.2023 [hereinafter referred to as “SA”], whereby the parties agreed to resolve the dispute in full, upon payment of Rs.20,00,000/- to be made in two instalments, with Rs.2,00,000/- payable immediately via cheque on the same date, and the remaining amount of Rs. 18,00,000/payable on or before 23.05.2023 by way of a DD/NEFT/RTGS. However, the settlement reached by the parties could not attain finality and was abandoned by the Plaintiff No.1 after forfeiting Rs.2,00,000/- already received. Following the failure of the SA between the parties to settle the matter, the trial resumed in its ordinary course and the DJ upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence was pleased to pass the IJ against the Plaintiffs. Hence the present Appeal.

¶24

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF NO.1

¶25

Learned Counsel representing the Plaintiff No.1 impugning the findings of the DJ, contends that a scanned copy of the LA and the cheque dated 21.11.2016, securely saved on the Google Server, was produced before the DJ, hence the requirement of proof under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [hereinafter referred to as “IEA”] stood satisfied. It is further contended that the acceptance of Defendant No.1 about the receipt of loan amount constituted foundational evidence, thereby proving the scanned copy of the LA and the cheque in accordance with law. Hence, once the foundational facts were established, compliance with Section 65-B of IEA stood

¶26

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 3.11.2025 11:59:16

¶27

RFA(COMM) 136/2024 Page 3 of 10

¶28

satisfied, and the DJ erred in discarding the Plaintiff No.1’s claim on technical grounds.

¶29

In addition to the aforestated, it has also been contended that the cheque dated 21.11.2016 in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi forms a separate and independent acknowledgment of liability.

¶30

It is contended by the Plaintiff No.1 that the DJ failed to take into account the conduct of the Defendants, who first entered into the SA and made a partial payment of Rs.2,00,000/-, thereafter undertook to pay Rs.18,00,000/- towards the outstanding amount, thereby implying admission and acknowledgement of their liability to repay the Plaintiff No.1.

¶31

Lastly, the findings of the DJ were further vitiated by placing reliance on Order VIII Rule 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”], to state that the vague and evasive denials of the loan transaction by the Defendants amounts to admission and do not constitute a valid transverse in law.

¶32

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

¶33

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Defendants while defending the IJ submits that although the amount was received from the account of Late Smt. Shanti Devi, the same did not constitute a loan transaction. In response to the reliance placed by the Plaintiff No.1 on the cheque dated 21.11.2016, it is contended that the said cheque was issued by a different company, in respect of an unrelated business transaction and not towards repayment of any alleged loan or

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 3.11.2025 11:59:16

¶36

RFA(COMM) 136/2024 Page 4 of 10

¶37

liability arising out of the purported LA. Hence, reliance on the said cheque cannot be construed as a proof of liability.

¶38

In addition to the aforestated, it has been contended that the said amount was transferred by the Defendant No.2 from his personal account maintained in the United Kingdom to the account of Late Smt. Shanti Devi, who thereafter transferred the same to the Defendant No.1. Reliance in this regard has been placed on an email dated 11.12.2013, wherein the Defendant No.2 expressed concern as to why, despite having transferred the amount to his mother’s account, the said transfer was not reflecting therein. Further, it is contended that the amount only came to be transferred to the Defendant No.1, after the funds were reflected in the account of Smt. Shanti Devi, thereby corroborating that the transfer originated from Defendant No.2 and not from Late Smt. Shanti Devi’s independent funds.

¶39

Controverting the submission made by the Plaintiff No.1 with respect to the SA, the learned counsel for the Defendants has provided two clarifications; firstly, it has been contended that the Defendants agreed to settle the matter merely to maintain cordial family relations and not as an acknowledgment of any legal liability. Secondly, while placing reliance on Order dated 06.07.2023, it has been contended that the Plaintiff No.1 had already abandoned the settlement, since the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- already paid was forfeited and no further payments were made thereafter.

¶40

Reliance has also been placed on the Order dated 22.12.2022, which records that the original copy of LA was in the possession of

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 3.11.2025 11:59:16

¶43

RFA(COMM) 136/2024 Page 5 of 10

¶44

Plaintiff No.1, though she failed to produce or trace the same. This act of the Plaintiff No.1 clearly established that her inability to produce the original document was not attributable to any act or omissions on the part of the Defendants.

¶45

ANALYSIS

¶46

This Court has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.

¶47

At the outset it is noted that the Plaintiff No.1 admitted during the course of arguments before this Court that she had lost the original copy of LA, thereby confirming her inability to produce primary evidence; notably, this position was not adopted before the DJ. Upon perusal of the material on record, it is evident that Plaintiff No.1 had consistently asserted before the DJ that she was in possession of the LA, while merely producing a scanned copy of the LA thereof for perusal of the Trial Court. Additionally, it is noted that the Plaintiff No.1 also failed to produce the source laptop and scanner through which the LA was allegedly scanned as a part of their evidence.

¶48

With regard to the aforestated, the contention advanced by the Plaintiff No.1 that the acceptance of receipt of loan by the Defendant No.1 constitutes foundational evidence, thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 65-B of IEA, is legally unsustainable. This is for the reason that the compliance of producing a certification under the said provision is merely a mandatory pre-requisite for the admissibility of an electronic record, and such certificate must comply with all the requirements prescribed under Section 65-B(4) of the IEA,

¶49

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 3.11.2025 11:59:16

¶50

RFA(COMM) 136/2024 Page 6 of 10

¶51

non-compliance of which renders the electronic evidence inadmissible and eschewed from consideration.

¶52

In the present case, although the Plaintiff No.1 provided a certificate under Section 65-B of the IEA, they failed to produce the source computer and the scanner to establish the manner and authenticity of creation of the scanned copy of the LA. This failure on account of the Plaintiff No.1 casts doubts on the integrity of the source device thereby undermining the chain of custody necessary for admissibility of electronic evidence. Consequently, the certificate is insufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 65-B of the IEA.

¶53

Moreover, the best evidence rules as envisaged under Sections 61 to 64 of the IEA for proving a document through primary evidence was also not met by the Plaintiff No.1, since she failed to establish the genuineness of the LA and its contents. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the cross-examination of Plaintiff No.1; the relevant paragraphs of which are reproduced hereinbelow:

¶54

Cross-examination dated 22.12.2022:

¶55

“ The agreement was signed between my mother and defendant no.1, I was abroad at that time but on the same time I was on telephonic conversation with my mother. The original agreement was in my possession but I cannot trace it now .”

¶56

Cross examination dated 09.01.2023:

¶57

“ I was not in India at the time of execution of Agreement dated 21.11.2013 Mark „A‟ .”

¶58

The above-reproduced excerpts warrant an adverse inference against the Plaintiff No.1 with respect to the best evidence rule, in as much as

¶59

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 3.11.2025 11:59:16

¶60

RFA(COMM) 136/2024 Page 7 of 10

¶61

the Plaintiff No.1, despite claiming to have been in possession of the original LA, failed to produce the same and merely stated that it could not be traced. Such non-production deprived both this Court and the DJ of the opportunity to peruse the original document. Additionally, the Plaintiff No.1 neither examined any attesting witness or person present at the time of execution of the LA nor provided any reasonable explanation for the alleged loss or unavailability of the original LA in terms of Section 65 (c) of the IEA. Accordingly, the DJ rightly concluded that the scanned copy of the LA could not be relied upon for want of admissibility under the IEA.

¶62

Upon a careful reading of Paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 of the written statement filed by the Defendants before the trial court, it is evident that the borrowing of loan amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- as per the LA has been emphatically denied by the Defendants. It is further the case of the Defendants that the cheque dated 21.11.2016 was issued in blank by Defendant No.1 for a different transaction, as the said cheque belongs to another company of the Defendant No.1, namely, M/s Adpros Media Pvt. Ltd. and not to Defendant No.1 in his personal capacity.

¶63

It is also alleged that the Plaintiff No.1 has fabricated the LA. Hence, there is no unequivocal or implicit admission on part of the Defendants acknowledging the alleged loan transaction. Accordingly, the reliance placed by the Plaintiff No.1 on Order VIII Rules 4 and 5 of the CPC will not be applicable in the present case, since the denial by the Defendants cannot be termed as evasive or insufficient.

¶64

Signature Not Verified

¶65

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 3.11.2025 11:59:16

¶66

RFA(COMM) 136/2024 Page 8 of 10

¶67

Moreover, Paragraph No.4 of the written statement filed by the Defendants, clearly records and reads as under:

¶68

“That it is submitted that the version of the Plaintiffs are completely false, fabricated and vexatious and the Plaintiffs have concealed and suppressed the true and correct facts from this Hon‟ble Court.”

¶69

In view of the aforesaid categorical stance taken by the Defendants, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs premised upon application of Order VIII Rules 4 and 5 of the CPC cannot be accepted.

¶70

Similarly, the SA relied upon by the Plaintiff No.1 to prove admission of liability on behalf of the Defendants also falls, being devoid of merit. The said agreement neither constitutes a binding admission of liability nor is it conclusive in nature for the adjudication of the present dispute. In particular, owing to the fact that the Plaintiff No.1 themselves abandoned the settlement, and as such, cannot be permitted to cherry pick the favourable portions of the SA while disregarding their own conduct in abandoning the same.

¶71

CONCLUSION

¶72

Accordingly, in light of the above findings, it is concluded that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate any illegality, perversity or procedural impropriety in the impugned judgement warranting the interference by this Court. The findings of the learned District Judge are based on record, including the witness testimonies and documents placed on record before it by both the parties.

¶73

Signature Not Verified

¶74

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 3.11.2025 11:59:16

¶75

RFA(COMM) 136/2024 Page 9 of 10

¶76

In view of the aforesaid discussion on facts and law, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Judge.

¶77

Having found no merit in the Appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶78

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶79

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. NOVEMBER 13, 2025 s.godara/hr

¶80

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 3.11.2025 11:59:16

¶81

RFA(COMM) 136/2024 Page 10 of 10

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the scanned copy of the LA satisfied the mandatory certification requirements of Section 65-B IEA for admissibility of electronic records, given that the acceptance of receipt of loan was urged as foundational evidence.¶¶16
The court held
Producing a certification under Section 65-B IEA is a mandatory pre-requisite for admissibility of an electronic record; the acceptance of receipt of loan by Defendant No.1 does not constitute foundational evidence satisfying Section 65-B, and the contention to the contrary is legally unsustainable.ratio¶¶48
2.
Whether the Plaintiff No.1 complied with the best evidence rules (Sections 61 to 64 IEA) by producing the original LA, and whether its non-production warrants an adverse inference.¶¶53
The court held
The cross-examination excerpts warrant an adverse inference against Plaintiff No.1 under the best evidence rule, as she claimed possession of the original LA but failed to produce it, merely stating it could not be traced.ratio¶¶58
3.
Whether the Defendants' denials of the loan transaction in the written statement were vague and evasive such that, under Order VIII Rules 4 and 5 CPC, they amounted to admissions.¶¶63
The court held
There is no unequivocal or implicit admission by the Defendants acknowledging the alleged loan transaction; their denial cannot be termed evasive or insufficient, so the reliance on Order VIII Rules 4 and 5 CPC is misplaced and the argument premised on those provisions cannot be accepted.ratio¶¶63
4.
Whether the Settlement Agreement dated 19.04.2023 constituted an admission and acknowledgment of liability by the Defendants.¶¶71
The court held
The Settlement Agreement dated 19.04.2023 neither constitutes a binding admission of liability nor is conclusive for adjudication of the dispute.ratio¶¶71
5.
Whether the impugned judgment of the District Judge suffered from any illegality, perversity or procedural impropriety warranting interference by this Court.¶¶72
The court held
The Appellant failed to demonstrate any illegality, perversity or procedural impropriety in the impugned judgment; the findings of the learned District Judge are based on the record, including witness testimonies and documents placed before it by both parties.ratio¶¶72

Smt Meenakshi Oberg v. Sh. Karun Dube & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Meenakshi Oberg v. Sh. Karun Dube & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.C. Hasaram and Sons Vs Smt. Nirmala Agarwal Proprietor of M/S Karmyogi Sharbhang Muni

Vinayak Enterprises Vs Arvinder Singh

Bright Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rukmani Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

M S Aggarwal Polymers India & Anr. Vs M S Sri Ram Plastochem Pvt. Ltd.

Dwarika Infocom Pvt. Ltd. Vs Divyansh Pratham Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

Genesis Engineering Company and Anr. Vs Kdi Power Private Limited

M/S Sopan International through Sh. Pankaj Jain Vs M/S Kalash Export through Prop. Sh. Gaurav Jain

Gola Packers Vs Sunita Jain

Anupreet Gulati Vs Gurpreet Singh Gulati

Ms Samrat Sweets Bakery and Restaurant Vs Oxyzo Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Nidhi Khandelwal Vs Pankaj Khandelwal

Meenakshi Malhotra Vs G.L. Tandon (Since Deceased through Lrs) & Ors.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs M/S Motorola & Inc.

Miss Pahal Giya (through Her Mother, Mrs. Sapna Giya) Vs Deepak Giya