Application filed by defendants seeking deletion of their names from the array of parties. Court held that as they had produced authenticated copies of emails via US custody, their presence was no longer required, and the application was allowed.
Defendants 4 and 5 were deleted from the array of parties in the suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A.Nos. 226 of 2016 & 4375 of 2015 in C.S.No. 677 of 2014
A.Nos. 226 of 2016 & 4375 of 2015 in
C.S.No. 677 of 2014
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
These two applications have been filed seeking to delete the name of
the defendants 4 and 5 from the array of parties. The prayer in the suit as against the defendants 4 and 5 reads as follows:-
“Of mandatory injunction directing the 4th and 5th defendants to give a
status, verification and authentication report of the plaint schedule e-mails to the
plaintiff.”
stated that pursuant to a Subpoena issued by the United States District Court, Northern District, California, in Civil Action No. 5:14 CV-04103, the 4th defendant
has produced the authenticated copies of the e-mails along with hash values corresponding to each of the files produced along with the certificate for authentication before the said Court and copies of the same have also been produced in the form of typed set filed by the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit.
suit. This application is opposed by the plaintiff contending that at the time of
trial, the presence of respondents 4 and 5 may be required for deposition.
1
A.Nos. 226 of 2016 & 4375 of 2015 in C.S.No. 677 of 2014
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. kkn
required as parties to the suit any longer. As regards the prayer for mandatory injunction, the same has now been complied with in as much as the copies of the e-mails, which are the subject matter of the suit along with required authentication have been produced before the Court having its jurisdiction in United States and the copy of the same have been produced by the defendants in this suit also. Hence, the defendants 4 and 5 are deleted from the array of parties in the suit. In fine, A.Nos. 226 of 2016 & 4375 of 2015 will stand allowed.
29.08.2019
kkn
A.Nos. 226 of 2016 & 4375 of 2015 in C.S.No. 677 of 2014
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether defendants who have complied with a US subpoena and produced authenticated emails need to remain parties to a suit for mandatory injunction regarding same.
Defendants 4 and 5
Plaintiff
R. Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
