The court granted an application to produce an e-mail document, noting reasonable cause for its delayed discovery and mandating compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Permission granted to produce the e-mail along with a compliance certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
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.No.602 of 2022 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.151 of 2021
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
The applicants/defendants seek permission to produce an e-mail of 28.05.2018 as a document.
have not been framed. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the defendants state that the e-mail is relevant because the respondent/plaintiff admitted in such e-mail that he received payments from the applicants. The applicants further state that the said e-mail could not be traced earlier, since the applicants were not in India at the relevant point of time.
ground that the document is not relevant. The respondent/plaintiff states that the suit claim is based on invoices which were issued subsequent to the e-mail in question.
since the same could not be traced earlier. As stated above, the suit is at the prehttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/2
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
kal
trial stage. In the facts and circumstances, the applicants have established reasonable cause for the non-production of the e-mail earlier.
permitted to produce the e-mail, along with a certificate under Section 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, subject to the objections of the respondent/plaintiff, inter alia , on the grounds of relevance and proof.
22.03.2022
kal
A.No.602 of 2022 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.151 of 2021
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether applicants are entitled to produce an untraced e-mail document during the pre-trial stage given reasonable cause for non-production earlier.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Applicants
Respondent
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
