In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has provided guidance on the use of video conferencing for cross-examination of overseas or outstation witnesses. The court declared that commercial courts have the authority to permit the cross-examination of such witnesses via video conferencing when they cannot travel due to genuine and bona fide reasons. This decision aims to prevent unnecessary inconvenience to witnesses, especially those coming from foreign countries.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh emphasized the need for commercial courts to take steps to avoid undue delays and ensure efficient proceedings. The court also pointed out that commercial courts should limit the time allocated for cross-examination to avoid prolonged inconveniences to witnesses.
Brief Facts:
The dispute arises from a suit titled "Ikea Trading v. M/s Quess Corp Limited." The plaintiff, Inter Ikea Systems BV, claims rights in the mark 'IKEA' and had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant, Quess Corp Limited, for using the mark 'IKYA.' Initially, an ex-parte injunction was granted on 11th January 2013 by the ADJ, which was later vacated. The matter underwent several legal proceedings and was remanded by the High Court, leading to the framing of issues and the scheduling of a trial.
During the trial, the plaintiff had presented evidence, including testimony from its witnesses. Subsequently, the defendant sought to produce a substantial number of documents, consisting of more than 2,300 pages, after the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence.
The plaintiff, holding rights in the 'IKEA' mark, initiated the suit to seek a permanent injunction against the defendant's use of the 'IKYA' mark. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's application to introduce a large number of documents after the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence was a deliberate attempt to delay the trial in a case that had been ongoing for over 13 years. The plaintiff contended that most of the documents the defendant sought to introduce related to a period preceding the filing of the written statement and the framing of issues, making their inclusion untimely and unjustifiable.
The defendant asserted its right to introduce the documents as they were primarily related to events occurring after the filing of the written statement, and they consisted of public records. The defendant argued that the documents, while numerous, were relevant to the case and should be admitted into evidence. The defendant also presented a list of 14 witnesses, which included company officials and various media representatives. They intended to rely on these witnesses to support their defense and claims. However, the plaintiff raised concerns about the inconvenience and delays caused by extensive cross-examinations and witness testimonies.
Observations by the Court:
The court recognized that the practice of unending document filings, the production of numerous witnesses, and extensive cross-examinations has become a concern in commercial suits. The court stressed the importance of streamlining the process to avoid such malaise.
The court also addressed the issue of blanket denials of public documents, such as trademark registrations and records from the Registrar of Companies. It recommended that parties should not be allowed to make unreasonable blanket denials of documents that are publicly accessible. Instead, the denial should be based on genuine concerns about the authenticity or legitimacy of the documents.
Case Title: M/S QUESS CORP LTD vs M/S INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV
Coram: Justice Prathiba M Singh
Case No.: CM(M)-IPD 15/2023 and CM 135/2023, 136/2023
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr. Samar Bansal, Ms. Tanya Varma, Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth & Ms. Parkhi Rai, Adv
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Seth, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manu Seshadri, Mr. Aveak Ganguly, Mr. Abhijit Lal, Mr. Anubhav Mishra & Mr. Sahil, Advs.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
