Jagmeet Kaur Babbar and Ors. v. Eurocopter Group & Others

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 08.07.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), closing the evidence of the defendant no.1 due to non-appearance of its witness.

2. This Court, by its Order dated 15.02.2024, had passed the following order:

3. Thereafter, on an application filed by the defendants, being I.A. 8249/2024, seeking direction to the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) to provide all documents as requested by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs (Judicial Section), Government of India vide its letter dated 04.01.2024 for facilitating the recording of evidence of the witness through video conferencing, this Court, vide its Order dated 10.04.2024, passed the following direction:

4. Admittedly, the arrangement for recording of the evidence of the witness through video conferencing could not be arranged. The witness also did not appear in person before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) for his statement. The learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), therefore, following the Order of 15.02.2024, closed the right of the defendant no.1 to lead its evidence vide the Impugned Order.

5. The learned counsel for the defendant no.1/appellant submits that the defendant no.1/appellant had made all possible endeavours to have the statement of the witness recorded through video conferencing. She submits that, in this endeavour, a request was also made by the defendant no.1 to the Ministry of Economics, Finance and Industry and Digital Sovereignty of Government of France, which in turn by its Letter dated 10.06.2024, advised the defendant no.1 to follow and confirm to the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters. She submits that it is for this reason, the statement of the witness could not be recorded on 08.07.2024, the date fixed by this Court.

6. She further submits that subsequent thereto, she has now received a Communication dated 18.07.2024 from the Ministry of Justice, France, addressed to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Judicial Section, informing them that the request for recording the evidence of Mr. Michel Martin through video conferencing has been authorized. Through the said letter, Ministry of Justice, France has also asked for a copy of letter of summons addressed to the person concerned, that is, Mr. Michel Martin.

7. The learned counsel for the defendant no.1/appellant submits that all necessary arrangements for recording of the evidence of the witness through video conferencing shall be undertaken by the defendant no.1/appellant and the witness would be positively available for giving his statement on 10th,11th and 12th September, 2024.

8. Though, the application was initially opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs stating that the Order dated 15.02.2024 of this Court is very clear and had directed the witness of the defendant no.1 to remain present in person for his statement in case the video conferencing could not be arranged, in order to expedite the adjudication of the dispute, he agrees to one further opportunity being granted to the defendant no.1 to lead the evidence.

9. In view of the above, the Impugned Order is set aside. The defendant no.1 is granted one final and last opportunity to produce its witness for recording of his evidence through video conferencing. All arrangements for the video conferencing shall be made by the defendant no.1 and shall be in accordance with the ‘High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021’.

10. The Indian Consulate at France shall take necessary steps as may be required by the defendant no.1 to assist them in arranging for the statement of the witness to be recorded through video conferencing.

11. List on 10th September, 2024 at 2:00 PM before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of the evidence of the witness.

12. The defendant no.1 shall also make arrangements for a translator in case need so arises.

13. It is again reiterated that in case the defendant no.1, for any reason whatsoever, is unable to make arrangements for the recording of the evidence of its witness through video conferencing on the dates mentioned hereinabove, the witness must make himself personally present before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of the evidence. In case the evidence cannot be recorded on the given dates as the witness is not present before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), either through video conferencing or personally, the evidence of the defendant no.1 shall stand closed.