Directory Provision - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that the mandatory 120-day period for filing a written statement in a commercial suit was extended by its COVID-19 limitation orders. Crucially, it ruled that even if a written statement is not filed, the defendant’s fundamental right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses is not forfeited, as procedural rules must serve substantive justice. Facts Of The Case: In 2019, M/s Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. appointed M/s Aroush Motors as a dealer for CFMOTO motorcycles. The plaintiff invested significant sums in security deposits, showroom setup, and initial stock. The business was disrupted when a government ban on BS-IV vehicles took effect in April 2020, and the defendant failed to supply promised upgrade kits. Consequently, the plaintiff terminated the dealer...

The Supreme Court upheld that additional documents can be produced by the prosecution even after the charge sheet is filed, especially if inadvertently omitted. The Court reiterated that Section 173(5) of the CrPC is directory, not mandatory, and permits the production of documents gathered before or after investigation with court permission. The judgment clarifies that the authenticity of such documents remains an open issue to be proved during trial. Facts Of The Case: An FIR was registered on May 3, 2013, for offences under the IPC and the PC Act. The dispute involves two Compact Discs (CDs). Between January 8, 2013, and May 1, 2013, the Ministry of Home Affairs permitted the interception of telephone calls of several accused and one Manoj Garg. On May 4 and May 10, 2013, two CDs cont...

Tag: Directory Provision

Supreme Court: Right to Cross-Examine Survives Even If Written Statement Is Not Filed

CDs as Evidence: Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Production in CBI Case