The Supreme Court dismissed Reliance Industries' appeal, affirming that the High Court could not admit oral testimony about the contents of internal documents previously excluded, thereby reinforcing the finality of earlier orders and imposing costs on the appellant.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), entered into a commercial relationship with the plaintiff, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC), for the supply of natural gas to NTPC's power plants. An RFQ was issued by NTPC and RIL submitted a financial proposal. A Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 16 June 2004 was issued by NTPC to RIL and accepted subject to a draft Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement (GSPA) to be negotiated.
Key Facts
- 16 June 2004: LOI issued by NTPC to RIL.
- 24 February 2015: RIL filed the 1st Evidence Affidavit of witness B.K. Ganguly.
- 10 August 2016: RIL filed the 2nd Evidence Affidavit of witness B.K. Ganguly.
- 20 February 2014: Bombay High Court dismissed Chamber Summons No. 201 of 2010 seeking discovery of NTPC documents.
- 20 March 2014: Division Bench dismissed RIL's appeal against the above order.
- 29 January 2016: High Court dismissed Chamber Summons No. 629 of 2015 seeking production of RIL's internal documents.
- 18 July 2016: RIL's Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8260/2016 withdrawn.
- 31 March 2017: High Court ordered redaction of portions of the 1st and 2nd Evidence Affidavits.
- 13 April 2017: Typographical errors in the 31 March order corrected.
- 2 February 2018: Review petition against the 31 March and 13 April orders dismissed.
- 28 February 2019: Supreme Court allowed appeals and set aside the High Court order that permitted oral evidence on the contents of excluded documents.
- 2019: Supreme Court directed the trial judge to conclude the suit within nine months.
- 14 August 2026: Supreme Court dismissed the present appeal and awarded costs.
Procedural History
- 24 Feb 2015: RIL filed 1st Evidence Affidavit.
- 10 Aug 2016: RIL filed 2nd Evidence Affidavit.
- 20 Feb 2014: High Court dismissed Chamber Summons No. 201 of 2010.
- 20 Mar 2014: Division Bench dismissed RIL's appeal.
- 29 Jan 2016: High Court dismissed Chamber Summons No. 629 of 2015.
- 18 Jul 2016: SLP (C) No. 8260/2016 withdrawn.
- 31 Mar 2017: High Court redacted affidavits.
- 13 Apr 2017: Corrections to the 31 Mar order.
- 2 Feb 2018: Review petition dismissed.
- 28 Feb 2019: Supreme Court set aside part of High Court order permitting oral evidence.
- 14 Aug 2026: Supreme Court dismissed the present appeal.
Relief Sought
RIL sought reversal of the High Court order that barred oral evidence on the contents of internal documents and asked that such evidence be admitted to establish the existence of a concluded contract.
The Legal Issue
Whether the High Court could permit oral evidence concerning the contents of internal documents that had been expressly excluded by earlier orders, without violating the principle of res judicata and the finality of those orders.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
RIL contended that oral testimony about internal communications was necessary to demonstrate the existence of a concluded contract. It relied on Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to argue that a witness could testify about the substance of meetings and discussions, even if the underlying documents were excluded.
For the Respondent
NTPC argued that the High Court's allowance of such oral evidence contravened the binding nature of the earlier orders dated 20 February 2014 and 29 January 2016. It maintained that the principle of res judicata barred reopening the issue and that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by permitting indirect evidence of the excluded documents.
The Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the hierarchy of orders and the doctrine of finality. It observed that the High Court had previously held internal e-mails irrelevant and that the parties could not be permitted to revive the issue through oral testimony. The Court stressed that once a document is excluded, the content of that document cannot be proved indirectly by oral evidence, as this would defeat the purpose of the exclusion.
"We have no hesitation in setting aside the order so far it permits oral evidence to be adduced with respect to the contents of the documents , email etc. and what transpired in the meeting of officer/employer of defendants or the correspondence which has already been held to be irrelevant ."
The Court reiterated that Order 11 Rule 12 and Rule 21 of the CPC impose consequences for non-disclosure and that repeated applications to reopen settled issues amount to abuse of process. It distinguished the present situation from any permissible use of Section 60, noting that the witness was not testifying about his own perception but about the substance of documents already barred.
The Court also referenced its earlier 28 February 2019 judgment, confirming that the High Court’s direction to admit such oral evidence was untenable. It held that the High Court’s order was illegal and therefore set it aside, while affirming the correctness of the earlier rulings that excluded the internal documents.
The Verdict
The appeal filed by Reliance Industries Limited is dismissed. The Supreme Court upholds the High Court’s exclusion of oral evidence on the contents of internal documents. Costs of Rs. 10,00,000 are awarded to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association, payable by the appellant within five weeks of the judgment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Internal Documents Remain Excluded
- Parties cannot circumvent document exclusion by seeking oral testimony about the excluded content.
- Courts will treat prior orders as binding and will not allow indirect evidence that defeats the exclusion.
Res Judicata Enforced Strictly
- Once a matter is finally decided, any attempt to relitigate the same issue, even through a different evidentiary route, will be barred.
- Litigants must focus on evidence that was not previously excluded.
Procedural Discipline Required
- Repeated applications for discovery or admission of evidence after dismissal will be viewed as abuse of process.
- Counsel should assess the relevance of documents early and avoid reliance on internal communications that are likely to be deemed inadmissible.
