Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Relief.
21. During the case management hearing on 10.11.2022, a local commissioner was also appointed to record the evidence of the parties and accordingly, the evidence of the parties was recorded by the Ld. Local Commissioner and he submitted the complete record of the evidence of the parties, alongwith his report, on 12.12.2022.
CS (Comm.) 368/2021 page 7 of 25 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
22. After completion of trial, final arguments were addressed by Sh. Sanjay Rathi and Sh. Varun Diwan, Advocates, for the plaintiff and Ms. Mahima Rathi and Ms. Pragya Rathi, Advocates, for the defendant, on 18.04.2023. Parties were also directed to file their respective written arguments and after conclusion of final arguments, the plaintiff was also directed to file the metadata of eight tax invoices Ex.PW1/1 (Colly.), as well as the ledger account Ex.PW2/2 and Ex.PW1/3.
23. In compliance of the said order dated 18.04.2023, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has filed the affidavit of petitioner No.1 Sh. Tushar Kochhar, wherein, it is stated that the said eight invoices were generated by using tally software on computer system regularly used by M/s Harey Krishna Cables. But, the metadata of the documents in question could not be retrieved as the settings in the system were at their default state, i.e., "turned off". It is further stated in the affidavit that the metadata in question is not retrievable and cannot be produced on account of technical software impossibility involved.

43. During the evidence, the plaintiff has also placed on record eight tax invoices for the period w.e.f. 10.02.2020 to 29.02.2020, as Ex.PW1/1 (Colly.). The ledger account of the defendant has been placed on record as Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW2/2. A certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was also filed on record as CS (Comm.) 368/2021 page 16 of 25 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi Ex.PW1/5.

44. It is relevant to mention here that the plaintiffs, despite filing a computer generated tax invoice Ex.PW1/1 (Colly.) and computer generated ledger account Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW2/2, have failed to place on record the metadata of the aforesaid tax invoices, despite repeated directions of the court. Lastly, after completion of the final arguments, the plaintiffs were again directed to file the metadata of the said tax invoices, within one week and in compliance of the said order dated 18.03.2023, an affidavit was filed by plaintiff No.1 (PW-1) on 25.04.2023, wherein, it was stated that the aforesaid documents were generated by using Tally software on computer system and on inquiries from the customer care of Tally software, it was revealed that the metadata of the aforesaid documents could not be retrieved, because the settings in the Tally software were in default state i.e. 'turned off'. It is further stated in the affidavit that at the time of generation of the aforesaid documents, settings in Tally software with respect to the metadata were turned off and the plaintiffs were not aware about any such settings or about what metadata is. It is further stated that the metadata of the documents in question cannot be retrieved on account of technical software impossibility involved.

45. From the affidavit, it is clear that the plaintiffs have deliberately and intentional failed to file the metadata of the eight tax invoices Ex.PW1/1 (Colly.), as well as the ledger account Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW2/2. The ground for non-production of the CS (Comm.) 368/2021 page 17 of 25 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi metadata, as stated in the affidavit dated 25.04.2023, appears to be an after thought, as every document which has been prepared by electronic modes with the use of computer and internet etc, automatically generate metadata and leaves its imprint on the hard-disc, and therefore, it is unbelievable that the settings in the Tally software, which was being run on the computers of M/s Harey Krishna Cables, were in default setting i.e. 'Turned Off', due to which the metadata of the documents in question was not retrievable. Furthermore, the affidavit under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, filed on record as Ex.PW1/5, is also not complying the various conditions, in relation to the information and computer in question. Therefore, all the eight tax invoices and the ledger accounts of the defendant could not be proved by the plaintiff during the trial, as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.