2007 (1) TMI 611 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Objection regarding multiple affidavits by the same witness.
2. Objection that the affidavit is a replication of the written statement.
3. Objection to the introduction of new documents without prior permission.
4. Objection to documents in foreign languages without translations.
5. Objection to the affidavit not being legalized or apostilled.

Summary:

1. Objection regarding multiple affidavits by the same witness:
The defendant objected to the presence of two affidavits by Mr. Christian London, claiming one filed on 2.2.2006 was not an affidavit. The court found this objection frivolous, stating, "a statement, which is not made on solemn affirmation and does not even purport to be as made on solemn affirmation, cannot be treated as an affidavit."

2. Objection that the affidavit is a replication of the written statement:
The defendant argued that the affidavit filed on 3.12.2005 was essentially a replication of the written statement. The court rejected this objection, stating, "It is for the witness to state, whatever he may choose to state and depose in his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief."

3. Objection to the introduction of new documents without prior permission:
The defendant objected to new documents filed with the affidavit on 3.12.2005, claiming no prior permission was sought. The court noted that no objections were raised since the filing of the affidavit and documents on 3.12.2005, and considered this conduct as a waiver of objections. The court allowed the plaintiff to produce the documents, stating, "No serious prejudice would be caused to the defendant by the production of any of these documents."

4. Objection to documents in foreign languages without translations:
The defendant objected to documents in foreign languages without translations. The court found this objection insufficient to halt cross-examination, stating, "the defendant could have raised its objection before the Local Commissioner with regard to the admissibility of the documents in other languages but could not have refused to cross-examine the witnesses."

5. Objection to the affidavit not being legalized or apostilled:
The defendant argued that the affidavit was not legalized or apostilled as required by law. The court rejected this objection, explaining that the affidavit notarized by a French Notary was sufficient and did not require further certification by an Indian Diplomatic or Consular Officer. The court cited various precedents supporting the validity of notarized documents from foreign countries.

Conclusion:
The court found all objections raised by the defendant to be without merit and aimed at delaying the trial. The defendant was given a final opportunity to cross-examine the witness, subject to the payment of Rs. 50,000 as costs. The court ordered the cross-examination to proceed before the Joint Registrar/Local Commissioner.