MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED Vs. TELEFONAKTIEBOLGET L M ERICSSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the previous date of hearing, learned senior counsel appearing for the parties were requested to explore the possibility of considering use of the "hot tub" procedure, devised by Courts abroad, to facilitate appreciation of expert technical evidence, in a shortened procedure. The plaintiff's counsel was agreeable. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in principal there can be no objection to the adoption of such procedure. He, however, highlighted certain difficulties and stated that the "hot tub" procedure pre-supposes the meeting of the concerned experts before the commencement of trial with the aim of narrowing the differences, in the form of a commonly issued document or separately summarized versions of it. Such outcomes would be preceded by candid discussion between the experts inter se resulting in the drawing up of those documents to assess a faster outcome of the merits in a suit. It was submitted that in the present case, on account of the appellant's broad acceptance of the idea indicated in the order of this Court of 21.04.2017, in FAO(OS)(COMM) No.54/2017 and FAO(OS)(COMM) No.89/2017 also between the very same parties to the present appeal, the experts' rival positions would already be a matter of record. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that this factual circumstance need not, in any manner, be a hindrance for the objective consideration of the experts' views. It was submitted that discussions would be off the record; however, the outcomes would be in the form of a common document or simplified statements.

(2.) This Court is of the opinion that the modified "hot tub" procedure, given the realities of the present case and the progress of the suit, may be suitably devised by the Single Judge. This Court proposes to discuss the issue in its judgment, in greater detail. The Court would in its final order make suitable directions in this regard.

(3.) Learned senior counsel Mr. S. Ganesh, on instructions, indicates that the following three broad points/features are acceptable to M/s Micromax Infomatics. The three features have been crystallized in the form of a note which are extracted as follows:- In deference of the opinion expressed by this Hon'ble Court in the order dated , the Appellant/Defendant is agreeable to adopt the evidence in the Lava case as evidence in the instant suit and so also the objections raised therein. Micromax may not be held bound by concessions given by lava.