UPAID SYSTEMS LIMITED Vs. SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, (hereafter "Upaid ") claims reliefs under Section 78 read with Order XXVI Rule 19 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for appointment of a local commissioner, further to a Letter of Request/ Letters Rogatory from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division (hereafter "the foreign court "), for recording deposition of witnesses, to written questions, which have been appended to the letter of request, and request for production of certain documents by National Association of Software and Services Company ( "NASSCOM ").

(2.) UPAID is a British Virgin Islands Corporation. It has filed a civil proceeding before the foreign court, for declaratory judgment alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, forgery and breach of contract, by the respondents (hereafter "Satyam "). NASSCOM 's testimony is important to Upaid, as it claims that Satyam 's (first respondent) membership with NASSCOM, as well as industry customs, practices and standards that would have applied to the services that Satyam, performed on its (Upaid 's) in connection with the intellectual property are in issue in the litigation pending before the foreign court. Upaid had earlier inadvertently assumed that NASSCOM was subject to Andhra Pradesh High Court jurisdiction and therefore sought the original letter of request to that Court. It is stated that various Letters Rogatory for other persons have already been filed and commissions issued by the said Court. Subsequently Upaid moved afresh for issuance of the Letters Rogatory to this Court, which was granted by the foreign Court.

(3.) UPAID 's counsel submits that the object of issuing letters of request by foreign courts is to facilitate recording of evidence, in foreign locales, where witnesses or evidence may be located, and which would otherwise not be possible for the litigants to secure. It is submitted that the import of Order 26 Rule is wide, to comprehend securing oral and documentary evidence. Upaid also argues that the court, at the stage of considering applications, does not concern itself with the relevance or otherwise of the materials sought to be secured on commission, as that is within the domain of the tribunal, which is seized of the dispute, between the parties.