AUM INTERNATIONAL Vs. INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate has committed serious illegality by not considering the objections taken by the petitioners with regard to admissibility of documents in the nature of electronic or computer record. All these objections related to non-compliance with the mandatory conditions of subsection (2) as well as subsection (4) of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. He submits that now it is well settled law as can be seen from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anvar P. V. Vs. P. K. .Basheer, 2014 10 SCC 473 that Section 65-B conditions being mandatory in nature, must be fulfilled by the party seeking to place reliance upon the documents in the nature of electronic or computer record. The learned Counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate has completely ignored the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of the documents in the nature of electronic or computer record.