Could the appellant reopen, under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the question of admissibility of oral evidence already settled by this Court's final order?

No. This Court declined to revisit its judgment dated 28th February 2019 merely because Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked afresh, and held that the High Court had correctly applied the mandate of that judgment to the Evidence Affidavits.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 60 — res judicata — oral evidence — Evidence Affidavits — costs — res judicata — finality — Section 60 — Held: This Court's judgment dated 28th February 2019 restricting oral evidence about internal communications already excluded from the Evidence Affidavits had attained finality and bound the trial court, which could not reopen the issue by an indirect method. (¶13-14) Evidence Affidavits — internal e-mails — oral evidence — Held further: Applying that mandate, the High Court rightly retained portions of the affidavits reflecting the witness's perception of correspondence while redacting portions that would bring the contents of internal e-mails on record indirectly. (¶14, ¶16, ¶19) finality — costs — Held further: Having already settled the scope of admissible oral evidence in 2019, this Court declined to revisit that judgment, upheld the High Court's redaction, and dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 10 lakhs for prolonging a two-decade-old suit. (¶20, ¶23)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. NTPC LIMITED — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India