Supreme Court of India· 14 August 2026

Whether the High Court, in giving effect to this Court's earlier judgment restricting the oral evidence that could be led from the Evidence Affidavits, was bound by that judgment as res judicata?

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. NTPC LIMITED

2026 INSC 862 · SLP (C) No. 23417 of 2024
Coram: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Alok Aradhe

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Indian Evidence Act, 1872 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Yes. This Court held that its judgment dated 28th February 2019 excluding oral evidence about already-excluded internal communications had attained finality; such orders operate as res judicata and bind the trial court, which could not indirectly reopen the issue.

Headnote

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)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 13By a detailed judgment dated 28th February, 2019, this Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court in so far as it permitted oral evidence to be adduced with respect to content of documents or correspondence already held to be irrelevant. It is important to refer to what exactly this Court held as much arguments were advanced on what was permitted and what is not permitted by this Court. The relevant portion of the Judgment of this Court is as follows;

Paragraph 14Thus, this Court ruled that it was not open for the High Court to permit oral evidence with respect to the contents of the documents which have not been taken on record. That once the internal discussions were held to be irrelevant and documents were refused to be taken on record, the parties could not be permitted to adduce oral evidence qua said documents. This is the decision of this Court between the same parties. The mandate of Supreme Court order is that; (i) the evidence as to the inter se noting or correspondence between the officers was irrelevant, (ii) the documents which were not between the plaintiff and the defendant were not to be taken on record,

Acts & Sections

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

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.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Did the redaction exercise undertaken by the High Court correctly distinguish between the fact that internal discussions took place and the contents of the internal e-mails recording those discussions?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?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections