Supreme Court Dismisses Reliance's Plea Against Redaction Of Affidavit Portions In NTPC Gas Dispute

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed Reliance Industries Ltd.'s challenge against a Bombay High Court order directing it to redact portions of its witness affidavits in the company's dispute with NTPC Ltd. over a proposed 17-year supply of natural gas.

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe dismissed Reliance's petition challenging the August 22, 2024 order of the Bombay High Court.

The case concerned what Reliance witness B.K. Ganguly could place on record through his affidavits of examination-in-chief.

The redaction dispute centred on portions of Ganguly's affidavits referring to Reliance's internal emails, communications, and discussions.

NTPC objected to the material, contending that it sought to bring before the court the contents of documents that had already been excluded from evidence.

The HC had directed Reliance to redact portions of the affidavits that fell within the categories of evidence previously excluded by the Supreme Court. The court, however, retained material concerning Ganguly's own perception and state of mind, along with correspondence exchanged between NTPC and Reliance that was otherwise admissible.

The immediate issue before the Bombay High Court was therefore not whether NTPC and Reliance had entered into a concluded gas supply contract. It was whether Reliance could use Ganguly's evidence to introduce material that had already been kept out of the trial.

The High Court relied on a February 28, 2019, order of the Supreme Court in the same dispute. The Supreme Court had held that once internal communications had been found irrelevant and the documents were not taken on record, their contents could not be introduced through oral evidence by an indirect method.

Reliance had argued that Ganguly could still depose about matters within his personal knowledge because he had attended the meetings and had seen, heard and perceived what happened. The High Court rejected the argument, observing that allowing such evidence would amount to adopting the very course the Supreme Court had previously disapproved.

The High Court accordingly ordered redaction of several portions of Ganguly's first and further affidavits. These included references to internal emails and communications, as well as portions seeking to bring the contents of excluded documents on record through accounts of internal meetings and discussions.

It retained portions reflecting Ganguly's perception of events and his state of mind. It also retained evidence concerning correspondence between NTPC and Reliance where that correspondence itself was admissible.

The underlying commercial suit was filed by NTPC seeking specific performance of an alleged contract for the supply of 132 trillion BTU of natural gas over 17 years. NTPC's case is that the terms of the contract were incorporated in a Letter of Intent accepted by Reliance.

Reliance maintains that no concluded contract came into existence because the Letter of Intent contemplated the execution of a separate Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement.

The Bombay High Court directed Reliance to prepare fresh copies of both affidavits with the redacted portions struck through and file them within three weeks.