INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Asif Ahmed, Tanmay Sharma and Bhanu Jindal, AZB & Partners
seeking a summary judgment in certain com - mercial disputes. Under Order XIII-A of the CPC, read with the CC Act, the court may give a sum - mary judgment if it considers that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and that there is no other compelling reason for why the claim should not be disposed of without proceeding to trial. The CPC, read along with the CC Act, also empowers the court to pronounce judgment at the first hearing of the suit itself when it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or fact. Moreover, there is also a separate provision for institution of summary suits that involve the plaintiff seeking recovery from the defendant for an ascertainable amount. Such summary suits only allow the hearing of defence if the leave to participate is granted; and if such leave is refused by the court, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 2.7 Rules for Pleading Fraud Courts in India have given an expansive and inclusive definition of fraud. The primary compo - nent that must be alleged and proved in claims pertaining to fraud is that the claimant was fraudulently or dishonestly induced to act in a certain manner by the perpetrator. While proving that a wrongful gain was caused to the perpetra - tor and a wrongful loss was caused to the claim - ant may not be necessary in every instance, the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that the party alleging fraud must set forth specific particulars of fraud, and that the case can only be decided on the basis of the particulars laid out. Mere bald allegations or pleadings of fraud by the claimant are not sufficient to proceed with a claim for fraud. Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC also states that, in all cases where a party’s pleadings rely on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence, particu -
lars (with dates and times if necessary) should be stated in the pleadings. 2.8 Claims Against “Unknown” Fraudsters A claim against unknown fraudsters can be made in India, especially when seeking an ex parte interim injunction against an unknown party, in order to protect the claimant’s interests where there is an imminent threat to such inter - ests, and where the identity of the fraudster is unknown. The courts in India have granted such “John Doe” orders (referred to as “Ashok Kumar” orders in India) frequently in cases involving fraudulent misrepresentations or frauds in rela - tion to intellectual property claims. 2.9 Compelling Witnesses to Give Evidence Criminal Proceedings As stated in 2.1 Disclosure of Defendants’ Assets and 2.3 Obtaining Disclosure of Docu- ments and Evidence From Third Parties , Sec - tion 94 of the BNSS can be invoked by the police or a court to direct a person to produce certain specified documents in their possession as evi - dence. Further, courts in India generally have broad powers to summon a witness, either on their own motion or upon application by a claim - ant, and to compel production of any evidence or document. Civil Proceedings Even arbitral tribunals can seek court assistance in taking evidence under Section 27 of the A&C Act by exercising the stipulated powers. These powers have also been elucidated in the BSA. Powers have also been granted to courts under Order XXVI of the CPC to appoint a commission for deposing a witness or pursuing interrogato - ries in cases where:
211 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook