Excluded Internal Documents Cannot Be Reintroduced Through Oral Evidence: Finality of Evidentiary Orders in Commercial Trials

Introduction

The Supreme Court in RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. NTPC LIMITED, 2026 INSC 862, considered whether Reliance Industries Limited could rely, through examination-in-chief affidavits, on matters drawn from internal documents and internal communications that had already been held irrelevant and inadmissible in earlier stages of the same suit.

The underlying dispute arose from NTPC’s Request for Qualification for supply of natural gas. RIL submitted a financial proposal, and NTPC issued a Letter of Intent dated 16 June 2004. NTPC later sued for a declaration/specific performance, claiming that a binding contract for supply of natural gas had come into existence. RIL resisted the claim and repeatedly sought to introduce or rely upon internal documents and discussions.

The immediate issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Bombay High Court was right in redacting portions of the examination-in-chief affidavits of RIL’s witness, Mr. B.K. Ganguly, where those portions referred to internal emails, internal meetings, and internal correspondence previously excluded from evidence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed RIL’s appeal and upheld the Bombay High Court’s order redacting portions of the evidence affidavits. The Court held that the High Court had correctly understood and applied the earlier Supreme Court mandate dated 28 February 2019.

The Court reaffirmed that once internal documents and inter-office communications had been held irrelevant and were refused to be taken on record, RIL could not indirectly introduce their contents through oral testimony or affidavit evidence. Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which permits direct oral evidence, could not be used to reopen issues already concluded by final orders in the same litigation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10 lakhs payable by RIL to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association. The Supreme Court also expressed concern that the suit, filed in 2005/2006, was still at the evidence stage after nearly two decades and directed the High Court to dispose of it expeditiously.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Earlier Orders Considered

The judgment does not rely on a range of external precedents. Instead, its reasoning is anchored in earlier orders passed in the same litigation between the same parties, especially the prior Supreme Court decision dated 28 February 2019 in the dispute involving RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. NTPC LIMITED.

Earlier High Court Order dated 20 February 2014

RIL had filed Chamber Summons No. 201 of 2010 seeking discovery and inspection of NTPC’s internal documents relating to negotiations over the Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement. The Bombay High Court rejected that request, holding that such internal documents were vague, amounted to a fishing enquiry, and were irrelevant to deciding whether the Letter of Intent and its acceptance created a concluded contract.

Division Bench Order dated 20 March 2014

The Division Bench affirmed the rejection of RIL’s discovery application. It held that the question whether there was a concluded contract would be determined on the basis of documents already produced by the parties, not by internal notings or correspondence among officers of NTPC. This finding became important because it fixed the evidentiary boundary of the trial.

High Court Order dated 29 January 2016

RIL later sought to introduce its own internal documents through Chamber Summons No. 629 of 2015. The High Court again refused, holding that internal documents or correspondence exchanged between RIL officials could not assist in determining what the parties jointly intended. The existence of a concluded contract had to be inferred from communications and documents exchanged between the contracting parties, not from unilateral internal records.

Supreme Court Order dated 28 February 2019

This was the decisive prior order. The Supreme Court held that once internal documents had been excluded, oral evidence could not be used as an indirect method to bring in the same excluded material. The Court stated that the previous orders had attained finality and were binding on the trial court. The trial court could not permit oral evidence regarding the contents of documents, emails, internal meetings, or correspondence already held irrelevant.

The present 2026 judgment applies that binding mandate. The Supreme Court held that RIL was essentially attempting to reopen the very issue already settled in 2019.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rests on three principal propositions:

  1. Finality of prior evidentiary orders: Once an evidentiary issue is decided and the order has attained finality, the same issue cannot be reopened at a later stage of trial.
  2. No indirect proof of excluded material: A party cannot do indirectly through oral testimony what it was barred from doing directly through documentary evidence.
  3. Internal communications are generally irrelevant to concluded contract analysis: Where the issue is whether parties entered into a binding contract, the relevant material is what passed between the parties, not undisclosed internal discussions within one party’s office.

RIL argued that under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, a witness could give direct oral evidence of what he personally saw, heard, or participated in. The Supreme Court rejected this attempt, not by denying Section 60 in the abstract, but by holding that the issue was already concluded by previous binding orders. Section 60 could not override the finality of prior judicial determinations in the same proceeding.

The Court approved the High Court’s paragraph-by-paragraph scrutiny. The High Court had not mechanically deleted all disputed material. It retained portions relating to the witness’s own perception, state of mind, and correspondence exchanged between NTPC and RIL, while redacting parts that referred to internal emails, internal meetings, or contents of excluded documents.

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment is significant for commercial litigation and evidence law. It strengthens judicial control over attempts to prolong trials by repeated applications on settled evidentiary questions. It also clarifies that parties cannot bypass exclusion orders by recasting inadmissible documents as oral testimony.

In contract disputes, especially those involving negotiations and draft agreements, the judgment reinforces that courts will primarily consider communications exchanged between the parties. Internal assessments, emails, or discussions not shared with the other contracting party will ordinarily have limited relevance in proving consensus ad idem or the existence of a concluded contract.

The imposition of Rs. 10 lakhs costs also signals the Court’s disapproval of dilatory litigation tactics, particularly in commercial suits where expedition is essential.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Examination-in-chief affidavit: A written statement of a witness’s main evidence filed before cross-examination.
  • Redaction: Deletion or striking out of inadmissible or impermissible portions of a document or affidavit.
  • Discovery and inspection: A procedure by which one party seeks documents from the other party before trial.
  • Fishing enquiry: A vague or speculative search for documents without showing clear relevance.
  • Res judicata/finality: Once a court has finally decided an issue, the same parties cannot keep reopening it in the same litigation.
  • Section 60 of the Evidence Act: Oral evidence must generally be direct, meaning a witness may testify about what he personally saw or heard. However, this does not permit testimony on matters already excluded by final judicial orders.
  • Concluded contract: A binding agreement where parties have reached final consensus on essential terms.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. NTPC LIMITED lays down an important procedural and evidentiary rule: once internal documents are held irrelevant and excluded from evidence, their contents cannot be introduced indirectly through oral testimony or witness affidavits.

The judgment reinforces finality, discipline in commercial trials, and the principle that courts must prevent parties from prolonging proceedings through repetitive evidentiary challenges. Its broader significance lies in strengthening efficient case management and preventing abuse of process in long-running commercial disputes.