Excluded Internal Documents Cannot Return Through Oral Evidence, Affidavit Redaction Upheld, Rs. 10 Lakh Costs: Supreme Court in Reliance Industries v. NTPC [2026 INSC 862]

In Reliance Industries Limited v. NTPC Limited (2026 INSC 862), the Supreme Court held that the Bombay High Court had correctly understood and applied the Supreme Court's judgment dated 28.02.2019, which barred oral evidence about the contents of internal documents and internal discussions already held irrelevant, while redacting portions of the evidence affidavits of RIL's witness (paras 14–19). The attempt to reopen the issue by relying on Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was the same argument rejected in 2019 (para 20). A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 10 lakhs and requested the High Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously (paras 22–23).

Status: Bombay High Court order dated 22.08.2024 in Commercial Suit No. 189 of 2021 upheld; Civil Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 10 lakhs payable by RIL to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association within five weeks (paras 2, 20, 23).

Headnote: Oral Evidence on Excluded Internal Documents

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XI Rules 12 and 21 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 60 – Commercial suit for specific performance of gas supply contract – Evidence affidavit (examination-in-chief) – Redaction – Internal documents and internal discussions held irrelevant – Oral evidence cannot do indirectly what is barred directly – Binding earlier judgment between same parties – Delay in trial – Costs.

Held: (i) Under the Supreme Court's judgment dated 28.02.2019 between the same parties, once internal discussions were held irrelevant and the documents refused to be taken on record, the parties could not adduce oral evidence about their contents (paras 13–15).

(ii) The order of 2019 set aside the earlier High Court order to the extent it permitted oral evidence on the contents of documents and e-mails, on what transpired in internal meetings of the defendant's officers, and on correspondence already held irrelevant (para 15).

(iii) The High Court did not redact everything NTPC sought; it examined the affidavits paragraph after paragraph and retained portions reflecting the witness's own perception and state of mind and correspondence between the parties (paras 16–18).

(iv) The High Court neither erred in understanding the directions of the Supreme Court nor in applying them to the two evidence affidavits (para 19).

(v) The plea based on Section 60 of the Evidence Act and the charge that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction was the very argument considered in 2019; the Court was neither in a position nor inclined to revisit that judgment (para 20).

(vi) Given two decades of obstruction at every stage, the appeal was dismissed with Rs. 10 lakhs costs and the High Court requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible (paras 21–23).

(paras 13–23)

Case Details: Reliance Industries v. NTPC (2026 INSC 862)

Final Outcome: Civil Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 10 lakhs; High Court's redaction order upheld; High Court requested to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

Case: Reliance Industries Limited v. NTPC Limited

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 862

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23417 of 2024)

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable

Date of Decision: 14 August 2026

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe (the judgment does not name its author)

Relevant Acts & Sections: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XI Rules 12 and 21; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 60

Impugned Order: Order dated 22.08.2024 of the Bombay High Court in Commercial Suit No. 189 of 2021, redacting portions of the examination-in-chief affidavits dated 24.02.2015 and 10.08.2016 of defendant witness Mr. B.K. Ganguly (paras 2, 16)

Source: Supreme Court of India

Key Holdings of the Supreme Court

• Oral evidence cannot be used to bring on record the contents of internal documents or internal discussions already held irrelevant and excluded (para 14).
• The 2019 judgment of the Supreme Court between the same parties binds the trial court and cannot be reopened (paras 13, 20).
• A witness may still depose that meetings were held and to his own perception, provided the excluded contents are not brought in indirectly (paras 14, 16–18).
• The High Court's paragraph-wise redaction was a meticulous and correct application of the Supreme Court's mandate (paras 16, 19).
• Repeated objections that stall a long-pending commercial suit justify heavy costs (paras 21–23).

Brief Facts of the Case

NTPC invited proposals for the supply of natural gas to its power plants. RIL submitted a financial proposal, and NTPC issued a Letter of Intent dated 16.06.2004, which RIL accepted subject to a Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement to be finalised. NTPC sued for a declaration that a binding contract existed, in effect seeking specific performance of a contract to supply 132 trillion BTU of natural gas for 17 years (paras 3–4).

In the first round, RIL's chamber summons for discovery of NTPC's internal documents was dismissed on 20.02.2014 as a fishing enquiry, and the appeal failed on 20.03.2014 (paras 6–7). In the second round, RIL's chamber summons to produce its own internal documents with the first evidence affidavit of Mr. B.K. Ganguly was largely rejected on 29.01.2016, and the SLP against that order was withdrawn on 18.07.2016 (paras 8–10).

In the third round, NTPC sought redaction of portions of the two evidence affidavits. The High Court in 2017–2018 permitted oral evidence on such matters, but on 28.02.2019 the Supreme Court set that aside (paras 11–13). Applying that judgment, the High Court on 22.08.2024 redacted specified paragraphs and retained others. RIL appealed (paras 16–18, 21).

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court correctly understood and applied the Supreme Court's judgment dated 28.02.2019 in redacting portions of the evidence affidavits (paras 14–19).
2. Whether RIL could reopen the issue by relying on Section 60 of the Evidence Act or by alleging that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction (para 20).

Court's Findings and Reasoning

Mandate of the 2019 judgment (paras 13–15): The Court restated that internal notings and correspondence between officers were irrelevant, documents not exchanged between the parties were not to be taken on record, and oral evidence on their contents could not be led indirectly. The fact that discussions took place was not excluded, and the witness could say that a meeting was held.

High Court's scrutiny (paras 16–18): The High Court redacted references to internal e-mails and internal communications, and attempts to bring their contents in through phrases such as "broad consensus", while retaining portions recording the witness's perception, his state of mind and correspondence exchanged with NTPC. Large parts of both affidavits were fully retained.

No error (para 19): The Court found no error either in understanding or in applying the 2019 directions to the 1st and 2nd Evidence Affidavits.

Section 60 plea foreclosed (para 20): The argument based on Section 60 of the Evidence Act and the plea of excess of jurisdiction had been advanced and considered in 2019. The Court declined to revisit that judgment and upheld the High Court.

Delay and costs (paras 5, 21–23): The Court noted that RIL raised objections at every stage and that the suit, filed in 2005, was still at the stage of evidence two decades later, though in 2019 the trial had been directed to conclude within nine months. Permitting a party to prolong litigation is a sad reflection of how courts conduct proceedings.

Final Outcome and Directions

• High Court order dated 22.08.2024 in Commercial Suit No. 189 of 2021 upheld (para 20).
• Appeal dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10 lakhs payable by RIL to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association within five weeks (para 23).
• High Court requested to take up and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible (para 22).

Legal Principle Laid Down

Where documents and internal discussions have been finally held irrelevant and excluded from the record, their contents cannot be introduced indirectly through oral evidence in an affidavit of examination-in-chief, though a witness may depose that meetings took place and to his own perception. An earlier judgment of the Supreme Court between the same parties on the point binds the trial court and cannot be reopened in a later round, and a party that persistently obstructs a long-pending suit may be visited with heavy costs (paras 14, 18–20, 23).

Precedents Relied Upon

• Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 28.02.2019 between NTPC and RIL (SLP (C) Nos. 11741-11742 of 2018) – Followed and applied – oral evidence on the contents of excluded internal documents barred; earlier orders binding on the trial court. Discussed at paras 12–15, 20.
• Bombay High Court orders dated 20.02.2014, 20.03.2014 and 29.01.2016 in the same suit – Referred to – internal documents held irrelevant to whether a concluded contract existed. Discussed at paras 6–9.

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.

Para 5: "This litigation has multiple seasons laden with many episodes."

Para 14: "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."

Para 19: "Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that High Court has neither committed any error in understanding the directions of this Court nor in applying its mandate to the 1st and 2nd Evidence Affidavits."

Para 20: "We are neither in a position to revisit the judgment and order passed by this Court on 28th February, 2019, nor inclined to do so."

Para 22: "High Court will take note that permitting a party to a suit to prolong the litigation is also a sad reflection of the way courts conduct their proceedings."

Para 23: "For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10 lakhs payable by the appellant-RIL to Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association."

Practical Impact of the Ruling

• For litigants in commercial suits: Documents excluded at the discovery or production stage cannot be smuggled back through a witness's examination-in-chief affidavit (paras 14, 16).
• For witnesses: A witness may still speak to the fact of meetings and to his own perception of events and of correspondence with the other side (paras 16–18).
• For trial courts: Redaction of evidence affidavits should be done paragraph by paragraph against the test laid down, as the High Court did here (paras 16–17).
• For well-resourced parties: Repeated interlocutory challenges that delay trial can attract substantial costs (paras 5, 21, 23).

FAQs on Oral Evidence of Excluded Internal Documents

1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Reliance Industries v. NTPC?

It upheld the Bombay High Court's redaction of parts of RIL's witness affidavits and dismissed RIL's appeal with costs of Rs. 10 lakhs (paras 19–20, 23).

2. Can a witness give oral evidence about documents the court has excluded?

No. Once internal documents are held irrelevant and kept off the record, oral evidence about their contents cannot be led indirectly (para 14).

3. What could the witness still say?

That meetings were held, and matters of his own perception and state of mind, including his understanding of correspondence between the parties (paras 14, 16–18).

4. Why was the Section 60 Evidence Act argument rejected?

It was the same argument considered in the 2019 judgment, which the Court declined to revisit (para 20).

5. Why were costs imposed?

The suit, filed in 2005, was still at the evidence stage two decades later because of objections at every stage, despite a 2019 direction to finish the trial in nine months (paras 21–23).

Keywords: 2026 INSC 862, Reliance Industries v. NTPC, evidence affidavit, redaction, internal documents, oral evidence, Section 60 Evidence Act, Order XI CPC, discovery, commercial suit, gas supply contract, Letter of Intent, specific performance, costs, Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association, delay in trial, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Alok Aradhe, Supreme Court judgment

Related on LegalTaxGuru

• More Corporate Law Supreme Court Reportable judgments
• Corporate Law articles

Download Judgment PDF – Reliance Industries v. NTPC

Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 862 – Reliance Industries Limited v. NTPC Limited (Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 23417 of 2024) – Download Judgment PDF

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).