Court clarifies "Court Point" need not be within court premises; Indian Consulate official appointed as Remote Point Coordinator to facilitate testimony from Florida under new Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025
In a landmark decision on October 9, 2026, the Delhi High Court in Gamesoft Corporation v. Abhishek Kumbhat has set a precedent for conducting cross-examinations of witnesses located overseas through video conferencing, elaborating on the application of the Delhi High Court Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 ("VC Rules"). The case involved witnesses based in Florida, USA, necessitating a practical framework to accommodate the significant time difference and logistical challenges posed by international testimony.
The Plaintiff, Gamesoft Corporation, sought the Court's permission to designate a "Court Point" outside the traditional court premises and a "Remote Point" at the witnesses' office in Boca Raton, Florida, to conduct cross-examination via live video link. The Plaintiff also requested that a Notary Public in Florida be appointed as the Remote Point Coordinator to oversee the proceedings locally.
Justice Tejas Karia, presiding over the matter, referred to the definitions under the VC Rules and held that the "Court Point" includes any location where the Court Commissioner conducts proceedings pursuant to the Court's directions. This interpretation allowed the designation of the Oberoi Hotel on Zakir Hussain Marg, New Delhi, as the Court Point. Similarly, the "Remote Point" was designated as the witnesses' office at 2200 Butts Road, Suite 300, Boca Raton, Florida, where the witnesses would appear through a live video link.
However, the Court rejected the Plaintiff's request to appoint a Notary Public as the Remote Point Coordinator. Citing Rule 9(4) of the VC Rules, the Court held that only officials of the Indian Consulate, Embassy, or High Commission can serve as Remote Point Coordinators for overseas locations. Consequently, the Court directed that an official from the Consulate General of India in Atlanta, Georgia, be present at the Remote Point during the cross-examination.
The Plaintiff was directed to bear all expenses related to booking the Court Point and the remuneration, travel, stay, and logistical arrangements of the Consulate official. The Court further instructed its Registry to send copies of the order and VC Rules to the Consulate General of India in Atlanta to ensure compliance.
This judgment underlines the Delhi High Court's progressive approach to leveraging technology in judicial proceedings, especially in the context of globalization and international litigation. The ruling provides a clear procedural roadmap for parties seeking to examine witnesses residing abroad, ensuring adherence to procedural safeguards while balancing practical realities.
Bottom Line:
Civil Procedure Code - Video conferencing for cross-examination of witnesses located overseas - "Court Point" need not be within court premises and may be any place where Commissioner holds proceedings pursuant to court directions - "Remote Point" may also be designated by Court - However, where witness is at overseas location, only an official of Indian Consulate/Embassy/High Commission can be appointed as Remote Point Coordinator under Delhi High Court Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXVI Rules 2, 4, 5; Delhi High Court Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 - Rules 9(4), 25
Gamesoft Corporation v. Abhishek Kumbhat, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2997196
