HC: Litigation notice served if sent on WhatsApp and blue ticks can be seen
Shibu.Thomas@timesgroup.com
Mumbai: 16.06.2018
The Bombay high court has held that the service of notice about a litigation through WhatsApp messaging service is valid. Justice Gautam Patel observed that a credit card defaulter who was evading the bank had not only received the notice in a PDF file but also opened and read its contents. The court was hearing an application filed by SBI Cards and Payment Services to execute an arbitration award against a Nalasopara resident, Rohidas Jadhav, relating to payment of credit card dues of Rs 1.17 lakh.
“(Jadhav) was served by an authorized officer by sending a PDF and message to his mobile number as a WhatsApp message.” Justice Patel said. “For the purposes of service of notice I will accept this. I do so because the icon indicators clearly show that not only was the message and its attachment delivered to the number but that both were opened.”
Advocate Murlidhar Kale, counsel for the company, said that they had been unable to serve the notice on Jadhav as he had changed his residence. His phone number was available with them, which the court took on record. The bank representative sent Jadhav a message informing him about the next date of hearing along with a lawyer’s notice in a PDF file. The “blue ticks” on the message revealed that Jadhav had received the message and read it.
Jadhav had run up credit card dues of Rs 85,000 in 2010. In 2011, following arbitration proceedings, he was ordered to pay back the amount along with 8% interest. When he failed to make the payment, the bank filed an execution application in 2015 to enforce the award.
The amount at the time stood at Rs 1.17 lakh.
Over the past two years, the bank had been trying to serve the notice about the litigation on Jadhav but without success as he kept shifting his rental accommodation.
Rules state that a notice is served in person or through registered post. Following the enactment of the Information Technology Act, which recognises electronic communication as evidence, courts have allowed parties in a litigation to serve notice through email in addition to traditional methods. Earlier this year, a Delhi metropolitan magistrate had allowed a woman to serve summons in a domestic violence case on her estranged husband in Australia via WhatsApp.
The court had said that the “double tick” on WhatsApp showed that the summons had been delivered.
Last year, in a copyright infringement case, the high court bench of Justice Patel had taken on record a notice sent to a Kannada film producer through WhatsApp and email. “It cannot be that our rules and procedure are either so ancient or so rigid (or both) that without some antiquated formal service mode through a bailiff or even by beat of drum or pattaki, a party cannot be said to have been ‘properly’ served. The purpose of service is to put the other party to notice and to give him a copy of the papers. The mode is surely irrelevant. We have not formally approved of email and other modes as acceptable simply because there are inherent limitation to proving service. Where an alternative mode is used, however, and service is shown to be effected, and is acknowledged, then surely it cannot be suggested that the defendants had ‘no notice’,” Justice Patel had observed.
Shibu.Thomas@timesgroup.com
Mumbai: 16.06.2018
The Bombay high court has held that the service of notice about a litigation through WhatsApp messaging service is valid. Justice Gautam Patel observed that a credit card defaulter who was evading the bank had not only received the notice in a PDF file but also opened and read its contents. The court was hearing an application filed by SBI Cards and Payment Services to execute an arbitration award against a Nalasopara resident, Rohidas Jadhav, relating to payment of credit card dues of Rs 1.17 lakh.
“(Jadhav) was served by an authorized officer by sending a PDF and message to his mobile number as a WhatsApp message.” Justice Patel said. “For the purposes of service of notice I will accept this. I do so because the icon indicators clearly show that not only was the message and its attachment delivered to the number but that both were opened.”
Advocate Murlidhar Kale, counsel for the company, said that they had been unable to serve the notice on Jadhav as he had changed his residence. His phone number was available with them, which the court took on record. The bank representative sent Jadhav a message informing him about the next date of hearing along with a lawyer’s notice in a PDF file. The “blue ticks” on the message revealed that Jadhav had received the message and read it.
Jadhav had run up credit card dues of Rs 85,000 in 2010. In 2011, following arbitration proceedings, he was ordered to pay back the amount along with 8% interest. When he failed to make the payment, the bank filed an execution application in 2015 to enforce the award.
The amount at the time stood at Rs 1.17 lakh.
Over the past two years, the bank had been trying to serve the notice about the litigation on Jadhav but without success as he kept shifting his rental accommodation.
Rules state that a notice is served in person or through registered post. Following the enactment of the Information Technology Act, which recognises electronic communication as evidence, courts have allowed parties in a litigation to serve notice through email in addition to traditional methods. Earlier this year, a Delhi metropolitan magistrate had allowed a woman to serve summons in a domestic violence case on her estranged husband in Australia via WhatsApp.
The court had said that the “double tick” on WhatsApp showed that the summons had been delivered.
Last year, in a copyright infringement case, the high court bench of Justice Patel had taken on record a notice sent to a Kannada film producer through WhatsApp and email. “It cannot be that our rules and procedure are either so ancient or so rigid (or both) that without some antiquated formal service mode through a bailiff or even by beat of drum or pattaki, a party cannot be said to have been ‘properly’ served. The purpose of service is to put the other party to notice and to give him a copy of the papers. The mode is surely irrelevant. We have not formally approved of email and other modes as acceptable simply because there are inherent limitation to proving service. Where an alternative mode is used, however, and service is shown to be effected, and is acknowledged, then surely it cannot be suggested that the defendants had ‘no notice’,” Justice Patel had observed.
