“Whose Voice Is It? Lessons from a Malaysian WhatsApp Voice‑Note Case for India’s Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam”

The Malaysian High Court decision in Chuah Soo Peng v Ong Chin Wei is highly instructive for Indian courts interpreting the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), especially on how much proof is needed to link a WhatsApp voice note to an alleged sender. While not binding, its reasoning dovetails with India’s evolving jurisprudence on electronic records—from Anvar P.V. to Arjun Panditrao—and offers a practical, context‑sensitive approach that can be harmonised with sections 62–63 BSA.

Malaysian lesson: context, relationship and probabilities

In Chuah Soo Peng, the Sessions Court demanded technical confirmation (telco records, formal WhatsApp verification) before accepting that a WhatsApp voice note came from the defendant, even though the plaintiff and defendant were close friends and clients, and the plaintiff positively identified the defendant’s voice. The High Court corrected this, holding that in a civil case between well‑known parties, oral identification of the voice, combined with surrounding circumstances (subsequent meeting, contract clause drafted at defendant’s insistence), was sufficient on a “balance of probabilities” without mandatory telco proof.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

The "Sickle vs. Soil" Defense: A Judicial Guide to Adjudicating Agricultural Injury Cases

In the vast landscape of rural litigation, few scenarios are as common—or as contentious—as the "agricultural brawl." A fight breaks out in a field, a sickle is wielded, and a serious injury occurs. But in the courtroom, the narrative often shifts. The defense argues: "The accused never struck the blow; the complainant fell on the crops and sustained the injury accidentally."

For a Sessions Judge, distinguishing between a deliberate sickle attack and an accidental fall is not a matter of guesswork—it is a matter of forensic science and strict legal principles.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Police Cannot Seize Bank Accounts Under Section 102 CrPC Without Direct Link To Offence

At this stage, the object and purpose of the provisions contained in section 102 of the Code, deserve to be revisited. It is essentially a tool for investigation and collection of evidence to sustain the charge against the accused. Section 102 is neither intended to confer, nor a repository of, the power to seize the property for the purpose of its delivery to the person / victim whom the IO consider to be rightful owner. In the absence of a direct link between the seized property and the commission of the offences, to concede the power to the investigating agency to seize the property would amount to allowing the investigating agency to trench upon adjudicatory province and do compensatory justice. { Para 37}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.790 OF 2024

Geeta Kampani  Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 7 MAY 2026.

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:21940

Print Page

Supreme Court Lays Down Guidelines For Summary Judgment In Commercial Suits under Order XIII-A CPC of Commercial Courts Act

 The bench laid down the non-exhaustive guidelines have to be complied with while considering an application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC:-

"(i) That the procedural mandate under Order XIII-A, CPC be strictly complied.

(ii) The Court should consider,

(a) Whether Plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue; or

(b) Whether the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue; and

iii) The Court should also consider whether there is no other reason why the case or issue(s) should be allowed to go to trial.

(iv) While ascertaining above, the Court does not have to take everything on the face value, but it must also not conduct a mini trial at the same time.

(v) That the Court has to differentiate between a cause of action/defence respectively, which is real as opposed to fanciful prospect.

(vi) That the Court ought to grasp the nettle, when dealing with the summary judgment applications to decide short points of law and interpretations.

(vii) The Court must take into account not only the evidence before it but also the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be led/available at the trial.

(viii) That the Court's usage of power under Order XIII-A, CPC is exceptional as it cuts short the process of trial and ought to be exercised where oral evidence and full trial is not required.

(ix) In order to ascertain the need for full trial over summary judgment, the Court has to see whether, in the interest of justice, it is more suited to conduct trial to –

(a) Weigh the evidence,

(b) Evaluate the credibility of a deponents,

(c) Draw reasonable inferences from the evidence."

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22100 of 2025)

RELIANCE EMINENT TRADING AND

COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs   DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 436.

Print Page