Nasscom to assist in Upaid case

NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Friday allowed a formal request (rogatory) sent by the Federal Court of Texas seeking judicial assistance from Nasscom, in a case filed by UK-based mobile solutions company Upaid against Satyam Computer Services (now Mahindra Satyam) for a fraud and forgery case in excess of $1 billion.

Justice S Ravindra Bhat also appointed an advocate as a local commissioner to examine the witnesses of Nasscom and secure the documents sought for, as required by the letter of request. ���He (commissioner ) shall prepare the report, and ensure that the depositions recorded, and copies of documents furnished to him, are kept in a sealed cover,������ the court said while directing the commissioner to file the report ���along with such enclosures������ before it within a week.
Upaid, which sued Satyam, had sent a rogatory to Nasscom, for legal help in the matter.

The order came after Upaid approached the court seeking approval to use Nasscom���s testimony for evidence. The company had earlier contacted Nasscom in November 2007 too and sought counsel from them, but that went unanswered.

Through the letter rogatory , Upaid raised questions with Nasscom regarding industry customs and practices followed by its members with respect to intellectual property . It had also raised questions to Nasscom on how it safeguards the intellectual property rights in terms of transfer and sale and enforces these codes on its members.

Earlier, seeking assistance from the HC, Upaid had contended that the object of issuing letters of request by foreign courts is to facilitate recording of evidence in foreign locales, where witnesses or evidence may be located, and which would otherwise not be possible for the litigants to secure.

Upaid���s contention met with the stiff objection from Satyam which disputed the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition. It also stated that the letter of request was issued pursuant to the Hague Convention on Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters 1970, to which India was a signatory and no law had been enacted by Parliament to give effect to this treaty under Article 253 of the Constitution of India. It said the court cannot, consequently, take cognisance and execute the letter of request issued by the foreign court.