Delhi High Court on Admissibility of Electronic Evidence and Burden of Proof in Loan Disputes.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of ₹70,20,172.53/- based on a purported loan agreement and cheque, holding that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof and establish the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court held that mere production of a scanned copy of a loan agreement without the original document, source device, or attesting witnesses renders the evidence inadmissible. The Court reaffirmed that compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 65-B is mandatory for electronic records, and the absence of primary evidence or valid certification vitiates the claim.

Background:

• The appellant–plaintiff (Smt. Meenakshi Oberg) and her brother had filed a civil suit before the District Judge, Saket, seeking recovery of ₹70,20,172.53/- against the respondent (Sh. Karun Dube) based on a loan agreement dated 21.11.2013 allegedly executed by their late mother, Smt. Shanti Devi, advancing ₹50 lakh at 18% interest.

• A post-dated cheque dated 21.11.2016 was also claimed to have been issued by the defendant in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi. After her death in 2017, the plaintiff issued legal notices demanding repayment.

• The defendant denied the existence of any such loan, contending that the funds transferred originated from his brother (Defendant No.2) through his mother’s account, not as a loan but as an internal family transaction.

• The parties attempted mediation, resulting in a settlement agreement on 19.04.2023 for ₹20 lakh, but the plaintiff later abandoned the settlement after forfeiting ₹2 lakh already received.

• The District Judge dismissed the suit on 22.12.2023 for failure to produce the original loan agreement or admissible electronic evidence, prompting the present appeal.

Court’s Observations:

• The plaintiff admitted during appeal arguments that the original loan agreement was lost. However, before the trial court, she had claimed to possess it and produced only a scanned copy.

• The certificate produced under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act did not meet the mandatory requirements since the plaintiff failed to produce the source computer or scanner used for creating the scanned copy.

• The Court reiterated that under Sections 61–65 of the Evidence Act, the best evidence rule requires production of the original document unless a valid exception is established. The plaintiff neither examined any attesting witness nor explained the loss of the original as per Section 65(c) of the Act.

• The defendant’s denial of liability was categorical, not evasive; hence, Order VIII Rules 4 & 5 CPC were inapplicable.

• The alleged settlement agreement could not be treated as an acknowledgment of debt since it was abandoned by the plaintiff, and selective reliance on favourable portions was impermissible.

• Non-production of the original loan agreement, failure to prove electronic authenticity, and lack of credible corroboration rendered the plaintiff’s claim unsubstantiated.

Conclusion:

The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the District Judge’s findings and held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy evidentiary requirements for proving the loan transaction. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court’s decision was upheld.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Sections 61–65 & 65-B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Proof of documents; admissibility of electronic records.

• Order VIII Rules 4 & 5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Evasive denial and deemed admissions.

• Section 96, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Appeals from original decrees.

Citation: 2025:DEL:11136

Case: Smt. Meenakshi Oberg v. Karun Dube & Ors.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetrapal & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Date of Decision: 13 November 2025