'Court Point' For VC Cross-Examination Can Be Designated Outside Court Premises: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a “Court Point” designated for conducting proceedings through video conferencing need not necessarily be located within the physical premises of the Court.

Justice Tejas Karia made the observation while allowing an application filed by Gamesoft Corporation seeking arrangements for the cross-examination of two of its witnesses based in Florida, United States, through video conferencing under the Delhi High Court Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025.

Florida has a time difference of 9.5 hours from India. The corporation therefore sought designation of a “Court Point” and a “Remote Point” for recording their evidence.

The Court examined the definitions of “Court Point” and “Remote Point” under the 2025 VC Rules.

It noted that a “Court Point” means the courtroom or place where the Court is physically convened, or the place where a Court Commissioner or inquiry officer holds proceedings pursuant to the Court's directions.

A “Remote Point” refers to the place where a person is required to be present or appear through a live link.

The Court accordingly held, “It is not necessary that the 'Court Point' has to be located within the premises of this Court and the 'Remote Point' also can be at any place, which is designated by this Court.”

Applying this interpretation, the Court designated the Oberoi Hotel as the “Court Point” from where the Court Commissioner would conduct the cross-examination proceedings.

The witnesses were designated to appear from their office in Florida, as the “Remote Point.” The plaintiff was directed to bear the expenses for booking the Court Point.

The Court, however, declined the plaintiff's request to appoint a Florida-based Notary Public as the Remote Point Coordinator.

It relied on Rule 9(4) of the VC Rules, which provides that where a required person is located overseas, only an official of an Indian Consulate, Indian Embassy or High Commission of India can be appointed as the Remote Point Coordinator.

Accordingly, the Court directed that an official from the Consulate General of India, Atlanta remain present at the Remote Point in Florida on the date and time fixed by the Court Commissioner.

For Plaintiff: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Dhruv Anand, Mr. Dhananjay Khanna and Ms. Bhavya Verma, Advocates.

For Defendants: Mr. Dushyant Mahant, Mr. Subhash Bhutoria, Ms. Anuja Negi and Ms. Devangini Rai, Advocates.