More and more courts seem to be adopting technological advancement for easing out the glitches the old-age practices cannot solve.
In the latest development, the Madras High Court has allowed a couple booked in a criminal case under the Emigration Act to travel to Oman after giving an undertaking that they would be served summons via e-mail and would not dispute the service of summons by such means.
Justice CT Selvam allowed petitioners Premkumar Thangadurai and Hanna Vanitha Kumari Joseph to travel to Oman.
The couple had earlier moved a magisterial court in Tambaram seeking permission to travel abroad and that they be permitted to appear before court on receipt of summons.
The magistrate restricted their period of stay at Oman upto December 1, 2018.
They man and wife then moved a revision petition before the high court saying being engaged in business, they are required to frequently travel abroad and restrictions placed thereon by particularly requiring them to return on particular date, would put them in severe difficulty.
At this, Justice Selvam directed them to swear to affidavits informing their e-mail addresses and that communications of summons to such e-mail address, would be sufficient service on them.
They accordingly filed the affidavits.
“In the light of the undertakings informed in the affidavits, this Court would modify the order of the Court below to one permitting petitioners to travel abroad and direct that upon filing of the final report, Court below cause service of summons on petitioners also by addressing the same to summons to the e-mail address … as also the the residential address …”, ordered Justice Selvam.
The order comes after the Delhi High Court in May 2017, allowed service of summons through WhatsApp, text message and e-mail in a case initiated by Tata Sons involving circulation of defamatory allegations against one of their officials.
In April 2017 also, the Bombay High Court had accepted intimation and information via WhatsApp as service of notice, after one of the defendants in a copyright infringement case was being particularly evasive.