<div style="border: 1pt black; padding: 0cm; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 14pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium medium 0cm; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor currentcolor black; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: Cambria, serif;">Naresh denied the alleged call,
raised an AI voice-cloning defence and voluntarily agreed to remain silent on
the subject of the BPTP suit.</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:
12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Cambria"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium medium 0cm; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor currentcolor black; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">The Delhi
High Court has directed the Central Forensic Science Laboratory attached to CBI
headquarters in New Delhi to examine a disputed phone recording allegedly
involving Nitin Naresh, who writes for Inventiva, in a suit brought by BPTP
Limited.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Cambria"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium medium 0cm; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor currentcolor black; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">In its order
dated 22 September 2026, the court recorded BPTP’s allegation that the
conversation involved an apparent extortion demand and breached an earlier
judicial order. Naresh denied that the conversation had taken place, suggested
the recording was probably an AI-generated clone of his voice and proposed
scientific testing to establish its authenticity.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:
Cambria"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium medium 0cm; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor currentcolor black; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">Justice
Tushar Rao Gedela directed forensic verification before reaching any conclusion
on the disputed recording. The order does not establish that extortion or
contempt occurred, and the referral to the laboratory at CBI headquarters is
for scientific examination, not a direction for a CBI criminal investigation.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-bidi-font-family:Cambria"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium medium 0cm; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor currentcolor black; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">The
application before the court, filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of
Civil Procedure, alleged wilful disobedience of an order passed on 3 September.
BPTP’s senior counsel, Rajiv Nayar, said the alleged telephone conversation
with the company’s authorised representative occurred after that order and
sought immediate action over what he described as a breach.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-bidi-font-family:Cambria"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium medium 0cm; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor currentcolor black; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">The court
listened to the recording, which BPTP’s counsel said lasted approximately 12
minutes. Naresh disputed the allegations and also objected to the absence of
the statutory certificate for the electronic recording. He nevertheless said
the audio could be sent to a forensic laboratory to vindicate his defence.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-bidi-font-family:Cambria"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium medium 0cm; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor currentcolor black; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">The judge
observed that the allegations “may have serious repercussions” and that the
recording’s truthfulness and veracity should be established “even before this
Court can come to any conclusion”. The court therefore directed that a copy be
placed on a pen drive, sealed by the Registrar General and transmitted to the
CFSL attached to CBI headquarters on Lodhi Road.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:
Cambria"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium medium 0cm; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor currentcolor black; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">The original
recording and the device on which it was allegedly made were also to be
surrendered to the laboratory for examination, including ascertainment of the
hash value. The court requested priority processing and a report within four
weeks, to be placed before it under sealed cover through the Registrar General.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-bidi-font-family:Cambria"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium medium 0cm; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor currentcolor black; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">The same
order records that Naresh voluntarily stated that a gag order could be passed
against him. On that basis, the court directed him to maintain silence on the
subject matter of the suit until the next listing. The direction was confined
to the BPTP litigation; it did not impose a general prohibition on his
reporting.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Cambria"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium medium 0cm; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor currentcolor black; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">The forensic
referral followed an earlier hearing in which the court had questioned aspects
of BPTP coverage on Inventiva. In its 3 September order, the judge observed
that certain words appeared unjustified when no court appeared to have declared
BPTP a fraud or scamster. The court said the language presented the company as
deeply involved in criminal activity.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:
"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Cambria"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium medium 0cm; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor currentcolor black; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">The judge
also described an image showing a BPTP director as if arrested and behind bars
as “uncalled for”. Naresh stated that the image would be removed within 24
hours. The court reiterated its requirement that his reporting remain within
the bounds of fair comment and fair reporting, and directed that the articles
concerned should not, for the time being, be further disseminated or
republished. It also referred the parties to mediation.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:
Cambria"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium medium 0cm; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor currentcolor black; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Cambria, serif;">In the 22
September order, the court fixed the next listing for 2 November 2026 and
cancelled the previously scheduled 24 September date. The order contains no
forensic findings: the authenticity of the recording and the alleged breach
remained matters for determination.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:
"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Cambria"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 9pt 0cm 4pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium medium 0cm; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor currentcolor black; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 9pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: Cambria, serif;">Sources</span></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Cambria",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Cambria"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 4pt; line-height: normal; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium medium 0cm; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor currentcolor black; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><u><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/29/bptplimitedvsnitinnareshorson22september2026-703209.pdf"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Cambria;color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext">Delhi
High Court order dated 22 September 2026, BPTP Limited v Nitin Naresh &
Ors., CS(OS) 297/2026, paragraphs 1–15.</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Cambria"><o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 4pt; line-height: normal; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border-width: medium; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor; border-image: none; padding: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77727658/"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
Cambria;mso-bidi-font-family:Cambria;color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext"><u>Delhi
High Court order dated 3 September 2026, same case, paragraphs 5–12.</u></span></a></span></p></div>
from
www.sikkimexpress.com
https://ift.tt/LJXfehO
via IFTTT
The Menu of this blog is loading..........
0 Comments