The Madras High Court has partly allowed an application filed by Pramila Srinivasan, estranged wife of Zoho Corporation founder Sridhar Vembu, permitting the execution of a Letter of Request issued by a California court to record evidence in India for use in their pending matrimonial proceedings concerning dissolution of marriage and division of assets.
Justice A.D. Maria Clete directed that witnesses residing in India, including members of the Vembu family and Zoho executives, be examined on oath by the Family Court, Chengalpattu, in accordance with Indian law. The Court also permitted the production of specified documents by certain respondents, including Zoho Corporation Private Limited, subject to the limits set out in the judgment.
The proceedings before the California court concern the identification, valuation and division of the couple’s business assets, particularly the shareholding in Zoho Corporation. Srinivasan has alleged that Vembu transferred intellectual property and control of the business to Zoho Corporation and that a substantial portion of its shares are held by his relatives for his benefit or were transferred to them for little or no consideration without her knowledge or consent. These are allegations raised in the matrimonial proceedings; the Madras High Court clarified that the determination of the parties’ rights in those assets lies within the jurisdiction of the California court.
The High Court rejected objections that the witnesses could refuse to give evidence because they were not parties to the California proceedings. It held that they could be summoned and examined in accordance with Indian law, while retaining all privileges available to them under Indian law. It also clarified that examination and cross-examination must be conducted by advocates enrolled in India, although foreign counsel may attend and suggest questions through Indian counsel.
The Court restricted the examination to the numbered topics specified in the Letter of Request and limited document production to the categories expressly identified in its order. It further directed that confidential corporate documents and certain tax returns be kept in a sealed cover. The evidence and recordings, after authentication, must be returned to the High Court Registry for onward transmission through the Central Government to the California court. Direct transmission to the foreign court was declined.
The Family Court, Chengalpattu, has been directed to endeavour to complete the commission within two months of receiving the complete records.
The Court accordingly allowed Srinivasan’s applications seeking execution of the Letter of Request in part, dismissed the connected applications filed by the other respondents challenging the request, and vacated the earlier stay insofar as her request was concerned. There was no order as to costs.
