Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, NYAPATHY VIJAY
C-Star Engineers and Contractors, Rep. by its Proprietor V. Shiva Kumar, S/o. Viswanatham – Appellant
Versus
IDMC Limited, Represented by its Managing Director – Respondent
ORDER :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Heard Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Umar Abdullah, learned counsel, representing Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel for respondent No.1-IDMC Limited, Gujarat, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Executive Director and the Assistant Manager representing of respondent No.1.
2. These Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are inter-related, arising out of the Common Order, dated 05.12.2023. So, are being disposed of by this Common Order.
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in C.O.S.No.10 of 2022 (‘COS’) on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial & Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam (‘the Special Judge’). The respondents are the defendants in COS.
4. The petitioner initially instituted O.S.No.9 of 2017 (‘OS’) on the file of the Court of the XIII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Later, it was transferred to the Court of the Special Judge and renumbered as C.O.S.10 of 2022. The COS is for a decree against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,23,89,667.60 ps., (Rupees one crore twenty three lakhs eighty nine thousand six hundred and sixty seven and sixty pais
Procedural rules should not obstruct substantial justice; reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents must be interpreted liberally to ensure fair adjudication.
The court established that mere reference to documents in a written statement does not satisfy the requirement of 'reasonable cause' for late submission under the amended Civil Procedure Rules.
(1) After Order XI Rule 1 has been amended with respect to suits before commercial courts and a specific provision/procedure has been prescribed with respect to suits before commercial division and b....
The Commercial Courts Act mandates strict disclosure obligations, requiring all documents to be submitted at the outset. Late submissions necessitate a clear justification for non-disclosure, which w....
The court held that lack of coordination between the plaintiff's director and legal counsel constituted reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents, allowing their introduction in evidence.
The court allowed the production of documents not annexed to the plaint due to lack of coordination, establishing that reasonable cause for non-disclosure can be recognized under procedural rules.
The court emphasized strict adherence to procedural timelines in commercial disputes, concluding that introducing additional documents post-evidence closure undermines the intent of the Commercial Co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to disclose all documents in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the Suit, along with the pl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
