SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Cal) 1243

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.
Rasandik Engineering Industries India Limited – Petitioner
Versus
West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Another – Respondents
IA No. GA 4 of 2023, CS-COM No. 242 of 2024 (Old C.S. No. 33 of 2021)
Decided On : 25-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Soumabho Ghose, Tiana Bhattacharya, Soumitra Datt.
For the Respondents: Priyankar Saha, Paritosh Sinha, Arindam Manda.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in commercial suits, additional documents may be disclosed if reasonable cause for non-disclosure is shown, despite stringent procedural requirements.

Headnote:

Disclosure - Commercial Suit - Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court discussed the stringent requirements for document disclosure in commercial suits, emphasizing the need for compliance with specific provisions of the CPC and the 2015 Act, ultimately allowing the disclosure of additional documents.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of a substantial sum, but failed to disclose certain documents within the stipulated time. The petitioner sought permission to disclose these documents, citing their voluminous nature and the necessity for effective adjudication.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had reasonable cause for the non-disclosure of post-suit documents and that allowing their disclosure would not prejudice the defendants, as the suit had not reached the evidence stage.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could disclose additional documents not included with the plaint, and whether such disclosure would prejudice the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the amended CPC impose stricter requirements for document disclosure in commercial suits, but reasonable cause for non-disclosure can justify allowing additional documents.

Result: The application to disclose additional documents is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.

1. The petitioner as the plaintiff has filed this instant suit being C.S. No. 33 of 2021 (Rasandik Engineering Industries India limited vs. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Anr.) in the Commercial Division of this Court for recovery of a sum of Rs. 205,53,24,702/- said to be due and payable by the respondents to the petitioner.

2. After filing of the written statement by the defendants, on 9th November, 2022 this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct that discovery and inspection be completed by 15th December, 2022 and accordingly directed the petitioner being the plaintiff to file the Judge’s brief of documents.

3. The petitioner could not complete the process of discovery and as such could not also give inspection of documents within the stipulated period as directed by the order dated 9th November, 2022. The petitioner as the grounds for being unable to disclose documents has stated in this application that the documents to be disclosed are voluminous and the petitioner was required to disclose fresh documents which have not been disclosed with the plaint. The petitioner also says that these documents could not be disclosed earlier at the time of filing of the suit in spite of best efforts of the petitioner.

4. The plaintiff/petitioner also says that the suit has not reached the stage of evidence and as such no prejudice will be caused to the defendants/respondents if the documents now sought to be disclosed are permitted to be disclosed by the Court. The documents are also necessary for effective adjudication of the suit.

5. The documents which the petitioner seeks to disclose may be segregated into two parts. The first set of documents is dated prior to filing of the instant suit. The second set of documents comprise of documents post filing of the instant suit.

6. So far as the documents which are subsequent to the date of institution of this suit were not in possession or custody of the plaintiff/petitioner and as such could not be disclosed along with the suit. So far as the documents prior to the institution of the suit are concerned, these are third party documents which were overlooked at the time of instituting the suit as the same had been filed in hot haste and there was no mala fide intention on the part of the plaintiff/petitioner to withhold such documents. At the end, as submitted by the plaintiff/petitioner, these documents are required to be proved on being allowed to be disclosed in the event the plaintiff/petitioner has to succeed. The defendants/respondents shall, therefor, have ample opportunity to deal with such documents.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner has taken out the instant application praying for leave to disclose documents that could not be disclosed earlier along with the plaint at the time of instituting the present suit.

8. On behalf of the defendants/respondents separate submissions have been made however, the sum and substance of the submissions made by the two defendants can be summarized as follows:

    (i) The defendants/respondents on the basis of the documents disclosed with the plaint and the averments made therein have filed their written statements. In the written statement, the defendants/respondents have disclosed their respective stand in relation to the documents disclosed and the averments made in the plaint. The defendants/respondents have also disclosed with their written statements the documents they intend to rely. After considering the written statement and the documents disclosed therewith to the plaintiff/petitioner in order to fill the lacuna has sought to disclose additional documents. In the event, these documents are disclosed, the interest of the defendants/respondents shall be seriously prejudiced as they have already made out their defence.

(ii) The suit as will appear from the averments made in the plaint arise out of a commercial dispute. The suit, therefor, has been filed in the Commercial Division of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top