Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1396
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Krishna Rao, J.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State Bank of India & Anr. – Respondents
IA No. GA 9 of 2023 and GA-COM 11 of 2023 In CS-COM 145 of 2024
(Old No: CS 39 of 2019)
Decided On : 26-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ishaan Saha, Ms. Rajashree Venket Kundalia, Ms. S. Raisinghani, Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Ms. Ranjaboti Sen, Ms. Sarada Hariharan
For the Defendant : Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Mr. Souvik Mazumder
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that additional documents can be admitted if not previously in possession, but reasonable cause must be shown for non-disclosure of documents that were in possession at the time of filing.
Headnote:
Insolvency - Additional Documents - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 10; Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - The court analyzed the provisions regarding the admissibility of additional documents in light of the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants' objections, ultimately allowing some documents while denying others based on possession and relevance.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought to introduce additional documents after the defendant's written statement, claiming these documents were crucial to establish the defendant's knowledge of insolvency proceedings initiated by GNCL. The defendant contested the relevance and possession of these documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while some documents were indeed in the plaintiffs' possession at the time of filing, others were not, and thus allowed the introduction of certain documents while denying others based on the plaintiffs' failure to establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs could introduce additional documents after the filing of the suit and if they had established reasonable cause for non-disclosure of certain documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that additional documents can be admitted if they were not in the plaintiffs' possession at the time of filing, but if they were, the plaintiffs must show reasonable cause for their non-disclosure.
Result: The court allowed some documents to be introduced while denying others based on possession and relevance.
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Rao, J.
1. The plaintiff nos. 1 & 2 have filed two separate applications praying for leave to bring some additional documents on record. The plaintiffs say that the defendant no.1 has filed written statement to the amended plaint and in the said written statement, the defendant no.1 contended that the defendant no.1 was not aware of initiation of proceeding by Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd. (GNCL) under the provisions of Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which prompted an enquiry into the matter by the plaintiffs.
2. The plaintiffs say that in course of such enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know about the documents, which according to the plaintiffs, clearly established that the defendant no.1 was not only aware of the commencement of the proceedings by the GNCL but was in fact instrumental for institution of the same.
3. The plaintiffs say that the documents which the plaintiff nos.1 & 2 intent to bring on record was not in possession or custody of the plaintiffs at the time of filing of the suit and the said documents establish that the defendant no.1 had the knowledge of GNCL’s intent to initiate or initiation of proceedings under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
4. The plaintiffs say that only after filing of written statement by the defendant no.1 to the amended plaint, the plaintiffs perceived the need to make and made enquiries in this regard and in the course whereof, the plaintiffs came to know about the said documents. The plaintiffs say that the documents are relevant and material to the subject-matter of the suit and are necessary for adjudication of the suit.
5. The defendant no.1 says that the applications filed by the plaintiff nos.1 & 2 after the period of four (4) years from the date of filing of the suit and the additional documents were either already in possession of the plaintiffs or available in the public domain at the time of filing of the suit. The defendant no. 1 says that the letter dated 22nd March, 2017, was not addressed to SBI or any lender and hence it cannot be alleged that NCLT Petition for initiation of CIRP was known to the lenders.
6. The defendant no. 1 says that the copy of the reply affidavit filed by the defendant.1 in the Writ Petition was in possession of the plaintiff no.1 as the plaintiff no.1 itself had filed the Writ Petition and had been served with a copy of the said reply. The defendant no. 1 says that the plaintiffs were well aware of the existence of the Master Restructuring Agreement before filing of the suit as the NCLT, Kolkata Bench recorded the background to the Master Restructuring Agreement in its order dated 18th March, 2021 wherein the plaintiffs were the parties.
7. The defendant no. 1 says that the documents which the plaintiffs intent to bring on record are neither directly nor remotely related to the cause of action of this suit. The defendant no.1 says that whether invocation of Bank Guarantee was proper or not is no longer open to be decided as the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court permitted the bank to invoke the Bank Guarantee. The defendant no.1 says that the Learned Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, NCLAT New Delhi and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the wind mill assets were not part of the assets of the borrower/ GNCL as the Sale Agreement in favour of the plaintiffs was finalized before commencement of the proceedings whereby the insolvency resolution process had started.
8. The defendant no. 1 says that the plaintiffs are violating the objective of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which is speedy disposal of proceedings but the plaintiffs by filing applications delaying the proceedings of the Suit.
9. The plaintiffs intent to bring the following documents on record:
i. Copy of the reply affidavit filed by the Defendant no. 1/SBI in special civil application no. 19229 of 2017.
ii. Copy of the letter dated 22.03.2017 issued by GNCL to BSES Ltd. and The National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. inf
