IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Aap Ki Pasand & Anr. - Plaintiffs
Versus
Himalayan Leaf Pvt Ltd. – Defendant
CS(COMM) 1130 of 2016
Decided On : 30-11-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Rule 10, 12, 23 Order XI – Order VIII Rule 1A – Section151 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 15(3) – Chamber Appeal – Commercial Suit – application has been filed by defendant under Order XI Rule 12 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for bringing on record additional documents sought to be filed on behalf of defendant/applicant.
Finding of the court :
Submission of defendant/applicant that Written Statement was filed in extreme urgency also does not justify non-filing of these documents or immediately thereafter – Defendant/applicant has, failed to show any reasonable cause for not producing these documents at an earlier stage of trial of Suit – Application so far as it prays for leave to file documents ‘D1’ to ‘D11’, ‘D13’ to ‘D17’ is rejected document ‘D12’ sought to be placed on record by defendant/applicant is a copy of judgment passed by this Court (supra) – Same can always be cited by defendant/applicant and, Court see no reason why same cannot be taken on record.
Results: Application partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
I.A. 14350/2022
1. This application has been filed by the defendant under Order XI Rule 12 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’) for bringing on record the following additional documents sought to be filed on behalf of the defendant/applicant:-
b. Original packaging of the tea packet sold under the label 'Tea for You Nilgiri Tea' (Document D-2)
c. Print out of the website of Golden Tips Tea selling their packaged tea on the website www.goldentipstea.in, https://www.goldentipstea.in/collections/bro cade-bags (Document D-3)
d. Print out of the photographs of the outlet of Mittal Tea House (since 1954) located at Lodi Colony, New Delhi also available at https://nicelocal.in/delhi/shops/mittal_tea_h ouse/ (Document D-4)
e. Print out of the photographs of the outlet of Mittal Teas (since 1954) located at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi also available at https://nicelocal.in/delhi/shops/mittal_teas/ (Document D-5)
f. Print out of the website of GetMyTea (since 1991, based out of Delhi) selling their packaged tea on the website at https://www.getmytea.com/product/getmyte a-velvet-bag-withlst-flush-darjeeling-tea/ (Document D-6)
g. Copy of the Flavour License Number No. 6(9)/LC/F-145/2012 issued in favour of the Defendant by the Tea Board of India. (Document D-7)
h. Print out of the products of https://www.nathmullstea.in/collections/sho w-all (Document D-8)
i. Print out of the list of entities to whom flavour license for tea has been issued by the Tea Board of India available at http://www.teaboard.gov.in/pdf/Flavour_Te a_license_issued_ p_df5337.pdf (Document D-9)
J. Print out of Judgment dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in C.S. (OS) No. 851 of2012 in the matter of Sanjay Kapur and Anr. v. Dev Agri Farms Pvt. Ltd. (Document D-10)
k. Print out of the website of Golden Tips Tea selling their packaged tea on the website www.goldentipstea.in (Document D-11)
l. A copy of the trademark registration No.1747880 for the trademark in the name of the Defendant (Document D-12)
m. A copy of the trademark registration No.1747881 for the trademarkin the name of the Defendant. (Document D-13)”
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the defendant/applicant submits that as the present suit had been filed before the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (in short ‘the Act’) came into force, the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1-A of the CPC shall be applicable, and, therefore, reliance of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/non-applicants on Order XI Rule 10 of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, is not proper. In this regard, she places reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in ITC Limited v. JP Morgan Mutual Fund India Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 972.
3. She submits that the approach to be adopted by the Court in allowing additional documents to be brought on record is more liberal under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC, and the said documents, if found to be relevant to the Suit, should be allowed to be taken on record.
4. She further submits that the dispute between the parties is with respect to the packaging of the goods, to which the plaintiffs/non-applicants claim an exclusive right. She submits that the additional documents sought to be placed on record along with the present application are relevant to show that others are also selling their goods in the same packaging and, therefore, the plaintiffs/non-applicants cannot claim any exclusive right over the same. She submits that such a plea has also been taken by the defendant/applicant in its Written Statement and that the documents now sought to be placed on record are merely to substantiate the said plea. She places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Phonepe Private Limited v. EZY Services and Another., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2638, to submit that as the defendant/applicant is not trying to set up a new
Order XI Rule 1(7) of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, casts an obligation on defendant to file all documents in its power, possession, control or custody.
Parties in commercial disputes must timely disclose documents; late submissions require a compelling justification to avoid prejudicing the opposing party.
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....
The court emphasized the strict adherence to document filing rules in commercial disputes, denying late submission of documents without establishing reasonable cause for prior non-disclosure.
(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 court established that non-filing of documents due to negligence does not constitute reasonable cause for allowing additional evidence under the CPC.
The court affirmed that documents not disclosed with the written statement in commercial cases cannot be admitted, but contradictory decisions on evidence closure were ruled unsustainable.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.