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

2023 Supreme(Del) 3889

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Radha Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Smt. Shashi Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Tandoori Vibes Through Its Partner Md. Zainul – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Kunal Kalra and Mr. Ankit Bhutani, Advocates
Mr. Karanjot Singh Mainee and Ms. Shreya Gupta, Advocates with Ms Tanu Mehra, AR of Respondents.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that "reasonable cause" cannot extend to negligence in filing of documents before the court; it must refer to a cause outside the control of the petitioner that prevented filing with the written statement. (!) - The petitioner failed to show reasonable cause for not filing the additional documents at the time of filing the written statement; the documents were readily available and could have been obtained from known sources (banker or third parties). (!) (!) (!) - Additional documents sought to be placed on record were largely in existence before the institution of the first suit and not "not traceable" as alleged; belated reliance at the stage of such proceedings was rejected. (!) (!) (!) - The Statement of Truth accompanying the written statement declared that all documents in the power/possession/control of the party had been disclosed; absence of any contrary averment supports rejection of late filing. (!) (!) - The High Court dismissed the petition seeking to place on record additional documents and disposed of the pending application. (!)

What is the meaning of "reasonable cause" under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC as amended by the Act of 2015?

What are the consequences of filing (or delaying) additional documents in a commercial suit when they were readily available to the parties and not outside their control?

What is the effect of the Statement of Truth accompanying the written statement on subsequent admissibility of additional documents?


JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by District Judge, Commercial Court-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (`Commercial Court') in CS (COM.) No. 151/2021 titled as Tandoori Vibes v. Shri Radhe Enterprises & Anr., whereby the Commercial Court dismissed the Petitioners application filed under Order VIII read with Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC'), as amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (`the Act of 2015') filed on 05.06.2023 for taking on record additional documents.

1.1. The Petitioners herein are the defendants and the Respondents herein are the plaintiffs, in the commercial suit.

1.2. The Respondents herein filed a suit seeking decree against the Petitioners herein and in favour of the Respondents, for declaring the Franchise Agreement dated 30.03.2018 executed between the parties as void on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. In the said suit Respondents also sought a decree of recovery of Rs. 58,80,000/- and a decree of damages against the Petitioner No.1 f

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top