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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Aap Ki Pasand - Appellant
Versus
Himalayan Leaf Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
CS(COMM) 1130 of 2016
Decided On : 30-11-2022




Parties in commercial disputes must timely disclose documents; late submissions require a compelling justification to avoid prejudicing the opposing party.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XI Rule 12, Order VIII Rule 1-A - Suit for commercial dispute - Application for additional documents - Application rejected; defendant failed to demonstrate reasonable cause for late document submission; prior opportunities ignored, leading to potential prejudice to plaintiffs - Court emphasized the importance of timely document disclosure to ensure expedient proceedings under the Commercial Courts Act. (Paras 2, 6, 11, 20, 33)

(B) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Purpose to expedite the resolution of commercial disputes - Overriding importance of timely filing and completeness of pleadings. (Paras 10, 28, 30)

Facts of the case:
The defendant sought to introduce additional documents years after the proceedings commenced, which were claimed to demonstrate competitive market practices regarding the packaging of goods. Plaintiffs objected, indicating this could prejudice their case as evidence closing occurred.

Findings of Court:
Granted the defendant permission to submit one document but rejected the majority for not adhering to procedural timelines and for not establishing valid reasons for the delays.

Issues: Whether the defendant could rely on additional documents not filed with the Written Statement and if they sufficiently established a reasonable cause for late submission.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the necessity for strict compliance with procedural rules, underscoring that late submissions without adequate justification undermine the efficiency sought by the Commercial Courts Act, jeopardizing the fair trial rights of opposing parties.

Result: Application partly allowed; most documents rejected; cost of Rs.25,000 ordered against the defendant.

Table of Content
1. filing of additional documents in court. (Para 1)
2. defendant's arguments for document relevance. (Para 2 , 4)
3. court's liberal stance on document inclusion. (Para 3 , 5 , 12 , 13)
4. potential prejudice to the defendant. (Para 6)
5. plaintiffs' counterarguments to document inclusion. (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
6. requirements for document inclusion under cpc. (Para 16 , 22)
7. non-disclosure of documents must be justified. (Para 24 , 25)
8. delaying tactics affect trial conclusion. (Para 30 , 31)
9. partly allowing admitted documents; imposing costs. (Para 33 , 34 , 35)

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:

    "a. Original packaging of the tea packet sold under the label `Mittal's Nilgiri Tea' (Document D-1)

    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 trademark in 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/nonapplicants claim an exclusive right. She submits that the additional documents sought to be placed on record along with the

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