Usha Martin Limited vs Balurghat Technologies Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Cal) 291

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANIRUDDHA ROY
Usha Martin Limited – Appellant
Versus
Balurghat Technologies Limited – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv. Ms. Labanyasree Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sarbesh Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Rohit Singh Parmar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Aruni Guha, Adv.

Table of Content
1. nature of suit and requirement for document disclosure (Para 1 , 2 , 13 , 30)
2. arguments on the need for additional document disclosure (Para 5 , 6 , 12)
3. interpretation of reasonable cause in legal context (Para 11 , 22 , 27)
4. concluding permissions for additional documents and costs. (Para 28 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.

1. This is a commercial suit. The defendant has not filed its written statement. The defendant has forfeited its right to file written statement under the amended provisions of Rule 1 to Order VIII of CPC, 1908.

2. Examination-in-chief of the plaintiff’s witness has been concluded. Though the suit has been marked as undefended but the defendant did not choose to cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff. In this regard, reliance has been placed on an order dated February 25, 2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench.

3. Today, the plaintiff has come up with an application with the following prayers:

“(a) Leave be granted to the petitioner to disclose the documents annexed as "C-1" to "F" of the instant application;

(b) Leave be granted to the petitioner to prepare Additional Judges Brief of Documents containing the documents annexed as "C-1" to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Cal) 291

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTAANIRUDDHA ROYUsha Martin Limited – AppellantVersusBalurghat Technologies Limited – Respondent

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANIRUDDHA ROY
Usha Martin Limited – Appellant
Versus
Balurghat Technologies Limited – Respondent