2023/DHC/001726

CS(COMM) 434/2017 Page 1 of 6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision : 6^th March, 2023

+

CS(COMM) 434/2017

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD.

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Hemant Singh with Ms. Mamta

Rani Jha, Mr. Shakti Priyan Nair and

Ms. Pragya Jain, Advocates.

versus

ARG OUTLIER MEDIA PVT LTD & ORS.

..... Defendants

Through:

Ms.

Malvika

Trivedi,

Senior

Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Dudeja,

Ms. Bani Dixit, Mr. Dhruval Singh,

Mr. Shailendra Slaria and Ms. Sujal

Gupta, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

I.A. 1464/2018 (O-XI R-5 of the CPC)

1.

The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under

Order XI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as applicable

to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for placing on

record additional documents.

2.

Reply has been filed on behalf of the defendants opposing the present

application. Rejoinder thereto, has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.

3.

It is the case of the plaintiff that the aforesaid additional documents

were filed by the plaintiff on 17^th October, 2017 on the same date as the

Digitally Signed By:AMIT

BANSAL

Signing Date:07.03.2023 19:21:29

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/001726

CS(COMM) 434/2017 Page 2 of 6

replication. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the filing of the aforesaid

documents was necessitated on account of the statement made on behalf of

the defendants, as noted in the order dated 26^th September, 2017, that the

defendant no.1 was not in existence at the time of the filing of the present

suit and some of the additional documents sought to be filed are to

demonstrate that the defendant no.1 was in existence at the time of filing of

the present suit.

4.

Yet another justification given on behalf of the plaintiff for filing

additional documents is to demonstrate the contrary stands taken by the

defendants in their written statements and in the replies to the examination

reports of the Registry. It is stated that in the written statements the

defendants have taken a stand that the trademarks/taglines, which are the

subject matter of the present suit are descriptive and generic in nature.

However, in various replies to the examination reports of the Registry, the

defendants have taken a contrary stand. Therefore, it is necessary to place

the aforesaid documents on record. Reliance is placed on Order XI Rule (1)

(c)(ii) of the CPC.

5.

Per contra, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants

submits that since the defendant no.1 has already been deleted from the

array of parties, the documents with regard to the defendant no.1 are no

longer relevant in the present suit. It is further submitted that there is no

contradiction in the stand taken by the defendants before the Trade Mark

Registry and the written statement filed in the present suit. It is also

contended that the documents now sought to be filed were in the power,

possession, control and custody of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the

present suit and therefore, ought to have been filed along with the suit.

Digitally Signed By:AMIT

BANSAL

Signing Date:07.03.2023 19:21:29

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/001726

CS(COMM) 434/2017 Page 3 of 6

Reliance is being placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sudhir

Kumar v. Vinay Kumar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 734 and the judgment of a

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nitin Gupta v. Taxmaco Infrastructure

& Holding Ltd.,2019 SCC OnLine Del 8367.

6.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

7.

A perusal of the additional documents sought to be placed on recor