Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 202
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J
NOVATEUR ELECTRICAL & DIGITAL SYSTEMS PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
V-GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD – Respondent
CS(COMM)-567/2021
Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Palak Batra, Mr. Akhil Saxena, Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Nitin Sharma, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Mr. Abhay Aren, Mr. Angad Makkar
The court held that documents discovered after filing a written statement can be introduced without establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure, emphasizing that admissibility is determined at the final hearing stage.
Headnote:
(A) Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Divisions of High Court Act, 2015 - Order XI Rule 1(10) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Application for additional documents - Defendant sought to introduce documents discovered post-filing of written statement to challenge plaintiff's design registrations - Court allowed the application, emphasizing that the requirement of establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure does not apply to documents discovered subsequently. (Paras 12, 14, 24)
(B) Design Registration - The plaintiff claimed novelty in its switch plate designs, while the defendant argued prior publication and lack of originality - The court noted that the admissibility of additional documents would be determined at the final hearing stage. (Paras 6, 20)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed for a permanent injunction against the defendant for using designs allegedly infringing its registered designs. The defendant countered with a claim for cancellation of the plaintiff's designs based on prior registrations and lack of originality.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the defendant's application to introduce additional documents, stating that they were discovered subsequently and did not set up a new case.
Issues: The main issues included whether the defendant could introduce additional documents after the written statement and the relevance of those documents to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the requirement for establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure does not apply to documents discovered after the filing of the plaint, allowing the introduction of such documents.
Result: Application allowed, additional documents taken on record.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for additional documents (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendant's submissions (Para 3) |
| 3. plaintiff's submissions (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's note on documents (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. application allowed (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
I.A. 16444/2023 (Application on behalf of the defendant under Order XI Rule 1(10) read with Section 151 CPC)
1. The present application has been filed by the defendant under Order XI Rule 1 (10) as amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Divisions of High Court Act, 2015, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”), 1908, for placing on record additional documents.
2. The facts, as relevant for adjudication of the present application, are as follows:
2.1 The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using „MATTEO‟ range of switch plates or any other obvious imitation, infringing the plaintiff‟s registered design nos. 296178, 296179 and 296180 (“plaintiff’s designs”), along with reliefs of delivery up, rendition of accounts/damages, etc.
2.2 The defendant filed its written statement along with a Counter Claim, i.e. CC No. 2/2022 on 8th December, 2021, seeking cancellation of the plaintiff‟s designs, on the grounds of prior registrations by third parties, prior publication of plaintiff‟s design by NIPA International Pvt. Ltd. and lack of novelty and originality of the plaintiff‟s designs.
2.3 In the light of certain additional facts introduced by the plaintiff vide its replication and written statement to the defendant‟s Counter Claim, the defendant filed an amended written statement.
2.4 Thereafter, the defendant filed an application under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC dated 02nd March, 2022, to bring on record certain additional documents pertaining to „Concept 6‟ design of the plaintiff, which was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 27th January, 2023.
2.5 Thereafter, the defendant herein filed another application under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC seeking to place on record photographs of „Concept 6‟ prototype and other documents related thereto. However, the said application was withdrawn by the defendant as recorded in Order dated 06th March, 2023, with liberty to produce the physical product before the Court.
2.6 The present application has been filed by the defendant to bring on record certain additional documents, on the premise that as a result of the ongoing inquiries by the defendant internally, the defendant has been able to identify documents which show prior publication of the plaintiff‟s designs.
3. On behalf of the applicant/defendant, it is submitted as follows:
3.1 The documents sought to be placed on record were not in the defendant‟s, power, possession, control or custody when the defendant filed its written statement/amended written statement/ counter claim. The said documents were discovered only subsequently in view of the continuous inquiry conducted by the defendant as regards the design of the plaintiff.
3.2 The plaintiff did not disclose its foreign design registrations, which ought to have been disclosed by the plaintiff.
3.3 The plaintiff has failed to substantiate any objections, on merits, to the additional document sought to be placed on record. The defendant has conducted extensive inquiries and due diligence with respect to the hundreds of designs of the plaintiff, and after detailed scrutiny, has sought to place the present documents on record to show the suppression and non-novel nature of plaintiff‟s designs.
3.4 The plaintiff has concealed the registration of prior designs by its group entity, in order to avail design registration in favor of the plaintiff in India and claim monopoly. Therefore, mere delay on part of the defendant to bring on record the present documents cannot be a ground to enjoy monopoly in designs which are not novel.
4. Per contra, on behalf of the plaintiff, followin
