Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JINDAL STAINLESS (HISAR) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SOURABH JINAL & ORS. – Respondent
CS(COMM)-247/2019
TRADEMARK - ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PRODUCTION - COURT'S DISCRETION- Order VIII Rule 1(3) CPC allows the court to permit the production of documents not filed with the pleadings if it is satisfied that the documents were not within the party's knowledge or could not be produced due to sufficient cause.- The court has the discretion to allow the production of additional documents even after the pleadings are closed, provided that the party seeking to produce the documents satisfies the court that there is a reasonable cause for the delay and that the documents are relevant to the case.- The court will consider factors such as the stage of the proceedings, the nature of the documents, and the prejudice that may be caused to the other party in exercising its discretion.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of trademark, passing off, dilution, and tarnishment of the trademark "JINDAL". During the pendency of the suit, the defendant applied for registration of the trademark "Sourabh Jindal" and created a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) with the same name. The defendant filed an application to bring on record the registration certificate, partnership agreement, and other documents related to the LLP.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the defendant to bring the additional documents on record, holding that the documents were relevant to the case and that the defendant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in producing them. The court noted that the suit was still at an early stage and that the documents would assist the court in determining the issues in the case.
Issues: Whether the defendant could produce additional documents after the pleadings were closed.Whether the documents were relevant to the case.Whether the defendant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in producing the documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1(3) CPC and the Supreme Court's decision in Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Another v. P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706, which held that procedural and technical hurdles should not be allowed to come in the way of the court doing substantial justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the defendant's application and permitted the production of the additional documents.
I.A. 3510/2021 in CS(COMM) 247/2019 Page 1 of 7
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Reserved on:
17.12.2021
Pronounced on: 03.01.2022
+
CS(COMM) 247/2019
JINDAL STAINLESS (HISAR) LTD.
..... Plaintiff
Through:
Mr.Saif Khan & Mr.Achuttam
Shreekumar, Advocates
Versus
SOURABH JINAL & ORS.
..... Defendants
Through:
Ms.Roopa Dayal & Mr.Birender
Bhatt, Advocates for Defendants
No.1 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
ORDER
I.A. No. 3510/2021 (under Order VIII Rule 1 (3) CPC)
1.
The captioned suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent
injunction, restraining infringement of trademark "JINDAL", passing-off,
dilution and tarnishment of the trademark; damages; rendition of accounts;
delivery up; declaration of 'well-known' status etc.
2.
The present application has been preferred by applicant/defendant
No.1- Sourabh Jindal to bring on record certain additional documents. The
reasons for filing this application have been enumerated in Para-4 of this
application, which read as under:-
“4.
During Pendency of the suit and after filing of the written
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000006
I.A. 3510/2021 in CS(COMM) 247/2019 Page 2 of 7
statement and the documents, following developments have taken
place:-
(i)
Defendant No. 1 has got registration of the trademark
“Sourabh Jindal” with logo in class 16 and 35.
(ii)
Mr. Dheeraj Aggarwal and Mr. Praful B. Bhatt joined the
business with defendant No.1 and have created a Limited
Liability Partnership company in the name of Sourabh Jindal
LLP from 14th August, 2020. Now the business of Defendant
No.1 is being run by three of the Partners In the name of
limited liability Partnership company called SOURABH
JINDAL LLP with all its assets and liabilities from 14th
August, 2020. The plaintiff is free to take appropriate steps to
substitute Sourabh Jindal LLP as a Defendant in the said suit
as per law.
(iii)Defendant No 1 has also executed an assignment deed (of
trademark Sourabh Jindal with logo)in favour of Sourabh
Jindal LLP and filed an appropriate application TM-P before
the concerned authority in this regard.
3.
At the hearing, learned counsel for applicant/defendant No.1
submitted that the documents sought to be placed on record are in public
domain and are necessary for just determination of the case.
4.
On the other hand, the present application was vehemently opposed
by learned counsel for plaintiff who submitted that the plea of defendant
No.1 that the additional documents sought to be placed on record were in
possession of defendant No.1 cannot be accepted, as defendants might
have initiated the process for registration of the trademark much before
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000006
I.A. 3510/2021 in CS(COMM) 247/2019 Page 3 of 7
filing of the written statement, however, did not disclose this fact in the
written statement so filed. Learned counsel further submitted that the said
defendant has not been able to show any reasonable cause for non-
disclosure of the documents which are sought to be placed on record.
5.
With regard to bringing on record partnership agreement dated
14.08.2020, deed of assignment, demand draft of Rs. 10,000 etc., learned
counsel for plaintiff submitted that these are not relevant for the purposes
of adjudication of the present disputes.
6.
To submit that before leave of the court is granted for taking on
record some documents at a belated stage, the party seeking to produce the
documents must satisfy the court that the said documents were not within
their knowledge, learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon a decision of this
Court in Polyflor Limited Vs. Sh. A.N. Goenka & Ors.2016 SCC OnLine
Del 2333. Reliance was also placed upon a decision of
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
