CS(OS) 1753/2013 Page 1 of 15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 14^th September, 2022

Decided on: 10^th October, 2022

+

I.A. 11509/2021 IN CS(OS) 1753/2013

M/S JINDAL DRILLING AND INDUSTRIES LTD

.....PLAINTIFF

Through:

Mr. Pradeep Diwan, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Harshil Gupta & Mr. Dhruv

Gupta, Advocates.

versus

NARESH KUMAR AGARWAL AND OTHERS

.....DEFENDANTS

Through:

Mr. Ratan K Singh, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Rajeev Gurung, Advocate

for D-1 & 6.

Mr. Kanishka Sr. Advocate for D-2.

Mr.

Abhishek

Bhushan

Singh,

Advocate for D-3.

Mr. Nikhilesh Krishnan, Advocate for

D-4 & 5.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G E M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

I.A. 11509/2021

1. An application under Order XI Rule 21 Read with Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been

filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1 for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004108

CS(OS) 1753/2013 Page 2 of 15

for non-production of the documents as directed by the Court.

2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of ₹14,92,00,000/- and for

rendition of accounts. The defendant has stated that this Court vide Order

dated 26^th September, 2019 allowed the I.A. No. 11042/2019 under Order

XI Rule 12 CPC filed by defendant no. 1 with the following directions:

“The plaintiff to file affidavit with respect to the documents of

along with the said affidavit”

3. It is submitted that out of 33 documents mentioned in the said

application, the plaintiff has filed only 11 documents, that too photocopies,

and blatantly refused/neglected to file remaining documents by taking

totally baseless, untenable and impermissible pleas. The plaintiff has failed

to file the documents, possession and custody of which is expressly admitted

by the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff had challenged the aforesaid Order before the Division

Bench of this Court vide FAO(OS) No. 227 of 2019 but the Appeal was

dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide Order dated 24^th February,

2020. The Discovery Order dated 26^th September, 2019 thus attained finality

and is binding on the parties.

5. It is asserted that only on repeated directions by the learned Joint

Registrar, the plaintiff finally filed an Affidavit dated 15^th February, 2021

along with photocopies of some documents, purported to be in compliance

of the Discovery Order dated 26^th September, 2019. The perusal of the said

Affidavit shows the obstinacy and contumacy on the part of the plaintiff and

demonstrates its deliberate and willful attempt to disregard/disobey the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004108

CS(OS) 1753/2013 Page 3 of 15

discovery Order passed by this Court.

6. It has been explained that the plaintiff has admitted the documents at

serial no. 6, 19, 23 and 24 of the application as being in its possession and

custody. Document no. 6 are the quarterly reports of the Plaintiff Company

as periodically reported to its Board of Directors, showing Inter-Corporate

loans and investments for the period from 1^st April, 2008 to 30^th March,

2013. However, the plaintiff has refused to file this document on record by

claiming that the defendant no. 1 has unnecessarily sought Quarterly reports

which are 20 in number running into hundreds of pages, which has no

relevance.

7.

The Documents at Serial No. 19 show that as on 30^th November,

2012, Mr. D P Jindal, his family members and his closely held entities were

100% stakeholders in Jindal Pipes Ltd