CM(M) 957/2022 & CM(M) 962/2022

Page 1 of 11

$~5 & 6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 957/2022 & CM APPL. 40329/2022

INDCON BOILERS LTD

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sujeet Kumar Gupta, Adv.

versus

MAEDA CORPORATION & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Mayank Sapra, Mr. Aditya

Sharma and Mr. Avanish Kr. Singh, Advs.

for R-1 to 4

+

CM(M) 962/2022 & CM APPL. 40345/2022

PSA NITROGEN LTD

.... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sujeet Kumar Gupta, Adv.

versus

MAEDA CORPORATION & ORS.

.... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Mayank Sapra, Mr. Aditya

Sharma and Mr. Avanish Kr. Singh, Advs.

for R-1 to 4

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J UD G M E N T( ORAL)

%

27.09.2022

1.

The orders impugned in these two suits have been passed on

applications filed by the respondent in these petitions, Maeda

Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ―Maeda‖), under Order

VIII Rule 1-A¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By the said

11-A.

Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him. –

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004168

CM(M) 957/2022 & CM(M) 962/2022

Page 2 of 11

application, Maeda sought to place on record certain documents in

addition to the documents filed by them with the written statement,

filed in response to the suit instituted by PSA Nitrogen Ltd (―PSA‖,

hereinafter) and Indcon Boilers Ltd. (―Indcon‖, hereinafter), the

petitioners in these petitions.

2.

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to point out that

though the suits, in which the impugned orders have come to be

passed, are registered as commercial suits, they are, in fact, non-

commercial suits.

3.

There are, in all, four registered suits, in which the impugned

orders have been passed, two being suits instituted by Indcon and PSA

against Maeda and the other two being counter claims by Maeda filed

in the said suits which have been separately registered as suits.

4.

The suits, as well as counter claims, are required to be

registered as ―non-commercial suits‖, though they have been

registered, and are proceeding, as ―commercial suits‖. This may be

explained, with respect to these two petitions, thus:

(1)

Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in

his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall

enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented

by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the

written statement.

(2)

Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall,

wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

(3)

A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is

not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at

the hearing of the suit.

(4)

Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents—

(a)

produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or

(b)

handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004168

CM(M) 957/2022 & CM(M) 962/2022

Page 3 of 11

CM (M) 962/2022 (PSA Nitrogen Ltd. v. Maeda Corporation & Ors.)

5.

PSA filed CS (OS) 1750/2015 before this Court, prior to

enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of trial courts, for recovery of ₹

37,01,686/- on 26^th May 2015. Consequent on enhancement of

pecuniary jurisdiction of trial courts, CS (OS) 1750/2015 was

transferred to the court of the learned ADJ on 2^nd December 2015 and

was registered as CS 9404/2016. At that time, Section 12(1)² read

with Clause (i) of Section 2(1)³ of the Commercial Courts Act treated

any dispute which conformed to clause (c) of 2(1), the value of the

subject mat