Documents which ought to have been produced in Court by the plaintiff or the defendant, but have not been produced, can be received at any stage of the proceedings.

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

2022:DHC:6

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 14^th 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

2022:DHC:6

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 Patna High Court

in Dewanti Devi and Others Vs. Radheshyam Tiwary and Others2019

SCC OnLine P