SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN vs VINAY KUMAR G. B.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 495

SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN – Appellant
Versus
VINAY KUMAR G. B. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Sachin Datta, Jayant Kumar, Amit Mehta, Athira G. Nair, M.S. Vishnu Shankar, M/S Lawfic, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Kruttika Vijay, Aditya Verma, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

The final conclusion is that the court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the orders that had denied the plaintiff leave to produce certain additional documents, specifically invoices. The court granted permission for the plaintiff to produce and rely on these invoices as additional documents, recognizing that they were not available at the time of filing the plaint and that their subsequent discovery justified their production (!) . However, the court upheld the orders denying leave for the production of other additional documents, affirming that the delay and lack of sufficient cause for non-disclosure at the time of filing justified the non-permission (!) .

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C. M. (M) No.181 of 2021, by which the High Court has dismissed the said petition preferred by the appellant herein – original plaintiff and has confirmed the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the learned Commercial Court, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seeking leave of the court to place additional documents on record, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

2. The appellant herein – original plaintiff filed the commercial suit before the Commercial Court pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge (Central) 10, being T.M. No.123 of 2019 interalia for claiming a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant from using the Trade Mark “INSIGHT”, “INSIGHT ACADEMY”, “INSIGHT IAS ACADEMY” and “INSIGHT PUBLICATIONS”. At this stage, it is to be noted that the appellant fil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 495

SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN – AppellantVersusVINAY KUMAR G. B. – Respondent

SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN – Appellant
Versus
VINAY KUMAR G. B. – Respondent