Karnataka High Court
Acc Limited vs Acc Steel Pvt Ltd on 18 January, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:2437
WP No. 20769 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 20769 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
ACC LIMITED
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. KARTIK IYER
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT.
CEMENT HOUSE, 121
MAHARSI KARVE ROAD,
MUMBAI - 400 020
ALSO AT (REGIONAL SALES OFFICE)
4TH FLOOR, 414-421
SPLENDOR FORUM BUILDING,
3 JASOLA DISTRICT CENTER, JASOLA,
NEW DELHI - 110 025.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
ACC STEEL PVT LTD
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
Digitally signed by
MR. STEPHIN K GEORGE
VANDANA S HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
Location: High TEETHI BUNDE, GOKARE,
Court of Karnataka
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 110.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VINODKUMAR D. KOTABAGI., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
08/09/2023 (ANNEXURE-A), PASSED BY THE X ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, IN COM. O.S. 1019 OF 2021.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:2437
WP No. 20769 of 2023
ORDER
This petition by the plaintiff in Com.O.S.1019/2021 is directed against the impugned common order dated 08.09.2023 passed on I.A.Nos. 10 to 13 by the X Addl.District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short 'the commercial court'), whereby the said applications filed by the petitioner - plaintiff to re-open the case to produce additional documents, to recall the order dated 11.01.2023 and to recall PW-1 for further evidence were dismissed by the commercial court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that the petitioner - plaintiff has instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent - defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs alleging passing of infringement of its trade mark. The said suit is being contested by the respondent - defendant. At the stage of final arguments, the petitioner - plaintiff filed the instant applications for permission to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence on the ground that the said documents were not available and was not in the custody or possession of the petitioner - plaintiff at the time -3- NC: 2024:KHC:2437 WP No. 20769 of 2023 of filing the suit and as such, they could not have been produced along with the plaint as required under Order 11 Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short 'the said Act of 2015'). The said applications having been opposed by the respondent, the commercial court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the applications, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Commercial court has rejected the applications on the ground that the petitioner has not exercised any due diligence for not producing these documents earlier, since the documents were within the knowledge of the petitioner when he had earlier filed I.A.6 seeking same relief of production of documents, which was allowed by the commercial court. Under these circumstances, the commercial court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not exercised any due diligence in not producing the said documents which could not be permitted at the belated stage of arguments.
5. In my considered opinion, in the affidavits filed in support of the applications, the petitioner has not only given details as to how the additional documents are relevant for the purpose of -4- NC: 2024:KHC:2437 WP No. 20769 of 2023 adjudication of the suit as indicated by him in paragraphs-5 to 9 of the affidavit, at paragraphs 10 to 13, the petitioner - plaintiff has also stated as to why the said additional documents could not be produced along with the plaint in the suit as required under Order 11 Rule 1(5) of the said Act of 2015. The reasons assigned by the petitioner - plaintiff in the affidavits filed in support of the applications regarding relevancy as well as its inability and omission to produce the documents earlier along with the plaint, clearly constitute valid and sufficient grounds to permit the petitioner to produce the said documents and lead further oral evidence especially having regard to the nature of the controversy involved in the suit between the parties. It is also relevant to state that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the respondent if the petitioner is put on terms by issuing directions regarding production of documents and the respondent would be entitled to cross-examine the petitioner on all aspects of the matter including the additional documents. The commercial court while rejecting the applications of the petitioner has adopted a hyper technical approach in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had knowledge of his documents earlier while filing I.A.6, which could not have been made the basis to deny the petitioner one -5- NC: 2024:KHC:2437 WP No. 20769 of 2023 more opportunity to adduce further evidence which is relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial court has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.
6. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned common order dated 08.09.2023 passed on I.A.Nos. 10 to 13 in Com.O.S.1019/2021 by the commercial court is hereby set aside.
(iii) I.A.Nos. 10 to 13 stands allowed, subject to the petitioner keeps PW-1 present before the commercial court on the next date of hearing on 02.02.2024 and proceed to adduce additional evidence without seeking any adjournment under any circumstances whatsoever.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to cross-
examine PW-1 on the additional evidence as well as the other aspects of the matter, if they so desire.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:2437 WP No. 20769 of 2023
(v) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the respondent to adduce further evidence if they so desire.
(vi) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
SD/-
JUDGE Srl.