Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Rishi Raj vs Saregama India Ltd. on 9 November, 2021

Entertainment Network (India) Ltd vs Ht Media Limited on 29 August, 2022

20. This Court in Rishi Raj v. Saregama India Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4897, had rejected the application filed by the Plaintiff, post framing of issues refusing to accept 'inadvertence' as a ground for non-disclosure along with the plaint. Similarly, in the case of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Saregama India Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10215, Plaintiff had filed an application to file additional documents after framing of the issues on the ground of 'inadvertent error' on account of which the said documents were left out from the list of documents filed along with the suit. After analysing the provisions of Order XI Rule 1(5) pertaining to commercial suits, the Court observed as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Phonepe Private Limited vs Ezy Services & Anr. on 29 August, 2022

In Rishi Raj (supra), the Court dismissed the application of the Plaintiff on the ground that reasonable cause was not made out for non-disclosure of the documents at the time of filing of the plaint and that mere inadvertence was not enough to permit documents which were in power and possession of the Plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. It bears repetition to state that in the present case, Defendants have not taken inadvertence as a ground with respect to the additional documents and in any event, wherever this Court has found that Defendants have not disclosed reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the documents at the time of filing the written statement, the documents have been disallowed.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Fixopan Management Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs The New India Assurance Company Limited on 22 August, 2024

In a series of judgments i.e. Rishi Raj Vs. Saregama India Ltd. (supra), Anita Chhabra & Ors. Vs. Surender Kumar (supra), Saregama India Limited Vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (supra) and Nitin Gupta Vs. Texmaco Infrastructure & Holding Limited (supra), the Delhi High Court has applied the rigor of Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC in commercial suits in various circumstances to examine as to 9 whether the Plaintiffs therein had made out reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents with the plaint. It was found that when the Plaintiff failed to place on record proper reasons and reasonable cause, permitting additional documents to be placed on record at any stage, although they were in the power, possession, control or custody of the Plaintiff, would make a complete mockery of Order XI of the CPC, as made applicable to commercial suits. It was found that reasonable cause would have to be specifically pleaded and only when good cause was made out that the Plaintiff could be permitted to place on record such documents at a later stage. It was held in the said judgments that leniency in such matters would run counter to the very object and purpose for which such amendments in the CPC were introduced by the Commercial Courts Act."
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Glen Industries Private Limited vs United India Insurance Company Limited on 4 April, 2024

In a series of judgments i.e. Rishi Raj vs. Saregama India Ltd. (supra), Anita Chhabra & Ors. vs. Surender Kumar (supra), Saregama India Limited v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (supra) and Nitin Gupta vs. Texmaco Infrastructure & Holding Limited (supra), the Delhi High Court has applied the rigor of Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC in commercial suits in various circumstances to examine as to whether the Plaintiffs therein had made out reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents with the plaint. It was found that when the Plaintiff failed to place on record proper reasons and reasonable cause, permitting additional documents to be placed on record at any stage, although they were in the power, possession, control or custody of the Plaintiff, would make a complete mockery of Order XI of the CPC, as made applicable to commercial suits. It was found that reasonable cause would have to be specifically pleaded and only when good cause was made out that the Plaintiff could be permitted to place on record such documents at a later stage. It was held in the said judgments that leniency in such matters would run counter to the very object and purpose for which such amendments in the CPC were introduced by the Commercial Courts Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohan Meakin Limited vs The Devicolam Distilleries Ltd on 20 November, 2024

20. This Court in Rishi Raj v. Saregama India Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4897, had rejected the application filed by the Plaintiff, post framing of issues refusing to accept 'inadvertence' as a ground for non- disclosure along with the plaint. Similarly, in the case of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Saregama India Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10215, Plaintiff had filed an application to file additional documents after framing of the issues on the ground of 'inadvertent error' on account of 14 ( 2024:HHC:11877 ) which the said documents were left out from the list of documents filed along with the suit. After analysing the provisions of Order XI Rule 1(5) pertaining to commercial suits, the Court observed as under:-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A M Goel - Full Document
1