Court’s Decision
The Sikkim High Court dismissed the petition filed by Inbrew Beverages challenging the Commercial Court’s order rejecting its request to submit certified copies of trademark registrations, design registration, sales data, and a usership agreement at the final argument stage in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit. The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish reasonable cause for the non-filing of certified documents during trial, and the belated attempt appeared to be an effort to fill gaps in the case, which was impermissible under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure as applicable to commercial suits.
Facts
The petitioner, Inbrew Beverages, which had taken over the business of United Spirits Limited, filed a suit in 2018 against the respondent alleging infringement and passing off of the trademark “Honey Bee” by the respondent’s product “Honey Gold.” During the trial, photocopies of documents including trademark and design registrations, sales data, and a usership agreement were filed along with the plaint, but certified copies were not produced despite opportunities given, including during the COVID-19 period. After evidence was closed in June 2022 and the matter was fixed for final arguments, Inbrew filed an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC seeking to file certified copies, which the Commercial Court rejected, prompting the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Issues
- Whether a writ under Article 227 was maintainable against an interlocutory order of a Commercial Court in view of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
- Whether the petitioner could file certified copies of documents at the final argument stage under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC in a commercial suit, claiming them as additional documents.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that although the suit and evidence had concluded, it sought to file certified copies obtained from the Trade Marks Registry to substantiate its claim, asserting that the non-filing was due to the takeover transition from United Spirits Limited and the need to verify documents handed over. It argued that the refusal to accept these documents would prejudice its case due to the original plaintiff’s oversight, and Article 227 jurisdiction should be exercised to rectify the error by the Commercial Court.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent argued that the petition was not maintainable under Article 227 due to the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act and that the petitioner was attempting to use the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction as an appellate remedy. The respondent contended that the documents in question were already filed as photocopies, and the petitioner had multiple opportunities to submit certified copies during the trial but failed to do so. Allowing the documents at this stage would prejudice the respondent by allowing the petitioner to fill gaps in its case after the entire defence had been disclosed.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, which bars petitions against interlocutory orders of a Commercial Court, and clarified that this bar does not extend to the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, as held by the Gujarat High Court and the Madras High Court. The Court then analysed Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC, which restricts the filing of documents that were in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control, or custody but were not disclosed along with the plaint, except with leave of the Court upon showing reasonable cause for non-disclosure.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to:
- Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala (2019) 20 SCC 143: Powers under Article 227 are to be exercised sparingly to correct jurisdictional errors and not to substitute for an appeal.
- State of Gujarat v. Union of India (2018 SCC OnLine Guj 1515) and Ramanan Balagangatharan v. Rise East Entertainment (2022 SCC OnLine Mad 1300): Clarified that the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act does not restrict Article 227 jurisdiction.
- India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household (2007) 5 SCC 510 and Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 3 SCC 67: Applied the doctrine of judicial comity and explained limits of High Court supervisory jurisdiction.
These cases guided the interpretation of the procedural bar under commercial law and the scope of supervisory jurisdiction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that although Article 227 jurisdiction was available, it could not be used to circumvent clear procedural requirements under the CPC. The petitioner had not established reasonable cause for failing to submit certified copies during trial, and the documents were already within its possession and control. Since photocopies were filed with the plaint, the documents could not be treated as “additional documents” under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC. The attempt to file certified copies at the final argument stage amounted to an impermissible effort to fill gaps in the case after the defence had been disclosed.
Conclusion
The Sikkim High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Commercial Court’s order rejecting the filing of certified documents at the final argument stage. It held that the petitioner failed to show reasonable cause for the delay, and the filing was impermissible under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC in a commercial suit. The matter was disposed of without costs, clarifying that observations in the order would not affect the merits of the pending suit.
Implications
- Reinforces strict compliance with procedural timelines under the Commercial Courts framework.
- Clarifies that Article 227 cannot be used to bypass procedural lapses without showing reasonable cause.
- Highlights the need for plaintiffs to exercise diligence in filing certified documents within stipulated periods to avoid prejudice to the defence.
Brief on Cases Referred
- Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala: Established limits on using Article 227 as a substitute for appeal.
- State of Gujarat v. Union of India and Ramanan Balagangatharan: Clarified Article 227 jurisdiction is unaffected by Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act.
- India Household v. LG Household and Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan: Applied judicial comity principles in supervisory jurisdiction.
These cases were cited to support the limited and careful exercise of supervisory jurisdiction and procedural discipline in commercial litigation.
FAQs
1. Can certified documents be filed at the final argument stage in a commercial suit under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC?
No, unless reasonable cause is shown for non-filing earlier, and only if the documents were not in the plaintiff’s possession or control.
2. Is a writ under Article 227 maintainable against interlocutory orders of a Commercial Court?
Yes, but it can only be used sparingly to correct jurisdictional or procedural errors and cannot substitute for an appeal.
3. What should parties do to avoid rejection of documents in commercial suits?
Parties must file certified documents promptly within prescribed periods to avoid procedural bars, as courts will not allow belated filings to fill gaps after the defence is disclosed.
