Court Emphasizes Strict Disclosure Norms Under Commercial Courts Act, Rejects "Lack of Knowledge" Defense for Late Submission of Documents in MS Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt Ltd v. Vyom Foodcraft Pvt Ltd
In a significant ruling delivered on October 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided by Mr. Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., dismissed an application filed by MS Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt Ltd seeking permission to place additional documents on record in a commercial suit concerning trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off of the "Brown Sugar" family of marks.
The plaintiff, MS Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt Ltd, had instituted a suit against Vyom Foodcraft Pvt Ltd and Richa Jalani, alleging infringement of its trademark rights and claiming prior adoption and continuous use of the "Brown Sugar" marks since 2000-well before the defendants' claimed user date of October 26, 2010. The suit, filed in November 2024, sought permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using similar marks.
The dispute took a procedural turn when the plaintiff sought leave under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), as amended by the Commercial Courts Act 2015, to file additional documents including sales invoices, purchase bills, ledgers, promotional materials, and TDS certificates dated between 2003 and 2011. The plaintiff's justification for the delayed submission was that these documents were discovered during a "Diwali cleaning" of its godown and office store rooms, and were not previously produced due to unawareness of their precise location following internal management changes.
The Court conducted a thorough examination of the statutory provisions and judicial precedents governing disclosure of documents in commercial suits. It observed that under the amended Order XI Rule 1(5), a plaintiff cannot rely on documents that were in its possession, power, or control at the time of filing the plaint unless it establishes "reasonable cause" for non-disclosure. The Court emphasized that "reasonable cause" requires a cause outside the plaintiff's control and that mere inadvertence or internal management changes do not qualify.
Critically, the Court noted that the plaintiff had already filed documents of the same nature and period with the plaint, including identical invoices and sales accounts, indicating that the plaintiff had access to these records at the time of instituting the suit. The explanation that the documents were found only during a later cleaning exercise was found to be illogical and insufficient to meet the threshold of reasonable cause.
Further, the Court reiterated that the exception allowing for documents "discovered subsequently" does not apply where documents were always under the plaintiff's control but were simply not searched for or produced earlier. The Court warned against permitting repeated filing of documents in tranches, which could lead to endless and dilatory proceedings, undermining the strict timelines and disclosure discipline intended by the Commercial Courts Act.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's application and directed that the additional documents filed with the application shall not form part of the record of the suit. The suit itself was listed for further proceedings on December 9, 2026.
This ruling reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to enforce stringent disclosure norms in commercial litigation, ensuring fair and efficient adjudication by preventing parties from selectively withholding documents and belatedly bolstering their cases.
Bottom Line:
Commercial suit - Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC as amended by Commercial Courts Act - Additional documents cannot be taken on record where documents were always in plaintiff's own power, possession, control and custody and plaintiff merely chose to search and discover them later - "Diwali cleaning" and internal lack of knowledge about location of records do not constitute reasonable cause - In commercial suits, strict disclosure discipline must be maintained and repeated filing of documents in tranches to improve case cannot be permitted.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XI Rule 1(5), Order XI Rule 1(3), Section 151 CPC, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (amendment to CPC)
MS Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt Ltd v. Vyom Foodcraft Pvt Ltd, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3005922
