Bombay High Court, Admiralty and Vice Admiralty Jurisdiction (Abhay Ahuja, J.) — Interim Application No. 954 of 2025 in Commercial Admiralty Suit No. 19 of 2022 (Board of Mumbai Port Authority v. DSV Gerimal (IMO No.7932240) and another). The Applicant sought leave under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the Plaint, Synopsis and List of Documents to add Exhibits H-1 to H-14. Defendants had no objection to H-1 to H-10 (events subsequent to the Suit) but opposed H-11 to H-14 — scale-of-rate documents predating the Suit and in the Plaintiff's power, possession, control and custody but not filed with the Plaint — invoking Order XI Rule 1 CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Held: (i) the rigour of Order XI Rule 1 applies to applications under Order VI Rule 17, and under Rule 1(5) of Order XI a plaintiff cannot rely on undisclosed documents in its power, possession, control or custody except by leave granted only on reasonable cause for non-disclosure; (ii) however, Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) disapplies that general rule for documents produced in answer to any case set up by the Defendants subsequent to the filing of the Plaint — Exhibits H-11 to H-14 (scale of rates dated 1st May, 2017 for port dues/pilotage/anchorage charges, 10th August, 2018 and 1st May, 2018 for anchorage charges, and 3rd October, 2019) were responsive to the scale of rates for 1st December, 2006 to 2012 annexed by the Defendants to their written statement, the Suit claiming dues for the post-2012 period (1st May, 2017 to 3rd October, 2019 per the Plaint, whose paragraph 10 had referred to scale of rates having force of law); reasonable cause for non-disclosure was made out; the exhibits specify the rates necessary to establish the claim and determine the real controversy; the nature of the Suit (recovery of port dues) and cause of action remain unchanged, issues being unframed and trial uncommenced; (iii) Khanna Rayon Industries (Bom HC) was accepted as time-tested, while Sony Music Entertainment (Bom HC) was distinguished on facts and did not aid the Defendants; the Delhi High Court decisions relied on by the Applicant (Valo Automotive; Hassad Food Company; Bennett Coleman) supported allowance. The Interim Application was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a): liberty to amend as per the Schedule, amendments within two weeks, re-verification dispensed with, amended Plaint to be served within two weeks thereafter with affidavit of service.
