Disposed

Delta Sport Hadelskontor Gmbh v. Hippocampus Health Care Private Limited

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2024WP/8687/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff challenged a commercial court order permitting defendants to produce documents under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC to answer interrogatories. The High Court upheld the order, limiting the documents' use to refreshing the plaintiff's memory, excluding them from the written statement.

What the court decided

AI extract

Delta Sport Hadelskontor Gmbh Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42682 WP No. 8687 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8687 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DELTA-SPORT HADELSKONTOR GMBH A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF GERMANY, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT: WRANGEKAMP 6 D-22397, HAMBURG GERMANY. EMAIL: [email protected] REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. SANDEEP MITTAL …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SHIVANI SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

HIPPOCAMPUS HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 Digitally signed by HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MARKONAHALLIRAMU PRIYA NO.2, H.B. COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR, Location: HIGH 100 FEET MAIN ROAD, BTM LAYOUT 1^ST STAGE COURT OF BENGALURU-560 068. KARNATAKA 2. DR. VIJAY KRISHNA REDDY FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF HIOPPOCAMPUS HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.2, H.B. COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR, 100 FEET MAIN ROAD, BTM LAYUT 1^ST STAGE BENGALURU-560 068 EMAIL: [email protected] …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JANARDANA RAO PATURI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42682 WP No. 8687 of 2024

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF COMMERCIAL ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 446/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (THE "TRIAL COURT") COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-84) CULMINATING IN THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2024 AS AT ANNEXURE-A AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2024 PASSED BY THE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (THE "TRIAL COURT") COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-84) IN COMM.OS 446 OF 2023 (ANNEXURE-A) ALLOWING THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION DATED 26.02.2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID INTERIOCUTORY APPLICATION DATED 26.02.2024.

¶13

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

The plaintiff in Com.O.S.No.446/2023 pending trial before the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Commercial Court') has filed this petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 26.02.2024 by which, the Commercial Court entertained an application filed by the defendants under Order XI Rule 1(10) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC').

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:42682 WP No. 8687 of 2024

¶19

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Commercial Court. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff, while the respondents herein were the defendants before the Commercial Court.

¶20

The suit in Com.O.S.No.446/2023 was filed for recovery of 11,02,180 US dollars along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The claim of the plaintiff arose out of certain commercial transactions between it and the defendants. The defendants contested the suit and denied their liability to the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶21

(i) Before issues were framed in the suit, on 09.02.2024 the defendants produced "documents towards case management hearing" and clumsily sought for setting aside the order dated 08.01.2024, by which, defendants were directed to deposit USD 11,02,180 or provide bank guarantee for the said amount within two months. The Court refused to take the documents as they were not accompanied by an application under Order XI Rule 1(10) of CPC.

¶22

(ii) Later, on 26.02.2024 the defendants filed an application under Order XI Rule 1(10) of CPC calling for certain

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:42682 WP No. 8687 of 2024

¶25

interrogatories from the plaintiff. They prayed the Court to treat the documents filed on 09.02.2024 filed along with the application under Order XI Rule 1(10) of CPC. Since it was contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that these documents were for the limited purpose of refreshing the memory of the plaintiff, the Commercial Court allowed the said application in terms of the impugned order and permitted the defendants to produce documents that were already produced on 09.02.2024. However, the question regarding the admissibility and relevancy of the documents produced on 09.02.2024 was kept open.

¶26

Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendants were bound to produce these documents at the earliest point in time when they filed their written statement. He submitted that the defendants cannot produce documents at a later point in time when the pleadings are already completed. He further contended that the defendants have not disclosed any reasons for not producing these documents at the earliest

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:42682 WP No. 8687 of 2024

¶30

point in time, which is a condition precedent to entertain an application under Order XI Rule 1(10) of CPC. He therefore, contends that the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court is incorrect and warrants interference. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar alias S. Baliyan vs. Vinay Kumar G.B. [(2021) 13 SCC 71].

¶31

Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the documents that were permitted to be produced by the impugned order were not in support of the written statement but only for the limited purpose of refreshing the memory of the plaintiff to answer the interrogatories. Thus, he contends that the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that these documents were not produced at the earliest point in time when the written statement was filed, is inconsequential. He categorically submits that these documents were for the limited purpose of enabling the plaintiff to answer interrogatories and shall not be treated as part of the defence raised in the written statement.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:42682 WP No. 8687 of 2024

¶34

The learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that if the defendants claim that the documents produced on 09.02.2024 are not in support of written statement filed by them, then this writ petition could not be disposed off recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendants.

¶35

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off upholding the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Com.O.S.No.446/2023 allowing the application filed by the defendants under Order XI Rule 1(10) of CPC.

¶36

It is made clear that the documents that the defendants have produced on 09.02.2024 shall be for the limited purpose of enabling the plaintiff to answer the interrogatories called for by the defendants and shall not form part of the written statement of the defendants.

¶37

In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:42682 WP No. 8687 of 2024

¶40

Before parting, it is imminent to place on record the fact that this Court has come across several cases where some advocates have exhibited lackadaisical attitude in understanding the purport of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Applications are filed before the Commercial Court at an inappropriate time and stage thereby contributing to the delay and clogging of cases. Therefore, it is high time that advocates understand their role before the Commercial Courts and the need to maintain professionalism. The Commercial Courts were established in India to improve the country's ability to resolve commercial disputes and enforce contracts, which would help to improve the ease of doing business in India. The provisions of CPC is amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to cater to early and effectual disposal of commercial cases. While Courts are expected to strictly fall in line with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, there seems to be some inertia on the part of some advocates to understand the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, it is high time that advocates practicing in the Commercial Courts realize that they also should contribute in building a robust system for resolving commercial disputes and thereby

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:42682 WP No. 8687 of 2024

¶43

contribute in nation building. Any attempt to demean the process or the system should be dealt with iron hands by the Commercial Courts.

¶44

In the instant case, a perusal of the documents filed by the learned counsel for the defendants on 09.02.2024 and reliefs sought for and the pleadings made by him in the application filed under Order XI Rule 1(10) of CPC, shows a very unprofessional way of dealing, reflecting poorly on his assimilation and understanding. The Commercial Courts should be wary of such conduct, lest its image as an effective adjudicator of commercial disputes would be lost. It should not hesitate to throw out the papers in limine, if it finds that it is not in accordance with the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

¶45

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶46

PMR

¶47

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16

Delta Sport Hadelskontor Gmbh v. Hippocampus Health Care Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Delta Sport Hadelskontor Gmbh v. Hippocampus Health Care Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.R.Thejavathi Vs the President

Sri Syed Moulana Vs Smt Sharfunnisa

Krishna Murthy Vs a Raja Kumar

Smt. Nagamma (Since Dead by Her Lrs) Vs Sri. Ramakrishna

Nagamma @ Thayamma Vs Smt. Mallamma

Cms It Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Connectivity It Solutions (P) Ltd.