Allowed

M/S.Ennor Muds and Chemicals v. M/S.Secure Energy Services Inc.

Madras HC10 Mar 2020A/4603/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed an application under Order XI Rule 5 of the Commercial Courts Act to produce a Share Purchase Agreement as an additional document to the plaint. The court held that since the plaintiff was not a party to the document and established a reasonable cause for non-disclosure, its production would assist in deciding the suit without being hindered by prejudice arguments.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed; the plaintiff is permitted to produce the Share Purchase Agreement dated 26.04.2011 as an additional document to the plaint.

M/S.Ennor Muds and Chemicals Vs M/S.Secure… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2020

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

A. No.4603 OF 2019 in C.S. No.466 of 2013 M/S.ENNOR MUDS AND CHEMICALS REP.BY PROPRIETOR MR.N.RAJAGOPAL, HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.A-12, ANNA NAGAR (EAST), CHENNAI-600 102 Applicant/Plaintiff -vs-

¶7

M/S.SECURE ENERGY SERVICES INC., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S.ALLIANCE ENERGY SERVICES LIMTIED) REP.BY PRESIDENT AND CEO MR.RENE AMIRAULT, BOW VALLEY SQUARE 2, 1900, 205 5TH AVE SW, CALGARY, AB T2P 2V7

¶8

M/S.ALLIANCE ENERGY SERVICES LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3000, 700-9TH AVENUE SW CALGARY, AB, T2P3V4, ALBERTA, CANADA. Respondents/Defendants Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to permit the

¶9

applicant/plaintiff to produce Share Purchase Agreement dated 26th April

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2011 entered into between the respondents and the Holders of the Issued

¶11

and Outstanding Shares of Marquis Alliance Energy Group Inc, as

¶12

¶13

additional document to the plaint.

¶14

This application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order:-

¶15

Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶16

applicant/plaintiff would place reliance on Order XI Rule 5 of the Commercial Courts Act and submit that the document, which he seeks to produce before this Court, was not in his possession at the time of filing of

¶17

the suit.

¶18

The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants opposed the

¶19

said contention by stating that at this belated stage, when the affidavit of

¶20

Admission and Denial as well as the written statement has already been

¶21

filed, production of documents would cause serious prejudice to the respondents. He would also submit that when the written statement has

¶22

already been filed, they may not be in a position to defend the present Share Purchase Agreement.

¶23

When there are no averments in the plaint with regard to the Share

¶24

Purchase Agreement, dated 26.04.2011, I am unable to appreciate as to how

¶25

could counter averments be made in the written statement with regard to the

¶26

Share Purchase Agreement.

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

¶29

Order XI Rule 5 prohibits the plaintiff from relying on documents,

¶30

which were in the plaintiff's possession and which has not been disclosed along with the plaint. However, when the plaintiff establishes a reasonable cause for non- disclosure of such documents along with the plaint, the provision empowers the Court to grant leave for introduction of such documents. The applicant/plaintiff has stated that the Share Purchase Agreement was produced before this Court during the hearing of the applications in A.Nos.6166 and 6167 of 2015 and at that point of time, the plaintiff was made aware of the existence of such an agreement. Admittedly, the applicant/ plaintiff herein is not a party to the document and as such, the reason adduced by the plaintiff that he could not produce the said document

¶31

along with the plaint, seems to be acceptable.

¶32

The suit is for recovery of money based on supply of goods

¶33

through purchase orders. The Share Purchase Agreement, which the plaintiff intends to introduce in the suit, may not only be helpful to the plaintiff to substantiate his case, but would also be of assistance to this Court to decide the issue involved in the suit. As such, this Court is of the view that such a document could be permitted to be produced in the trial.

¶34

Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Consequently, the

¶35

applicant/plaintiff is permitted to produce the Share Purchase Agreement,

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

dated 26.04.2011 entered into between the respondents and the holders of

¶38

¶39

the Issued and Outstanding Shares of Marquis Alliance Energy Group Inc,

¶40

as additional document to the plaint.

¶41

7. Post the suit 'for framing issues' on 26.03.2020.

¶42

Sd/.M.S.R.J.
10.03.2020
//Certified to be a true copy//
Dated this the day of 2020.
COURT OFFICER
From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the
Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

¶43

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Ennor Muds and Chemicals v. M/S.Secure Energy Services Inc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Ennor Muds and Chemicals v. M/S.Secure Energy Services Inc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Universal Aqua and another Vs Dow International Technology and 19 others

Lyca Productions Pvt.Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

K.M.Krishnan Vs Dilli Babu

Fairdeal Supplies Limited Vs Mahesh B.Gor and Another

Maddock Films Private Limited Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 41 others

Rohit Shetty Picturz LLP Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and 41 others