Partly allowed

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v. British Life Sciences Private Limited and another

Madras HC5 Aug 2021A/2181/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the applicant's application for additional documents partially. Clean copies of previously filed documents were admitted, and one document regarding prior litigation was permitted subject to relevancy and proof, while the fourth document was rejected for lack of explanation.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to file document No.1 (subject to relevancy/proof) and documents 2 to 4 (clean copies). Permission denied for document No.5.

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. Vs British Life Sciences Private Limited… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

A.No.2181 of 2021 in C.S.No.259 of 2019

¶2

A.No.2181of 2021 in C.S(Comm. Div.) No.259 of 2019

¶3

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel

¶5

for the respondents.

¶6

2. Being the commercial suit, after completion of pleadings, the plaintiff in fact had earlier filed a similar application to receive additional documents in respect of extract of E-Register for its trademark and the same was allowed by this Court on 22.09.2020. Subsequently, the defendants have also filed an application to receive some additional documents. The said application in A.No.2232 of 2020 was allowed on 22.09.2020. This is the third application filed by the parties to receive additional documents. In this application, the respondents/defendants have filed counter saying that all the five documents were available with the plaintiff/applicant even at the time of filing the suit and there is no plausible reason for not filing these documents along with the plaint and therefore these additional documents should not be accepted.

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶8

1/4

¶9

A.No.2181 of 2021 in C.S.No.259 of 2019

¶10

3. The learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff would submit that the first document namely the e-mail correspondence related to the earlier suit filed against the British Biological and the plaintiff wants to produce these documents before the Court, since there is a reference about the previous litigation in the written statement and hence the plaintiff/applicant is entitled to produce the additional documents in the light of the Order 11 Rule 1(c)(ii). For this document Order 11 Rule 4 and 5 has no application. In so far as documents No.2 to 4 are concerned, they are all clean copies of the document which were already filed along with the plaint and document No.5 is the updated list of distribution channel of the plaintiff and hence seeks leave to file the additional documents.

¶11

4. Besides objecting the application in the light of Order 11 Rule 4 and 5 in the counter, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants in

¶12

addition would submit that the first document has no relevancy to the lis.

¶13

5. This Court, on considering the submission made by the learned counsels on either side, is inclined to allow this application partly in so far as the first document is concerned, it is permitted to file subject to relevancy, and

¶14

proof. Document Nos. 2 to 4 are permitted to file since they are only the clean https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶15

2/4

¶16

A.No.2181 of 2021 in C.S.No.259 of 2019

¶17

copies of the documents already filed. Permission declined for Document No.5 since there is no plausible explanation on the part of the plaintiff for not filing

¶18

this document along with the plaint.

¶19

Accordingly, the application is partly allowed.
05.08.2021
rpl 1/3

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶21

3/4

¶22

A.No.2181 of 2021 in C.S.No.259 of 2019

¶23

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶24

rpl

¶25

A.No.2181 of 2021
in
C.S(Comm.Div.)No.259 of 2019

¶26

05.08.2021

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶28

4/4

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v. British Life Sciences Private Limited and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v. British Life Sciences Private Limited and another

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

Chennai Ananda Bhavan Vs M/s Adyar Ananda Bhavan

Vellore Institute of Technology (Vit) Vs Dr. Prabaharan Srs and 3 others

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs St.,Johns Educational Trust

M/s.Tjsv Steel Fabrication and Galvanizing (India) Ltd., Vs M/s.East Coast constructions

British Life Sciences Private Limited and Another Vs Hatsun Agro Product Ltd.

T.G.Arumugam Vs T.G.Harigopal