In a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court, the application for filing additional documents by the Plaintiffs, ARG, was dismissed in the case against the Defendants. The Court’s decision sheds light on important aspects of document submission timelines in commercial suits. Stay tuned to learn more about the implications of this ruling on the ARG v. Defendants case.
Facts
- Plaintiff No 1, a Joint Venture between Plaintiff No 2 and 3, filed a suit for Recovery of Rs.17,43,18,869.
- The plaintiff has filed an application under Section 10A of the Commercial Courts Act and Section 151 of the CPC for additional document submission.
Arguments
- The claim of ARG under CAR Policy was rejected by the defendants
- Claims were paid to the residents without prior written consent of the defendants
- Defendant argued they were not liable to indemnify the losses of ARG
Analysis
- Plaintiffs were aware of the documents required for adjudication but chose to delay filing until the current application in 2021.
- Documents were filed after a delay of about one and a half years excluding the Covid period.
- Plaintiffs filed the Commercial Suit on 30.01.2020 but have not yet framed the issues.
- Defendant alleges not being given the opportunity to examine the extent of damage caused.
- Rejection Letter dated 14.05.2019 did not raise objections regarding claim amount or validity of amounts paid.
- Written Statement filed on 22.06.2020 and Replication on 21.09.2020 during the COVID period.
- Similar application for placing documents in another case was filed on 07.09.2021.
- Under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, plaintiffs are mandated to file a list of documents within 30 days of filing the Suit.
- Plaintiff has submitted that the defense taken by defendants necessitates filing specific documents.
- Defendants’ new pleas were raised for the first time in the Written Statement filed on 22.06.2020.
- Plaintiff struggled to file Replication on 21.09.2020 due to voluminous scattered documents.
- No explanation for the inordinate delay in filing similar documents when compared to a previous Suit with the same controversy.
- The Court in the Commercial Suit does not have the discretion to allow the filing of documents after 30 days from the initial filing of the Plaint.
- Despite knowing the relevance of the documents, the plaintiffs waited until March 2023 to take action.
- There was no explanation provided for the delay in filing the documents along with the Replication by March 2022, even considering the impact of the COVID-19 period.
Decision
- The application for filing additional documents by the plaintiffs was made during the pendency of the Application.
- The application was found to be barred by the express decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan vs Vinay Kumar G.B., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 734 and Nitin Gupta vs Texmaco infrastructure and Holding Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine DEL 8367.
- As a result, the application for filing additional documents was dismissed.
Case Title: CEC-CICI JV & ORS. Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (2024:DHC:4039)
Case Number: CS(COMM)-53/2020
