Calcutta High Court
Vardhman Products vs National Insurance Company Limited And ... on 12 September, 2025
OCD-8
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
CS-COM/58/2024
(Old No. CS/340/2024)
IA NO. GA-COM/7/2025
VARDHMAN PRODUCTS
VS
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date : 12TH September, 2025.
Appearance :
Mr. Soumendranath Ganguly, Adv.
Mr. Kaunish Chakraborti, Adv.
Mr. K. S. Haque, Adv.
Mr. Parthasarathi Boyal, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Naskar, Adv.
...for the plaintiff
Mr. Debajyoti Datta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arijeet Doss Mullick, Adv.
Ms. Pallabi Sardar, Adv.
...for the defendant No. 1
1. The plaintiff has filed the present application being GA-
COM/7/2025 praying for leave to disclose additional documents.
2. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that initially the suit was filed in
the non-commercial division and subsequently, on promulgation of Commercial
Court Act, 2015, by an order dated 28 th March, 2023, the case was transferred
to this Court as commercial suit and the suit was renumbered as CS-
COM/58/2024. The plaintiff says that the plaintiff could not file documents in
the present suit which is very much necessary for the purpose of adjudication
2
of the present suit. The plaintiff intends to bring the following documents on
record.
a) No Due Certificate from the consignee namely, M/s. Vishal
Distributors dated 04.02.2016, which is annexed herein and marked
with the letter "A";
b) The letter to the Officer-in-Charge. Regional Transport
Office, Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat issued by the owner of the
pertinent truck which met with the accident-causing loss of
consignment, Sk. Sirajul Islam alongwith the report of the said regional
transport office providing report of the vehicle in accident, which is
annexed herein and marked with the letter "B"; and
c) A copy of the Account Payee Cheque bearing no. 844760
dated 2nd April, 2013 issued by the insurer of the pertinent truck
issued in favour of the said Sk. Sirajul Islam and the insurer documents
of the specific vehicle bearing no. WB616044, which is annexed herein
and marked with the letter "C";
d) A copy of the Tax Invoice cum Excise Invoice dated 29th
December, 2010 showing the packets of Supari sent to the consignee;
are required to be disclosed to controvert the allegations of denial of
claim made by the defendant no. 1 in their written statement, which is
annexed herein and marked with the letter "D";
e) A copy of the order dated 4th September, 2024 passed by
the Learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata in Excise Appeal No. 76815 of 2017 ( M /
s . Vardhman Products ... Appellant -Versus-Commissioner of Central
Excise, Shillong... Respondent), which was passed after filing of the
plaint, which is annexed herein and marked with the letter "E".
3. Plaintiff submits that the defendant no.2 is not the owner of the
vehicle in question, but he has engaged the truck in which the plaintiff has
booked the consignment for transportation. He submits that unfortunately, the
said vehicle met with an accident and fell on in the gorge due to which the
material could not be transported and it has also not been recovered.
4. The plaintiff submits that the document in which the plaintiff is
relying upon is very much necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the
present suit and if the plaintiff is not allowed to disclose the said document,
the plaintiff will be badly prejudiced.
5. The plaintiff has relied upon the judgment in the case of Sudhir
Kumar @ S. Baliyan vs. Vinay Kumar G.B. reported in (2021) 13 SCC 71
and submits that in the said case also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if
the parties show the reasonable cause, the Court has a discretionary power to
allow the party to disclose the additional document which was not disclosed
initially at the time of filing of the suit or at the time of filing of the written
statement.
6. Mr. Ganguly, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has
further relied upon the judgment in the case of Glen Industries Private
Limited vs. United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2024
SCC OnLine Cal 6803 passed by this Court and submits that in the said case
also this Court was of the view that the party has shown the reasonable cause
for not disclosing the document at the time of filing of the suit and this Court
has allowed the said application. He submits that the judgment relied by the
plaintiff is also squarely applicable in the case of the plaintiff as the plaintiff
has already stated that the plaintiff has booked the consignment for
transportation of the vehicle but the vehicle was met with an accident and fell
on in the gorge and the defendant No.2 is not the owner of the said vehicle.
Subsequently, the plaintiff has got the documents and intends to disclose the
same in the present suit as the said documents are very much necessary for
proper adjudication of this case.
7. Per contra, Mr. Debajyoti Datta, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the defendant submits that though the plaintiff intends to disclose five
documents which were not disclosed at the time of filing of the plaint, but the
plaintiff has not shown any reason as to why the plaintiff has not disclosed the
said document. He submitted that as per the case of the plaintiff, when the
plaintiff came to know about the said document, the plaintiff has requested the
owner and the concerned authorities for providing the documents and the
plaintiff has got the said document. The plaintiff has not disclosed any of such
communications by which the plaintiff has requested the concerned person or
the authority for providing documents.
8. Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate further submits that the suit
was filed in the year 2014, now after the period of 11 years the plaintiff came
before this Court with the present application for disclosure of the additional
document which is not permissible in terms of Order XI of the Code of Civil
Procedure which was amended under the Commercial Court Act.
9. Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate submits that the judgment
relied by the plaintiff is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. He
submits that in both the cases, the Court was satisfied that the reasonable
cause has been shown by the parties and, accordingly, the Hon'ble Court has
granted leave to the parties for disclosure of the additional document. But in
the present case there is no pleading to show that the plaintiff has shown any
cause for non-disclosure of the document. He prays for rejection of the present
application.
10. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and persued
the materials on record.
11. The first document which the plaintiff intends to bring on record
is of 2016, issued by consignee. The second document was issued by the
authority with regard to the accident report of the said vehicle. The third
document is with regard to the insurance of the vehicle in question in which
the goods of the plaintiff was transported and met with an accident and,
accordingly the insurance company has awarded an amount of Rs.9 Lakh to
the owner of the vehicle. The fourth document is with regard to the intimation
regarding dispatch of the consignment of the plaintiff to the consignee. The fifth
document are invoices of the defendant No.2. The sixth document is the order
passed by the Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal wherein the tribunal
has passed an award in favour of the plaintiff dated 4 th September, 2024.
12. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the vehicle in which the
consignment of the plaintiff was transported to the consignee met with an
accident. The document No.1 is the certificate issued by the consignee, namely,
Vishal Distributor of February, 2016 and the plaintiff has filed the present suit
in the year 2014, that is, after the filing of the suit. At the time of deciding
whether the party can be allowed to disclose the document, this Court cannot
ascertain with regard to the genuinity of the document. The plaintiff has to
prove the said document during the trial. On the face of the record, it is found
that the document is of after the filing of the suit. Accordingly, the document
No.1 that is, the certificate issued by the Vishal Distributor dated 4 th February,
2016 is allowed to be disclosed in the present case.
13. Thus, this Court finds that the plaintiff has not shown any
reasonable cause why the plaintiff has not disclosed the said document at the
time of filing of the suit. The plaintiff has also not disclosed when the plaintiff
has received the said document and from whom the plaintiff has received the
said document. This Court not inclined allow the plaintiff to disclose the said
document.
14. As regards the second document, that is, accident report supplied
by the Superintendent of Police, Jaintia Hills, Jowai to Bajaj Alliainz General
Insurance Company Limited dated 22nd January, 2011 which contains the
accident report of the vehicle and the payment made by the insurance
company to the owner of Rs.9 Lakh by way of cheque, this Court finds that this
document is prior to filing of the suit. The plaintiff has not made any averment
with regard to the said document in the plaint. The plaintiff has also not
disclosed how this document has come in the hand of the plaintiff and when
the plaintiff has applied for the said document. Only averment made by the
plaintiff is that this document is necessary for the purpose of adjudication.
15. As regards the document No.3, which is the intimation regarding
dispatch of 706 Cartons of Sweet Supari Powder through the Road Kings
Private Limited and addressed to One Vishal Distributors who is the consignee
and issued by the plaintiff dated 24.12.2010. This document is of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has not disclosed the said document at the time of filing of the suit
and the plaintiff has not shown any reason why this document has not been
disclosed. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to allow the plaintiff to
disclose the said document.
16. The plaintiff is also intends to disclose the order passed in Excise
Appeal No.76342 of 2014 dated 4 th September, 2024.
17. This Court finds that this is the order passed by the Excise
Appellate Authority on 4th September, 2024 that is after the suit filed by the
plaintiff. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that this order can be allowed to
disclose by the plaintiff.
18. In view of the above, the plaintiff is only allowed to disclose the
document mentioned in paragraph 7(a) and (e) and the rest documents have
not been allowed to disclose in the present application.
19. GA-COM/7/2025 is disposed of.
20. The plaintiff is directed to file the supplementary list of
documents by supplying the copy of the same to the defendant within two
weeks from date. The plaintiff is also directed to disclose the original
documents to the defendants for inspection within a week thereafter.
21. After completion of the inspection, the plaintiff is directed to file
affidavit of admission and denial of the documents and Judge's Brief of
Documents within two weeks after Puja Vacation.
22. List the matter on 26th November, 2025.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.)
S.De/sp3
