Karnataka High Court
Delta Sport Hadelskontor Gmbh vs Hippocampus Health Care Private ... on 22 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42682
WP No. 8687 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 8687 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
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
(BY SRI. SHIVANI SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HIPPOCAMPUS HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
Digitally signed
by HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
MARKONAHALLI
RAMU PRIYA NO.2, H.B. COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR,
Location: HIGH 100 FEET MAIN ROAD, BTM LAYOUT 1ST STAGE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 068.
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, 3RD FLOOR,
100 FEET MAIN ROAD,
BTM LAYUT 1ST STAGE
BENGALURU-560 068
EMAIL: [email protected]
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JANARDANA RAO PATURI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42682
WP No. 8687 of 2024
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.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
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').
NC: 2024:KHC:42682
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. (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.
(ii) Later, on 26.02.2024 the defendants filed an
application under Order XI Rule 1(10) of CPC calling for certain
NC: 2024:KHC:42682
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.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff is
before this Court in this writ petition.
6. 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
NC: 2024:KHC:42682
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].
7. 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:42682
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending
I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same
stand disposed off.
NC: 2024:KHC:42682
12. 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
NC: 2024:KHC:42682
contribute in nation building. Any attempt to demean the
process or the system should be dealt with iron hands by the
Commercial Courts.
13. 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.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
PMR
