Wednesday, May 9, 2018

CROCS INC USA VS RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD-570 OF 2017





$~2

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(COMM) 570/2017


M/S CROCS INC USA

..... Plaintiff


Through: Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Adv.

versus


M/S RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD
Through: Ms. Samreen Khan, Adv.

..... Defendant


CORAM:

SH. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI (DHJS), JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) O R D E R

%                                02.01.2018

IA No. 11731/2017 (u/O XI Rule 1 & 4 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act 2015 r/w Section 151 CPC for seeking permission of the Court to take additional documents on record)

Reply to the IA filed by defendant has already come on record.

Heard on IA.

Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that the additional documents were filed by plaintiff prior to the settlement of issues in the case. The said documents are material and necessary for effective adjudication of the case. He further submits that trial in the case is yet to commence, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the rights of the defendants, if the documents of plaintiff are taken on record at this stage. It is further submitted that the additional documents were obtained after filing of the suit. He further submits that if the additional documents are not taken on record, serious prejudice would be caused to the




rights of the plaintiff which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

Per contra, learned counsel for defendant submits that the documents were in power and possession of plaintiff, however, they were not filed at the time of filing of the suit. She further submits that as issues in the case have already been settled, therefore, trial in the case has already begun. She further submits that plaintiff has failed to show sufficient cause or bonafide reasons for not filing of the documents at the time of filing of the suit. She further submits that the instant application of the plaintiff is nothing but a ploy just to delay the matter. She further submits that the averments made in the application shows careless and casual approach of the plaintiff in pursuing the case. She further argues that this is a commercial suit which is to be decided in a time bound manner. She prays to dismiss the application of plaintiff.

I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and carefully perused the entire material on record.

Record reveals that issues in the case were settled on 14.09.2017. The additional documents were admittedly filed by plaintiff on 13.09.2017 i.e. prior to settlement of issues in the case. Recording of evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses is yet to begun. In the course of hearing, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that in the affidavit of witness, the plaintiff has referred and relied upon the documents, for which leave of the court is being sought in the present I.A.

Thus this court finds that trial in the case is yet to begun. Matter is at the initial stage. The additional documents sought to be placed on record by plaintiff as mentioned in para no. 2 of the I.A. are reported to be relevant and material for effective adjudication of dispute between the parties. The same were admittedly obtained after filing of the suit by the plaintiff and plaintiff filed the said documents in the court prior to settlement of issues.




If the additional documents of plaintiff are taken on record at this stage, no prejudice would be caused to the rights of defendant. The defendant will get opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness on the said documents. Thus no ground for not taking additional documents of plaintiff on record is made out.

Considering the aforesaid facts into account and totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant IA preferred by plaintiff, is hereby allowed. The additional documents as prayed in the IA are directed to be taken on record in the interest of justice.

IA stands disposed of accordingly.

CS (COMM) 570/2017

Evidence in the case is being recorded before the Court Commissioner. As prayed, list the matter before the Hon’ble Court, on the date already

fixed in the case i.e. 04.01.2018.





SH. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI (DHJS)

JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)



JANUARY 02, 2018
NR

No comments:

Post a Comment

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK  REGISTRA...

My Blog List

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog