Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. V-Guard Industries Ltd.

Case Title: Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. V-Guard Industries Ltd.

Date of Order: 03 February 2025

Case No.: CS(COMM) 567/2021 & CC(COMM) 2/2022

Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:650

Court: High Court of Delhi

Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna

Facts of the Case:The plaintiff, Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd., sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, V-Guard Industries Ltd., from using the 'MATTEO' range of switch plates. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s products infringed upon its registered designs (Design Nos. 296178, 296179, and 296180) by closely imitating them. The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation of the plaintiff’s designs, citing prior registrations, lack of novelty, and prior publication.

Issues for Determination:1. Whether the defendant should be permitted to place additional documents on record under Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC.2. Whether the plaintiff’s designs lacked novelty due to prior publication and existing foreign design registrations by its group entities.

Reasoning and Analysis by the Court:

1. Admissibility of Additional Documents:The defendant argued that the additional documents were discovered after filing the written statement and were not initially in its possession.These documents included foreign design registrations of the plaintiff’s sister companies, photographs of prior publications, comparative analysis reports, and stock details.

2. Relevance of Discovering Documents Post-Filing:The Court referred to Sudhir Kumar v. Vinay Kumar G. B., (2021) 13 SCC 71, emphasizing that the requirement to show a reasonable cause for non-disclosure does not apply when documents are discovered after the filing of the written statement.The defendant demonstrated that these documents were discovered through ongoing internal inquiries and were not part of its initial records.

3. Stage of Proceedings and Prejudice to Plaintiff:The Court noted that the suit was still in a nascent stage, and issues had not yet been framed.Citing Agva Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Agfa-Gevaert NV (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7914), the Court observed that allowing these documents would not cause prejudice to the plaintiff, as they did not introduce a new case but were consistent with the defendant’s existing claims of prior publication.

4. Public Domain Argument:The plaintiff contended that the documents were in the public domain and should have been discovered earlier.The Court rejected this argument, relying on Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2024 SCC OnLine Cal 4046), which held that public domain availability does not automatically imply possession or knowledge by a party.

Decision of the Court:The Court allowed the defendant’s application to place the additional documents on record, recognizing the continuous inquiry conducted by the defendant and the documents' relevance to the case. However, a cost of ₹50,000/- was imposed on the defendant, payable to the plaintiff within four weeks.

Order: Application allowed with costs.

Key Takeaway:This case reaffirms the principle that additional documents discovered after filing a written statement can be admitted under Order XI Rule 1(10) of CPC, provided they are relevant and do not change the fundamental nature of the case. The Court's pragmatic approach ensures that procedural technicalities do not hinder the pursuit of substantive justice.