Case Title: Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mount Distilleries Ltd.:Date of Order: 3rd June 2025:Case Number: WP(C) No. 31 of 2024: Neutral Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine Sikk 48:Name of Court: High Court of Sikkim, Gangtok (Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction): Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai
Very Brief Facts:Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd., having taken over United Spirits Ltd. (USL), filed a suit for trademark infringement and related reliefs concerning their brand “Honey Bee.” During the final stages of trial, they sought permission to place on record certified copies of certain trademark registrations, a design registration, a usership agreement, and a CA certificate—documents previously submitted only as photocopies.
Dispute:The dispute arose over whether the petitioner could be permitted to file certified copies of documents at a very late stage—after conclusion of evidence and commencement of final arguments—under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as applicable in commercial suits. The Commercial Court had rejected the petitioner’s application, prompting the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Discussion by Judge:Court examined the statutory bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against petitions challenging interlocutory orders but clarified that Article 227 jurisdiction remains unaffected. The Court agreed that the documents in question were not "additional documents" as they had been initially filed as photocopies and were clearly within the petitioner's possession from the outset. The Court held that Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC does not apply when documents were already known and not subsequently discovered. Allowing their certified versions now would unfairly prejudice the respondent by permitting rectification of evidentiary gaps after conclusion of trial.
Decision:
The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court declined to interfere with the Commercial Court’s refusal to accept the documents, stating that no procedural irregularity or grave injustice had occurred warranting intervention under Article 227.
