### Introduction
In the realm of intellectual property litigation, particularly trademark disputes, the procedural rigor imposed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, plays a pivotal role in ensuring expeditious resolution while upholding substantive justice. The case of Shyam Rastogi Trading as Shyam Hosiery Industries and Anr. v. Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management GmbH and Co KG and Anr. exemplifies the judiciary's stringent application of amended provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to commercial suits, emphasizing the mandatory disclosure of documents at the pleading stage. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged a trial court order rejecting the defendant's application to introduce additional documents post-framing of issues, aimed at substantiating prior use of the "BIG BOSS" trademark. The Delhi High Court, in its judgment, meticulously dissected the requirements of "reasonable cause" under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC, distinguishing it from broader condonation standards in ordinary civil suits and underscoring the legislative intent to curb delays in commercial disputes. Drawing on precedents like Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. v. Bank of India and Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B., the court reinforced that while the threshold for "reasonable cause" is lower than "good cause," it demands a genuine explanation for non-disclosure, particularly when documents are inherently within a party's power or custody. This ruling highlights the tension between procedural flexibility and the imperative for vigilance in commercial litigation, serving as a cautionary tale for litigants on the consequences of laxity in document management.
### Factual Background
Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co KG, a renowned German entity holding global trademarks for "BOSS" in apparel and related goods, initiated a commercial suit against Shyam Rastogi, trading as Shyam Hosiery Industries, alleging infringement through the use of "BIG BOSS" on hosiery products. Hugo Boss claimed exclusive rights to "BOSS" since its registration in India and contended that "BIG BOSS" was deceptively similar, likely to cause confusion among consumers. Shyam Rastogi, an Indian proprietor engaged in manufacturing and selling hosiery since 1996, defended by asserting prior adoption and continuous use of "BIG BOSS" from 1995, predating Hugo Boss's Indian presence. To bolster this defense, Shyam sought to introduce a slew of archival documents post-filing his written statement, including sales tax challans from 1996-2005 demonstrating firm authenticity and tax compliance, income tax return acknowledgments from 2001-2023 evidencing business in hosiery, printing and purchase bills from 1995-2009 showing logo design charges for "BIG BOSS," sales records from 1996-2023, bills from third-party manufacturers like Bonds Knitting Mills (2009-2011) and Vaashavi Garments (2013) for white-labeled "BIG BOSS" goods, manual and computerized invoices from 1997-2023 explicitly mentioning "BIG BOSS" or "BB," advertisement bills and newspaper clippings from Dainik Jagran (2009-2010), elastic purchase bills from Spica Elastic (1996) ordered via a related firm Vidya Traders, and company registration certificates from 1996 with updates in 1997 and 2007. These documents were purportedly crucial to prove prior and honest concurrent use, potentially vacating an ex-parte interim injunction granted to Hugo Boss on September 25, 2023, restraining Shyam from using "BIG BOSS." Shyam explained the delay by noting the documents' age and unavailability during written statement preparation, with active search commencing only after a Division Bench query in an appeal on July 5, 2024.
### Procedural Background
Hugo Boss filed CS(COMM) 538/2023 before the Commercial Court, Saket, New Delhi, seeking permanent injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts for trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted on September 25, 2023. Shyam filed his written statement on October 27, 2023, without the additional documents, and moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC to vacate the injunction, which was dismissed on January 2, 2024, while confirming the injunction. Issues were framed on May 21, 2024. Aggrieved, Shyam appealed via FAO(COMM) 87/2024, where on July 5, 2024, the Division Bench noted his intent to file additional documents proving 1995 sales but granted no explicit liberty. Shyam then filed the application under Order XI Rule 1(10) and Order XIII Rule 1 CPC on January 20, 2025, before the trial court to place the documents on record. The trial court, vide order dated September 12, 2025, dismissed it, citing lack of reasonable cause, as most documents were in Shyam's possession and not disclosed timely, relying on Delhi High Court precedents emphasizing strict compliance in commercial suits. Shyam challenged this under Article 227 CPC via CM(M)-IPD 4/2026, with accompanying applications for condonation of 36-day delay (CM 11/2026) and stay (CM 10/2026, CM 12/2026). The High Court condoned the delay but heard the main petition on merits, reserving judgment on January 20, 2026, and delivering it on January 29, 2026.
### Reasoning and Decision of Court
The High Court commenced by delineating the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, limiting interference to grave miscarriages of justice or patent illegality, not as an appellate review. It analyzed Order XI CPC as amended for commercial suits, stressing mandatory document disclosure with pleadings to expedite trials and prevent surprises. Drawing from Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. v. Bank of India, the court interpreted "reasonable cause" under Rule 1(10) as requiring a lower proof threshold than "good cause" under Order XIII Rule 2, yet necessitating a genuine explanation for non-disclosure, focusing on whether documents were in the defendant's power, possession, custody, or control at written statement filing. Referencing Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B., it extended the principle that post-discovery documents may bypass rigorous cause requirements, but here, Shyam's documents were intrinsically his own—tax records, bills, and registrations—undeniably accessible earlier. The court scrutinized paragraphs 5 and 6 of Shyam's application, finding the explanation vague: mere antiquity and post-appeal search post-July 5, 2024, order did not constitute reasonable cause, especially since the Division Bench granted no permission, only noted intent. It dismissed reliance on Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar and other ordinary suit precedents, distinguishing them from commercial suits' time-bound ethos under the 2015 Act. The incomplete list of documents violated the mandatory proforma, failing to detail custody, originality, execution mode, etc., amounting to non-compliance warranting rejection, as per Sudhir Kumar. While agreeing the trial court erred in delving into document sufficiency/relevancy (beyond assessing cause), this did not vitiate the order, as primary non-disclosure grounds sufficed. Balancing procedural handmaid status with commercial efficiency, the court found Shyam's conduct cavalier, delaying proceedings unjustly. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs, upholding the trial court's order and disposing of pending applications.
### Point of Law Settled in the Case
This judgment clarifies that under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, "reasonable cause" for non-disclosure of documents with the written statement demands a genuine, specific explanation, with a lower proof threshold than "good cause" but mandating demonstration that documents were not in the defendant's power, possession, custody, or control at filing; mere delay or post-appeal discovery without prior diligence does not suffice, reinforcing the Commercial Courts Act's intent for vigilant, time-bound litigation over procedural leniency in ordinary suits. It affirms that incomplete compliance with the mandatory document list proforma constitutes fatal non-adherence, disentitling relief, and limits trial court inquiry to non-disclosure cause, not document merits, unless integral to assessing reasonableness.
## Case Detail
- **Title**: Shyam Rastogi Trading as Shyam Hosiery Industries and Anr v. Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management GmbH and Co KG and Anr
- **Date of Order**: 29.01.2026
- **Case Number**: CM(M)-IPD 4/2026
- **Neutral Citation**: Not Available
- **Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- **Name of Hon'ble Judge**: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
### Suggested Titles
1. Delhi High Court Reinforces Strict Disclosure Norms in Commercial Trademark Suits: Analysis of Shyam Rastogi v. Hugo Boss
2. Interpreting 'Reasonable Cause' under Order XI CPC: Key Insights from Shyam Hosiery v. Hugo Boss Trademark Dispute
3. Procedural Rigor in IP Litigation: Delhi HC Dismisses Belated Document Filing in Big Boss Trademark Case
4. From Prior Use Defense to Procedural Lapse: Unpacking the Shyam Rastogi v. Hugo Boss Judgment
5. Commercial Courts Act in Action: High Court's Stance on Document Non-Disclosure in Trademark Infringement Appeals
### Suggested Tags
Trademark Infringement, Commercial Courts Act 2015, Order XI CPC, Reasonable Cause, Prior Use Defense, Delhi High Court, Document Disclosure, Article 227 Petition, Hugo Boss v Big Boss, IP Litigation Procedures, Belated Evidence Filing,
====
Hugo Boss sued Shyam Rastogi for trademark infringement by using BIG BOSS deceptively similar to BOSS on hosiery goods, obtaining ex-parte injunction on September 25, 2023, which was confirmed on January 2, 2024, while dismissing Shyam's vacation application, with issues framed on May 21, 2024.
Shyam appealed, and during hearing on July 5, 2024, the division bench noted intent to file documents proving 1995 sales but granted no liberty, prompting Shyam to apply under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC on January 20, 2025, to introduce old tax challans, returns, bills, sales records, advertisements, and registrations from 1995-2023 to establish prior use, citing antiquity and post-appeal search as cause.
Trial court dismissed on September 12, 2025, for lack of reasonable cause, documents being in possession. Shyam petitioned under Article 227 . High Court analyzed Order XI CPC for commercial suits, interpreting reasonable cause as lower threshold than good cause but requiring genuine explanation for non-disclosure, finding Shyam's vague antiquity and post-query search insufficient, documents intrinsically in possession, and list incomplete per mandatory proforma, distinguishing from ordinary suits and upholding despite trial court's erroneous relevancy assessment. Petition dismissed without costs.
- In commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, "reasonable cause" under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC for non-disclosure of documents with written statement requires a genuine explanation, with a lower proof threshold than "good cause" but mandating demonstration that documents were not in defendant's power, possession, custody, or control at filing, as held in para 19 of Shyam Rastogi Trading as Shyam Hosiery Industries and Anr. v. Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management GmbH and Co KG and Anr., CM(M)-IPD 4/2026, Delhi High Court (January 29, 2026), referring to Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. v. Bank of India.
- The principle from Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B. extends to Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC, exempting rigorous reasonable cause requirement for documents discovered post-written statement, but only if averred they were not in power, possession, control, or custody earlier, as noted in para 22.
- Incomplete compliance with the mandatory proforma for list of documents under Commercial Courts Act disentitles relief, as it violates procedure, per para 29 citing Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B.
- Trial courts under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC should limit inquiry to reasonable cause for non-disclosure, not document sufficiency or relevancy unless integral to cause assessment, as clarified in para 30.
- Appellate interference under Article 227 in commercial suit procedural orders is limited to patent illegality or miscarriage of justice, not reappreciation, reiterated in para 18.
Case Title: Shyam Rastogi Trading as Shyam Hosiery Industries and Anr Vs. Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management GmbH and Co KG and Anr: 29.01.2026: CM(M)-IPD 4/2026: 2026:DHC:703: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
