Rejection of additional document in Commercial Suit
Introduction
In a significant ruling emphasizing timely disclosure of documents in commercial suits, the Delhi High Court on 29 January 2026 dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by Shyam Rastogi trading as Shyam Hosiery Industries. The petitioners sought to challenge the trial court’s order refusing permission to place additional old documents on record at a late stage in a trademark infringement suit filed by Hugo Boss Trademark Management GmbH & Co KG.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the defendants failed to show any “reasonable cause” for not disclosing the documents along with their written statement as required under the Commercial Courts Act and the amended Order XI of the CPC. The court observed that most documents were in the power, possession, or control of the defendants and related to their claimed prior use of the “BIG BOSS” mark since 1995. Vague explanations about old records and a subsequent query by the Division Bench in appeal were not sufficient. This judgment reinforces that in commercial disputes, procedural timelines for document disclosure must be strictly followed to prevent delays and ensure fair adjudication.
Factual Background
Shyam Rastogi trading as Shyam Hosiery Industries and another claimed rights in the trademark “BIG BOSS” for hosiery and garments, asserting prior use since 1995. Hugo Boss, a well-known international fashion brand, filed a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 538/2023) alleging infringement and passing off. The trial court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Hugo Boss on 25 September 2023.
The defendants filed their written statement on 27 October 2023 but did not annex the supporting documents they later sought to produce. Issues were framed on 21 February 2024 (or 21.05.2024 as per some references). The defendants also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC to vacate the injunction, which was dismissed.
Later, while hearing an appeal (FAO(COMM) 87/2024) against the injunction order, the Division Bench on 5 July 2024 noted the defendants’ submission about wanting to file additional documents showing sales under “BIG BOSS” from 1996-97. The defendants then searched old records and, on 20 January 2025, moved an application before the trial court under Order XI Rule 1(10) and Order XIII Rule 1 CPC seeking to place on record twelve categories of documents. These included sales tax challans from 1996-2005, income tax returns from 2001-2023, printing and purchase bills from 1995 onwards, sales records, manufacturing bills from Tirupur units, advertisement bills, and company registration documents. The defendants claimed these proved prior use of “BIG BOSS” and supported vacating the injunction.
The trial court dismissed the application on 12 September 2025, finding no reasonable cause for the late disclosure and noting that many documents were in the defendants’ possession all along.
Procedural Background
Hugo Boss filed the suit in 2023. After granting an ex parte ad interim injunction, the trial court heard the defendants’ vacation application under Order XXXIX Rule 4, which was dismissed on 2 January 2024. The defendants preferred an appeal. During appeal hearings, they indicated intent to file additional documents. The Division Bench on 5 July 2024 noted the submission but did not grant specific liberty for late production before the trial court.
The defendants then filed the application for additional documents before the trial court on 20 January 2025 — more than a year after filing the written statement and after issues were framed. The trial court rejected it on 12 September 2025, relying on the strict provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and relevant judgments. Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present petition under Article 227 along with applications for condonation of delay (allowed) and other interim reliefs.
Reasoning
The High Court first clarified the scope of Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC as applicable to commercial suits. It requires defendants to disclose all relevant documents in their power, possession, control, or custody along with the written statement. Late production is permitted only upon showing “reasonable cause” for non-disclosure.
Drawing from Supreme Court precedents, the court explained that “reasonable cause” sets a lower threshold than “sufficient cause” or “good cause,” but some genuine explanation is still mandatory. The defendants’ plea — that documents were old, records were unavailable earlier, and they searched only after a Division Bench query — was found insufficient. Most documents (sales tax challans, income tax returns, sales invoices, purchase bills) were clearly in the defendants’ possession or control from the beginning. They could and should have been disclosed with the written statement.
The court noted that the defendants failed to fill the mandatory proforma in the list of documents regarding power/possession, originality, mode of execution, and custody chain. This procedural lapse further weakened their case.
Even assuming some documents came from third parties, the defendants did not explain why they were not disclosed earlier or obtained promptly. The trial court correctly observed that the documents related directly to the core defence of prior use, making timely disclosure essential. Allowing late production without strong cause would undermine the time-bound framework of the Commercial Courts Act, which aims for speedy resolution of commercial disputes.
The High Court distinguished cases from ordinary civil suits, stressing that stricter standards apply in commercial matters. It rejected the argument that the Division Bench’s observation granted automatic liberty for late filing. No such permission was given, and the defendants delayed even after that observation.
Ultimately, the petition lacked merit as no reasonable cause for non-disclosure was demonstrated, and the trial court’s order showed no jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227.
Key Judgments Discussed with Citations and Context
The court discussed several important precedents to explain document disclosure rules in commercial suits:
- Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. & Anr. v. Bank of India & Ors., CS(COMM) 9/2018 (decided 15.10.2019): This Delhi High Court judgment interpreted “reasonable cause” under Order XI Rule 1(5) as requiring a lower degree of proof than “good cause” or “sufficient cause.” It emphasized liberal yet disciplined exercise of discretion in commercial suits, balancing justice with procedural timelines.
- Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71: The Supreme Court held that the Statement of Truth and document disclosure requirements under Order XI are mandatory in commercial suits. Late production is allowed only upon establishing reasonable cause or when documents are discovered later and were not in the party’s control earlier. The court applied this to stress timely disclosure.
- Sugandhi (Dead) v. P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706: Cited by the petitioners, this Supreme Court decision allowed late production in an ordinary civil suit to do substantial justice. The High Court distinguished it, noting it dealt with Order VIII Rule 1A(3) in non-commercial cases, not the stricter regime under the Commercial Courts Act.
- Madanlal v. Shyamlal, (2002) 1 SCC 535: Referenced in Hassad Food to explain that “good cause” requires lower proof than “sufficient cause,” supporting a liberal yet reasoned approach.
The court used these judgments to underscore that while technicalities should not defeat justice, in commercial suits, parties must act diligently. Reasonable cause must be shown for non-disclosure at the pleading stage; vague claims of old records or later searches do not suffice when documents were always available or obtainable.
Final Decision of the Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition under Article 227. It upheld the trial court’s order dated 12 September 2025 rejecting the application for additional documents. The application for condonation of delay was allowed, but the main petition failed on merits. Pending applications were disposed of. No costs were awarded.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
In commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, parties must disclose all relevant documents in their power, possession, control, or custody along with the plaint or written statement. Late production under Order XI Rule 1(10) or similar provisions is allowed only if the party shows “reasonable cause” for the initial non-disclosure — not just any delay or later discovery.
“Reasonable cause” has a lower threshold than “sufficient cause,” but vague explanations (such as “old records were unavailable” or “searched after court query”) are insufficient when documents relate to the party’s own business and could have been produced earlier. Courts will examine whether the documents were truly beyond control or if the party failed to act diligently.
The mandatory proforma for listing documents (indicating possession, originality, execution mode, and custody) must be properly filled; failure weakens the application. While courts aim for substantial justice and may condone delays in ordinary suits, commercial matters demand stricter adherence to timelines to ensure speedy resolution.
Trial courts can consider the stage of proceedings and overall conduct. Higher courts will not interfere under Article 227 unless there is clear error. The ruling discourages casual or tactical late filings that prolong litigation and reminds parties that procedural rules in commercial disputes are tools for efficient justice, not hurdles to be bypassed lightly.
Case Title: Shyam Rastogi Trading as Shyam Hosiery Industries and Anr. Vs. Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management GmbH and Co KG and Anr. Date of Order: 29 January 2026 Case Number: CM(M)-IPD 4/20266 Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:703 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Hon'ble Judge: 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 for the Article:
- Delhi High Court Refuses Late Documents in “BIG BOSS” Trademark Battle: Reasonable Cause Not Shown
- Strict Disclosure Rules in Commercial Suits: Petition to File Old Sales Records Dismissed
- No Indulgence for Delayed Documents: High Court Upholds Trial Court Order in Hugo Boss Case
- Prior Use Defence Weakened by Late Filing: Key Ruling on Order XI CPC in Trademark Suit
Suitable Tags: Commercial Courts Act, Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC, Additional Documents, Reasonable Cause, Trademark Infringement, BIG BOSS vs Hugo Boss, Prior User, Article 227 Petition, Delhi High Court, Document Disclosure, Sudhir Kumar Case
Headnote of the Article In CM(M)-IPD 4/2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under Article 227 challenging the rejection of an application to place additional old documents on record in a commercial trademark suit. The court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate “reasonable cause” under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC for not disclosing sales tax records, invoices, and other evidence of alleged prior use of “BIG BOSS” with their written statement. Emphasizing the mandatory disclosure regime in commercial suits and distinguishing ordinary civil cases, the judgment reinforces diligence in procedural compliance and limits late production without genuine justification.
