Delhi High Court on Document Disclosure in Commercial Suits
Introduction
In a significant ruling emphasising 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 judgement 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 to ’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.
Documents Sought to Be Produced
- Sales tax challans from 1996-2005
- Income tax returns from 2001 to 2023
- Printing and purchase bills from 1995 onwards
- Sales records
- Manufacturing bills from Tirupur units
- Advertisement bills
- 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 judgements. 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 the documents were old, the records were unavailable earlier, and they searched only after a Division Bench query — was found insufficient.
The court noted procedural lapses, including failure to complete the mandatory document disclosure proforma, weakening the defendants’ case further.
Key Judgments Discussed with Citations and Context
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. & Anr. v. Bank of India & Ors. | Reasonable cause requires lower proof but must be justified |
| Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B. | Document disclosure is mandatory in commercial suits |
| Sugandhi (Dead) v. P. Rajkumar | Relaxed rules apply only in non-commercial cases |
| Madanlal v. Shyamlal | Clarifies distinction between sufficient and good cause |
Final Decision of the Court
- The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition under Article 227
- Trial court order dated 12 September 2025 upheld
- Delay condoned but petition failed on merits
- No costs 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.
Key Legal Principles
- “Reasonable cause” has a lower threshold than “sufficient cause”
- Vague explanations are insufficient
- Strict compliance required in commercial disputes
- Procedural timelines ensure speedy justice
- Higher courts will not interfere unless there is jurisdictional error
Case Details
| Case Title | Shyam Rastogi Trading as Shyam Hosiery Industries and Anr. vs. Hugo Boss Trademark 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 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Judge | Justice Tushar Rao Gedela |
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Author: Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
