Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Order Date: 16 July 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Bestech India Private Limited (plaintiff‑defendant) filed revision petitions CR‑3531‑2026 and CR‑3536‑2026 against respondents Fakira Singh and Ashok Kumar respectively.
- The petitions challenged two orders dated 19 February 2026 passed by the Additional District Judge‑cum‑Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram, which had partially allowed the petitioner to place three documents on record but refused permission to produce the audited balance sheet for FY 2021‑22 and the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Report, both dated 27 September 2022 (Annexures P‑14 & P‑15).
- The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court, while dismissing a Special Leave Petition on 19 May 2025, clarified that dismissal would not preclude filing a fresh application for documents not in the petitioner’s possession at the date of the original written statement (03 March 2022). The petitioner relied on this liberty to seek production of the two disputed documents in a subsequent application limited to five documents.
- The Commercial Court had permitted production of three other documents but continued to refuse the balance sheet and CSR report, citing non‑disclosure under Order XI Rule 1(10) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as substituted by the Commercial Courts Act.
- Respondents contended that the petitioner was attempting to enlarge the Supreme Court’s liberty, noting that the disputed documents were prepared on 27 September 2022 and were known to the petitioner before the amendment of the written statement filed on 11 April 2023 (or 11 April 2024 as later mentioned). They argued that the statutory disclosure regime requires full and timely disclosure, and the petitioner had failed to provide reasonable cause for earlier non‑disclosure.
- The Court examined the interplay between the Supreme Court’s limited liberty and the mandatory disclosure obligations under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC, emphasizing that the doctrine of relation back is not absolute and must yield to the statutory scheme of the Commercial Courts Act.
- The Court referenced Supreme Court judgments (Siddalingamma v. Mamtha Shenoy, 2001; Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, 2002; Prithi Pal Singh v. Amrik Singh, 2013; Vasant Balu Pal v. Mohan Hirachand Shah, 2016) and the Levitate Mobile Technologies v. Standard Chartered Bank case to support its reasoning.
Final Outcome
- The High Court dismissed both revision petitions, finding no merit in the petitioner’s submissions.
- The Court held that the liberty granted by the Supreme Court was circumscribed and that the petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions of Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC, including showing reasonable cause for the prior non‑disclosure of the audited balance sheet and CSR report.
- Consequently, the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also ordered to stand disposed of.
- A photocopy of the order is to be placed on the file of the connected case.
Topics: Legal Disclosure; Commercial Courts Act