IPD Rules Do Not Bar Taking Additional Documents On Record After Filing Of Reply Or Counter-Statement To Rectification Petition: Delhi High Court
Case: BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED v. E ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LLC AND ANR
Coram: Justice C Hari Shankar
Case No.: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 86/2022
Court Observation: “The IPD Rules do not contain any provision which proscribes taking of additional documents on record, unlike the Original Side Rules, which does contain such a provision, in Rule 147 in Chapter VII,”
“In my opinion, allowing such documents to be taken on record does not militate against any of the provisions of the IPD Rules,”
“In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act would be applicable, mutatis mutandis, to rectification petitions, in view of Rule 7(xiii) of the IPD Rules,”
“Needless to say, however, the respondent cannot be denied its right to file documents supporting its reply to the rectification petition. The stage at which the documents can be filed has, however, been left open-ended in Rule 7 of the IPD Rules,”
“Allowing the defendant, the benefit of Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC, in the matter of filing additional documents in support of the reply to the rectification petition would not, therefore, stricto sensu infract any of the provisions of Rule 7 of the IPD Rules.”
“Inasmuch as the present document is being permitted to be taken on record at this stage, the petitioner would be at liberty to admit or deny the document and also file an additional affidavit contesting the validity and relevance of the YouTube video link and raise of other defences in that regard, as noted hereinabove, within a period of four weeks from today,”.
Previous Posts
Karnataka High Court Convicts 10 Persons For Barging Into Harijan Colony & Assaulting Dalits
Magistrate Can’t Entertain Protest Petition Against Own Order Taking Cognisance: Supreme Court
