Introduction: This case involves a dispute between Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt Ltd (Plaintiff) and V-Guard Industries Ltd (Defendant) regarding the alleged infringement of registered designs of switch plates. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using its “MATTEO” range of switch plates, claiming infringement of its registered designs (Nos. 296178, 296179, and 296180).The case also discusses the defendant's counter-claim for cancellation of the plaintiff’s designs on the grounds of prior registration, prior publication, and lack of novelty. The dispute primarily concerns intellectual property law, particularly design rights under the Designs Act, 2000.

Plaintiff’s Claim:The plaintiff claimed that its switch plate designs were novel and original, giving them a distinct aesthetic appeal.It alleged that the defendant’s “MATTEO” switch plates were a clear imitation of its registered designs.Reliefs sought included injunction, damages, and delivery up of infringing materials.

Defendant’s Counter-Claim:The defendant filed a counter-claim (CC No. 2/2022), seeking cancellation of the plaintiff’s designs.It argued that the plaintiff’s designs lacked novelty and originality, citing prior registrations and prior publications.It further claimed that the plaintiff’s own group entities had obtained earlier foreign design registrations, proving that the designs were not new.

Procedural Developments:The defendant amended its written statement based on additional facts introduced by the plaintiff in its replication and counter-claim response.The defendant filed an application under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC to introduce additional documents regarding a prior design known as “Concept 6.”This application was allowed on 27th January 2023.The defendant filed another application under Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC (the subject of this order) to place additional documents on record, claiming they were discovered after an internal investigation.

Defendant’s (V-Guard Industries Ltd) Submissions:Newly Discovered Evidence:The additional documents were not in the defendant’s power or control at the time of filing the written statement or amended counter-claim.The defendant discovered these documents during an ongoing internal investigation.Prior Registrations and Publications:The plaintiff’s group entities had earlier foreign design registrations, proving that the plaintiff’s designs were not new.The plaintiff had allegedly failed to disclose these prior registrations.Designs Not Novel: The defendant conducted a comparative analysis and found that the plaintiff’s designs were substantially similar to previously published designs by: Plaintiff’s group company (Legrand) Third parties (Elley’s E-Square, Wipro’s Venia switch plates, etc.).Plaintiff’s Concealment:The plaintiff allegedly withheld material facts to monopolize the market with non-novel designs.

Plaintiff’s (Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt Ltd) Submissions:Defendant’s Application Not Maintainable:The documents were in public domain and should have been filed earlier with the written statement or counter-claim.The defendant had ample opportunity to research and collect materials before filing earlier pleadings.Repeated Filings:The defendant had already filed four sets of additional documents between November 2021 and January 2023.The present application was an afterthought and lacked bona fide intent.No Justification for Late Filing:The defendant provided no reasonable explanation for why these documents were not filed earlier.Irrelevance of Additional Documents:The new documents had no bearing on the subject matter and could not challenge the validity of the injunction order.

Discussion on Judgments & Cited Precedents: Sudhir Kumar Alias S. Baliyan Vs. Vinay Kumar G. B. (2021) 13 SCC 71: Held that newly discovered documents can be introduced without the need to establish a reasonable cause for prior non-disclosure if they were genuinely not in the party’s possession at the time of original filing.Agva Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Agfa-Gevaert NV (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7914). Allowed additional documents to be introduced before trial begins if they do not alter the core issues or set up a new case. K. Mallesh Vs. K. Narender & Others (2015 SCC OnLine SC 1184) Stated that admissibility and relevance of additional documents should be decided during the final hearing, not at the stage of filing.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India (2024 SCC OnLine Cal 4046). Merely because documents are in public domain does not mean they were in the defendant’s possession. 

Reasoning of the Judge:Newly Discovered Documents Can Be Allowed:Since the defendant discovered the documents after internal inquiries, the delay was justified. Defendant’s Challenge to Design Validity Was Consistent: The additional documents did not introduce a new argument but rather supported the existing counter-claim. No Procedural Violation: Issues had not yet been framed, and the trial had not begun—allowing additional documents would not prejudice the plaintiff. Precedents Supported Defendant’s Claim: The Supreme Court had ruled in Sudhir Kumar and Agva Healthcare that newly discovered documents should be allowed if they were genuinely not available earlier. Imposition of Costs: The defendant was allowed to introduce the documents, but a cost of Rs. 50,000 was imposed to compensate the plaintiff for the procedural delay.

Decision: Defendant’s application was allowed, and the additional documents were taken on record. Costs of Rs. 50,000 were imposed on the defendant, payable to the plaintiff within four weeks.

Concluding Note: This judgment reinforces the principle of procedural flexibility in commercial litigation. The court acknowledged that newly discovered evidence may be introduced even at a later stage, provided it does not introduce a new claim or prejudice the opposing party. The case also emphasizes the importance of design law in protecting original industrial designs while preventing monopoly over non-novel elements.

Date of Order: 3rd February 2025

Case No.: CS(COMM) 567/2021 & CC(COMM) 2/2022

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:650

Name of Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna

High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer:The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.