Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 01st JULY, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
IN
BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY & ANR. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Ms. Vasudha Sen, Mr. Vineet Wadhwa, Ms. Somya, Advs.
Through: Mr. Tarang Agarwal and Mr. Anubhav Seth, Advocates
JUDGMENT
1. This is an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) on behalf of the Plaintiffs seeking condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the Chamber Appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the Application, the delay in filing the Chamber Appeal is condoned.
3. The Application is disposed of. O.A. 48/2026
4. The challenge in present Appeal is to the Order dated 24.12.2025 SINGH KIRMOLIYA 15.59.14 passed by the Ld. Joint Registrar allowing the Application being I.A. No.9232/2024 filed by the Defendants under Section 30 read with Order XI of the CPC seeking leave to deliver interrogatories.
5. The instant Suit is one for injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents or any representative, their family members, assignees, successors from ingress to and egress in any premises belonging to Plaintiffs or of any officer/employees/directors of the Plaintiffs further to maintain a distance of 500 meters from either any person of the Plaintiffs or any premises of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have also sought injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents or any representative, their family members, assignees, successors from in any manner addressing any letter, mail or any other communication, whether verbal or written, to Plaintiffs or any officer/employees/directors of the Plaintiffs including social media and also injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents or any representative, their family members, assignees, successors from publishing any allegation against the Plaintiffs and also any officer/employees/directors of the Plaintiffs on any media or social media.
6. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present Suit are that: i. Plaintiff No.1 i.e., Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (“BALCO”) is a Public Sector Undertaking which produces 20% of the country’s aluminium and Plaintiff No.2 i.e., Vedanta Limited, is a globally diversified natural resources company having interests in zinc-leadsilver, Iron ore, Steel, Copper, Aluminium, Power, Oil and Gas. In 2001, the Government of India disinvested 51 % shares of BALCO to Sterlite Industries Limited which is a subsidiary of Vedanta Limited. 15.59.14 ii. Defendant No.1 is the managing director of Sterling Enamelled Wires Pvt. Ltd., which is Defendant No.3 herein. Defendant No.2 is the wife of Defendant No.1. iii. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that somewhere in December 2019, Defendant No.1 had repeatedly approached the Plaintiff No.1 regarding his grievances with JP Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (“JP Engineers”) in respect of a transaction between Defendant No.3 and JP Engineers for purchase of aluminium produced by Plaintiff No.1. It is stated that even though, Plaintiff No.1 did not have any business transactions, however, in view of the repeated requests by Defendant No.1 and being a responsible Corporate Entity, Plaintiff No.1 acted in good faith and a Without Prejudice Meeting (“WPM”) was facilitated by Plaintiff No.1 at Delhi. It is stated that the said meeting was attended by Defendant No.1 and pursuant to that meeting, the differences between Defendant No.1 and JP Engineers were resolved and a Minutes of Meeting (“MoM”) dated 03.01.2020 was duly executed, signed and accepted by Defendant No.1 and JP Engineers. iv. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that in Paragraph No.7 of the Minutes of Meeting, it was recorded that the Plaintiffs are not party to the dispute between Defendant No.3 and JP Engineers and the Plaintiffs have only acted as a facilitator for resolving the inter se dispute between Defendant No.3 through Defendant No.1 and JP Engineers. v. It is stated that CIRP proceedings were initiated against the said JP Engineers before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and Defendant No.3 through Defendant No.1 filed a claim of Rs.3,81,02,096/- as Operational Creditor against JP Engineers. It is 15.59.14 stated that criminal proceedings were also initiated against JP Engineers. vi. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that despite this, Defendant No.1 started making false allegations against the Plaintiffs and started accusing the Plaintiffs of the loss incurred out of the arrangement/contractual obligations between Defendant No.1 and JP Engineers. It is stated that the Defendant No.1 has been on vindictive campaign against the Plaintiffs though the remedy is against the JP Engineers. vii. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Defendant No.1 started using various arm-twisting tactics of maligning and tarnishing the image of the Plaintiffs and coerced the Plaintiffs to compensate the alleged loss incurred to him, due to the contractual relations between Defendant Nos.[1] & 3 and JP Engineers by making false allegations against the Plaintiffs. It is stated that Defendant Nos.[1] & 2 created ruckus in the office of the Plaintiffs and also created nuisance outside the corporate office by stating that they have been defrauded of more than 2.[1] million pounds. It is stated that Defendant Nos.[1] & 2 started a campaign by indulging in a sit-out protests at the residential premises of Non-Executive Chairman of the Plaintiff No.2 Company and made grossly unsubstantiated, incorrect and defamatory statements/allegations against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have also brought out several instances of Defendant Nos.[1] & 2 creating ruckus in the office of the Plaintiffs. viii. Allegations have also been made against the Defendants regarding making of various publications and visible representations against the Plaintiffs which have the effect of lowering the estimate of the 15.59.14 Plaintiffs in the eyes of public. It is stated that due to the aforementioned conduct of Defendant Nos.[1] & 2, the Plaintiffs are being discouraged and maligned in social media and therefore, the present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs.
7. Summons was issued in the Suit on 14.09.2022.
8. Written statement has been filed by the Defendants by stating that the Pamphlets, Posters and Tweets have been distributed by the Defendants only to seek justice for the financial, mental and personal loss suffered by them. It is stated that the protests were made to draw the attention of the Chairman of the Plaintiffs towards the truth of the matter and all the statements of the Defendants are in the nature of fair comments which are protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiffs are liable to make substantial payments to the Defendants amounting to Rs.21 crores. It is stated that the Defendants were forced to deal with JP Engineers by the Plaintiffs. It is the case of the Defendants that materials were not delivered and payments were not received from JP Engineers.
9. After the written statement, the Defendants had filed an application being I.A. 9232/2024 under Section 30 read with Order XI of the CPC seeking leave to deliver interrogatories. The following interrogatories have been raised by the Defendants:
1. Did the Plaintiff No. 2 Company form/constitute any committee to resolve the grievances/concerns raised by the Defendant No. 3 (through the Defendant No. 1) regarding the losses suffered by them to the tune of INR 21 crores on the platform of the Plaintiff No. 2?
2. If the answer to the above question is in affirmative, 15.59.14 then: a. what were the findings of the committee; and b. whether any of the employees/consultant etc. who formed part of committee is still engaged/employed/retained with the Plaintiff companies? If no, what is the reason and duration of their exit?
3. Did the officials of the Plaintiff No. 2 Company hold any meeting(s) (physical or virtual) with the Defendant No. I relating to settlement of the outstanding amount of around INR 21 crores which was payable to the Defendant No. 3? If the answer is in affirmative, please provide the details of such meetings.
4. Is it correct that on or around 30.04.2021, the officials of Plaintiff No. 2 gave a settlement offer to the Defendant No. 3 (through Defendant No. 1) in terms of which the Defendant No. 3 was given an option to recover the entire loss of approximately INR 21 crores (24,000MT* @USD 120) as special discounts against lifting of aluminium rods for a period of three years on a minimum/lowest price applicable for 1000 ton monthly buying customer?
5. If the answer to the above question is in affirmative, please specify the reasoning behind offering the said settlement/special discount?
6. If the answer to the aforesaid question no. 4 in affirmative, please also clarify why the same could not be fructified/concluded?
7. Is it correct that the Defendant No. I had pre-informed about his visit before trying to approach the Chairman of 15.59.14 the Plaintiff No. 2 in London?
8. Is it correct that the Defendant No. I had pre-informed about his visit before trying to approach the Chairman of the Plaintiff No. 2 in Mumbai, India?
9. Is it correct that no diary entry/ complaint was lodged at P.S. Colaba, Mumbai or any other authority in relation to entry of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at the residence/office of the Chairman of the Plaintiff No. 2 Company on 13.08.2022?
10. Is it correct that on the visit to theresidence-cum of the Chairman of the Plaintiff No. 2, one Mr. Shukla, the General Manager (Admin) or any other official of the Plaintiff No. 2 arranged for a meeting of the Defendant No. 1 with Mr. Tarun Jain?
11. If the answer to the above question is in affirmative, then post the meeting with Mr. Tarun Jain, what actions/steps/data were taken by the Plaintiff Companies to resolve the concerns/grievances of the Defendant No.3 raised through Defendant No. 1?
12. Whether Mr. Sachin Jain accepted (in front of the ethics committee of the Plaintiff No. 2 Company) that bribes were accepted by him during his course of employment?
13. Whether Mr. Sachin Jain has any close association/personal association with Mr. Tarun Jain, Director of the Plaintiff No. 2 Company?
14. Whether the Plaintiff Companies have ever admitted that the Defendant No. 3 to be their valued customer?”
10. It is the case of the Defendants in the application that the answers to the interrogatories would bring out the true picture and the facts which have 15.59.14 not been revealed by the Plaintiffs in the Suit regarding the constitution of the Committee, the purpose of the Committee, findings of the Committee, if any, the Minutes of Meeting, as to how the Minutes of Meeting were drawn up and as to whether any amount was outstanding or not.
11. The Plaintiffs have also filed a reply to the application being I.A. 9232/2024 for interrogatories by stating that the purport of the interrogatories is completely beyond the scope of the Suit wherein the Plaintiffs have only sought injunction restraining the Defendants from ingress to and egress in any premises belonging to Plaintiffs and also restraining the Defendants from making statements on social media and other media. It is also stated that the allegations made by the Defendants is scandalous in nature and that there is no Privity of Contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants as the Plaintiffs only tried to resolve the differences between Defendant No.1 and JP Engineers.
12. By the Impugned Order, the Ld. Joint Registrar has allowed the Application and directed the Plaintiffs to answer the interrogatories to understand the controversy between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.
13. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs has more or less reiterated the submissions made in the reply to the Application and before the Ld. Joint having no bearing on the relief sought by the Plaintiffs.
14. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Defendants contends that all the acts of the Defendants come within the four corners of free speech and Defendants were forced to accept the Minutes of Meeting.
15. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Parties and perused the material on record. 15.59.14
16. At his juncture, it is apposite to extract Order XI Rules 1 & 2 of CPC and Section 30 of CPC which read as under: Order XI Rules 1 & 2 of CPC
17. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sharda Dhir v. Ashok Kumar Makhija, 2002 SCC OnLine Del 688, has held as under: “9... The application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 1 CPC. This rule allowed the court to grant leave to any of the party of the suit to deliver Interrogatories in writing for examination of the opposite party relating to any matter in question in the suit. The object of this rule is that a party knows the nature of his opponent's case before hand in order to meet it at the hearing. Indeed, he is not entitled to know the fact which constitute evidence to prove the opponent's case. The nature of the case of the parties is disclosed in their respective pleadings but in a given case the pleadings may not sufficiently disclose the nature of the parties' case. In order to make good deficiency this rule has been enacted. It is now well settled that administering of Interrogatories is to be encouraged as it is a means of obtaining admissions of parties and tends to shorten litigation. As a general rule the Interrogatory should be allowed, whether the 15.59.14 answer to them would either strengthen the case of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The court should not be hypertechnical at the stage of the service of the Interrogatories. This rule is to be used liberally whenever it could shorten the litigation and serve the interest of justice. Indeed, it cannot be used as a means of obtaining information which may be admissible during the oral cross-examination of a party and his witnesses. Interrogatories cannot be disallowed merely because the party interrogating has other means of proving the facts in question. One of the important purpose of interrogatories is to obtain admission of material fact of a case. Under this rule the Interrogatories may be served with the leave of the court by one party to the other in a suit: (1) to ascertain the nature of his opponent's case and material facts constituting it, and (2) to support his own case by obtaining admissions or by impeaching or destroying his opponent's case. The Interrogatories which do not relate to any matter in question involved in the suit, indeed, would be deemed irrelevant even though they might be admissible in oral crossexamination of the witnesses. Rule (6) of Order 11 makes it further clear. It provides that objection to answer an Interrogatory on the ground that it is scandalous or irrelevant or not exhibited bona fide for the purpose of the suit, or with the matter inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage or on the ground of privilege, or on any other ground will be taken in the affidavit in answer. Leave to deliver interrogatories does not imply an order to answer them and any objection to answer can be taken under the Rule. The court is required to decide whether the appellant should be allowed to interrogate the other side, but it is not to determine what question should be opposite party be compelled to answer.” (emphasis supplied) 15.59.14
18. A perusal of Order XI of the CPC and the aforesaid judgment indicates that the purport of Order XI of the CPC is that a party knows the nature of his opponent’s case before hand in order to meet it at the hearing. The purport of Order XI of the CPC is also to bring out those facts which have not been revealed in the pleadings and which are in the exclusive knowledge of that party which has not revealed it. A party to the Suit can get facts disclosed which have not been revealed through interrogatories and therefore, interrogatories are important tool to extract the truth which is the purport of any adjudication.
19. The case of the Plaintiffs is that Defendants are unnecessarily tarnishing the image of the Plaintiffs and are creating ruckus whereas, the Defence of the Defendants is that all the acts of the Defendants come within the four corners of the free speech and that the Defendants were forced to accept the Minute of Meeting.
20. In the opinion of this Court, the interrogatories which have been sought to be answered by the Plaintiffs regarding the constitution of the Committee, the decision of the Committee etc. would be necessary to unearth the controversy between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. Therefore, the Order passed by the Ld. Joint Registrar does not require any interference. It cannot be said that the interrogatories are completely out of the context and are not germane to the nature of controversy in the proceedings. Answers to these interrogatories would be necessary to unearth the controversy in the Suit as to whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to injunction or not.
21. Resultantly, the Appeal is dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any. 15.59.14
22. The Plaintiffs are directed to answer the interrogatories by filing an Affidavit in terms of Order XI Rule 8 and 9 of the CPC within four weeks from today. CS(OS) 569/2022 & I.A. 5328/2026 List before the learned Joint Registrar on 30.07.2026 for further proceedings.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J JULY 01, 2026