The Delhi High Court has allowed ITC Limited to serve limited interrogatories and seek production of select documents from DAV Industries LLP in a commercial suit alleging trademark infringement, holding that such disclosure was necessary to enable the plaintiff to assess the scale of alleged infringing activities and quantify damages.
The application was filed by the plaintiff seeking leave to serve interrogatories and obtain production of documents from the defendant under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as applicable to commercial suits). The suit had reached the stage of recording of plaintiff’s evidence. The defendant had not filed a written statement, and the allegation of trademark infringement stood undisputed. The plaintiff sought disclosure of information to ascertain the scale of the defendant’s business under the impugned trademark for the purpose of assessing damages.
The plaintiff submitted that the defendant had claimed, in official trademark registration records, that it was carrying on extensive business across India using the impugned mark. On this basis, the plaintiff sought disclosure of relevant documents and information. It was further submitted that the local commissioner’s exercise could not be completed due to the defendant’s conduct.
The defendant opposed the application contending that answering the interrogatories would amount to self-incrimination. It was further argued that since the plaintiff had sought both damages and rendition of accounts, the plaintiff must first elect between the two remedies before seeking interrogatories or production of documents.
The Court observed that, in the absence of a written statement and given that a local commissioner’s exercise could not be completed due to alleged obstruction by the defendant, interrogatories had the potential to elicit admissions on material aspects of the case. It noted that the defendant, having offered no defence to the infringement allegation and having itself claimed extensive business operations, was bound to answer relevant interrogatories even if they supported the plaintiff’s claim.
However, the Court found that not all interrogatories and documents sought were relevant, holding that several queries amounted to an impermissible fishing and roving enquiry into third-party entities and internal operations unrelated to assessing infringement or damages.
Accordingly, the application was partly allowed, and the defendant was directed to answer specific interrogatories relating to licences, registrations, GST and excise details, and to produce limited documents including balance sheets and details of prior or pending IP-related litigation. The remaining interrogatories were declined.
The Court directed that the responses and documents be furnished within four weeks. The suit, which is currently at the stage of recording of plaintiff’s evidence, has been listed for further proceedings on April 21, 2026.
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr. Ashok Nagrath, Advocates
