Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd Through Its Authorized Signatory & Anr. vs Sumit Agarwal & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Date of decision: 01 JULY, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
O.A. 48/2026 & I.A. 5327/2026
IN
+ CS(OS) 569/2022 & I.A. 5328/2026
BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY & ANR. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Ms.
Vasudha Sen, Mr. Vineet Wadhwa,
Ms. Somya, Advs.
versus
SUMIT AGARWAL & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Tarang Agarwal and Mr.
Anubhav Seth, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
I.A. 5327/2026
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
15.59.14
CS(OS) 569/2022 Page 1 of 13
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-lead-
silver, 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
15.59.14
CS(OS) 569/2022 Page 2 of 13
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
15.59.14
CS(OS) 569/2022 Page 3 of 13
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
15.59.14
CS(OS) 569/2022 Page 4 of 13
Plaintiffs in the eyes of public. It is stated that due to the afore-
mentioned 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,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
15.59.14
CS(OS) 569/2022 Page 5 of 13
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
15.59.14
CS(OS) 569/2022 Page 6 of 13
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
15.59.14
CS(OS) 569/2022 Page 7 of 13
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
Registrar that the interrogatories are completely beyond the scope of the Suit
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
15.59.14
CS(OS) 569/2022 Page 8 of 13
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
“ 1. Discovery by interrogatories.— In any suit the
plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver
interrogatories in writing for the examination of the
opposite parties or any one or more of such parties
and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a
note at the foot thereof stating which of such
interrogatories each of such person is required to
answer: Provided that no party shall deliver more than
one set of interrogatories to the same party without an
order for that purpose: Provided also that
interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in
question in the suit shall be deemed irrelevant,
notwithstanding that they might be admissible on the
oral cross-examination of a witness.
2. Particular interrogatories to be submitted. —On an
application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the
particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered
shall be submitted to the Court 3 [and that court shall
decide within seven days from the day of filing of the
said application]. In deciding upon such application,
the Court shall take into account any offer, which may
be made by the party sought to be interrogated to
deliver particulars, or to make admissions, or to
produce documents relating to the matters in question,
or any of them, and leave shall be given as to such only
of the interrogatories submitted as the Court shall
consider necessary either for disposing fairly of the
suit or for saving costs.”
xxx
“ Section 30. Power to order discovery and the like.
Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
15.59.14
CS(OS) 569/2022 Page 9 of 13
prescribed, the Court may, at any time, either of its
own motion or on the application of any party,—
(a) make such orders as may be necessary or
reasonable in all matters relating to the delivery and
answering of interrogatories, the admission of
documents and facts, and the discovery, inspection,
production, impounding and return of documents or
other material objects producible as evidence;
(b) issue summonses to persons whose attendance is
required either to give evidence or to produce
documents or such other objects as aforesaid;
(c) order any fact to be proved by affidavit.”
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
15.59.14
CS(OS) 569/2022 Page 10 of 13
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 hyper-
technical 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 cross-
examination 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)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
15.59.14
CS(OS) 569/2022 Page 11 of 13
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
15.59.14
CS(OS) 569/2022 Page 12 of 13
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
S. Zakir /JR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA
Signing Date:02.07.2026
15.59.14
CS(OS) 569/2022 Page 13 of 13