Delhi High Court Rejects Cafe Brown Sugar's Plea To Add Documents, Calls Diwali Cleaning Claim Illogical

On 29 October, the Delhi High Court refused to allow Cafe Brown Sugar Pvt. Ltd. to place additional documents on record in its trademark dispute with Vyom Foodcraft Pvt. Ltd. and Richa Jalani, and rejected its explanation that the records were discovered during Diwali cleaning.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the documents had remained in Cafe Brown Sugar's own godown and storerooms when it filed the suit and that the company had merely chosen to search for them later. The Court remarked:

“That it is not a case of documents being discovered subsequently, but of the plaintiff having chosen to discover them subsequently; and that the reason and justification put forth by the plaintiff for seeking leave, namely, the discovery of the documents during a Diwali cleaning, is not only untrue but also extremely illogical.”

The suit concerns the alleged infringement of Cafe Brown Sugar's “BROWN SUGAR” family of trademarks. The company claims to have used the marks for food products and restaurant services since 2000, while the defendants' trademark applications claim use from 26 October 2010.

It sought permission to introduce sales invoices and ledgers, purchase bills, promotional material and tax deduction certificates dating from 2003 to 2011. It also claimed to have traced these records during a Diwali cleaning exercise in 2025. It also submitted that its business had previously been managed by the authorised representative's late husband and that she took over its management only in 2018.

Rejecting this explanation, the Court noted that Cafe Brown Sugar had already filed purchase invoices from 2001, sales invoices from 2003 and a sales account for 2004–05 along with the plaint. The overlap showed that the company had access to the very records it now sought to introduce. It observed:

“A party cannot, by deferring the search of its own records to a time of its convenience, convert documents which were always in its custody into subsequently discovered documents.”

Further, the Bench held that the change in the person managing Cafe Brown Sugar's affairs could not justify the non-disclosure, as the company itself had retained custody of its records.

It emphasised that commercial suits require strict compliance with the disclosure requirements under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which permits the late filing of documents only where reasonable cause is established.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed Cafe Brown Sugar's application, holding that the company had failed to establish reasonable cause for producing the additional documents. It directed that the documents would not form part of the suit record.

The matter is listed next on 9 December 2026.