Interrogatories as a Tool to Unearth Controversy: Relevance Not Restricted to Strict Pleadings

1. Case Snapshot

• Case Name: Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd Through Its Authorized Signatory & Anr. vs Sumit Agarwal & Ors.

• Citation: 2026:DHC:5299

• High Court: High Court of Delhi

• Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad

• Date of Judgment: July 1, 2026

• Area of Law: Civil Procedure – Interrogatories under Order XI CPC; Discovery; Injunction Suits

2. Judgment in Brief

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Chamber Appeal filed by Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. (BALCO) and Vedanta Limited challenging an order allowing the defendants to deliver interrogatories. The plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing, creating nuisance, and making defamatory statements on social media. The defendants sought leave to deliver interrogatories seeking details about committees constituted by the plaintiffs, settlement offers made, and internal deliberations. The Joint Registrar allowed the interrogatories, and the plaintiffs appealed. The High Court upheld the order, holding that interrogatories are an important tool to unearth the truth and that the questions sought were relevant to the controversy. The Court emphasized that interrogatories need not be restricted to strict pleadings and can reveal facts in the exclusive knowledge of the other party.

3. Relevant Facts

• The Plaintiffs: BALCO (a Public Sector Undertaking producing 20% of India's aluminium) and Vedanta Limited (a diversified natural resources company). The Government of India disinvested 51% shares of BALCO to Sterlite Industries (a Vedanta subsidiary).

• The Defendants: Defendant No.1 is the Managing Director of Sterling Enamelled Wires Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No.3). Defendant No.2 is his wife.

• Background Dispute: In December 2019, Defendant No.1 approached BALCO with grievances against JP Engineers Pvt. Ltd. regarding a transaction for purchase of aluminium produced by BALCO. BALCO had no direct business transaction but acted as a facilitator to resolve the dispute between Defendant No.3 and JP Engineers.

• Minutes of Meeting: A meeting was facilitated on January 3, 2020, resulting in a Minutes of Meeting where it was expressly recorded that BALCO was not a party to the dispute and only acted as a facilitator.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.