Jurisdiction, Not Case Merits, Key in Section 115 CPC Reviews: Delhi High Court

85
0
Share:
tribunal notice bharat College Eviction full Bail Rape RTI Colgate National jurisdiction Bail System Bail Daughter POCSO Transactions Bail tribunal Awards section 8 Disability Statement IAS Child Statement Evidence Parole Equality evidence Divorce Rape Rape Trademark evidence marriage gst Property Merit Answer Key Divorce constitutional Harassment ListCross-Examination Termination Law Law Landlord bail Bail evidence Pregnancy University bank gst bail eviction eviction documents circumstances applicationTenant' Officer business 34 Bail Tax sexual Armed Forces investments service legal child rape property smart jurisdiction property jurisdiction power jurisdiction Absence domain violation Allegations property examination evidence criminal family Notices train principle tax bail club judicial education 148 land dv worldwide property olympics bail trademark

Delhi High Court  upheld the orders of the Additional District Judge in the ongoing civil suit between HDFC Bank Ltd and the Union of India. The case, marked under C.R.P. 243/2017, pertains to a dispute over the invocation of Bank Guarantees provided by HDFC Bank for Punwire Mobile Communications Limited and Punwire Paging Services Limited.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, presiding over the matter, dismissed the civil revision petition filed by HDFC Bank under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petition challenged the procedural aspects of witness examination and affidavit submissions in the lower court.

In his judgment, Justice Singh noted, “The approach of the petitioner is very hyper technical which this Court is not inclined to entertain.” This observation came in response to HDFC Bank’s objections regarding the timing and sequence of filing affidavits for witnesses by the Union of India.

The case revolves around the Bank Guarantees given by HDFC Bank to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), Union of India, for two sister concerns. The dispute escalated following the DoT’s invocation of these guarantees, which the bank alleged was wrongful.

The bank’s primary contention involved procedural discrepancies during the trial, specifically objecting to the late filing of an affidavit for witness DW-2 and his presence during DW-1’s cross-examination. However, the High Court found no jurisdictional error in the Trial Court’s decisions regarding the witness examination order and affidavit filings.

Justice Singh emphasized the scope and limits of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC, stating, “It is a settled law that under Section 115 of the CPC, this Court has to look only into the issue of the jurisdiction of the Court below in deciding any application and shall not go into the merits of the case.”

The judgment marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle, setting a precedent for the handling of witness examinations and affidavit submissions in civil suits. The High Court’s decision to uphold the Trial Court’s orders is seen as an affirmation of the procedural discretion granted to lower courts.

 Date of Decision: 20th December, 2023

HDFC BANK LTD  VS UNION OF INDIA

Download Judgment

Share: