MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

A Litigant’s Right to Cross-Examine Cannot Be Denied in a Nonchalant Way: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The primary legal issue revolved around the right to cross-examine witnesses and the admissibility of additional documents in a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The dispute concerned property transactions involving the late Guru Dutt Chhabra. After his demise, his legal heirs, led by Anita Chhabra, sought recovery of Rs. 66,00,000 from the petitioner, Surender Kumar. The trial court had denied Kumar the right to cross-examine witnesses and dismissed his application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC for challenging the admissibility of certain documents.

Justice Kaur observed, “The cross-examination of a witness is to be conducted to elucidate the credibility of testimony of a witness and is an important tool to extract truth from the evidence of the witness. Therefore, such an important right cannot be denied to a litigant in a nonchalant way.” The court overturned the trial court’s decision, reinstating the petitioner’s right to cross-examine.

The court upheld the admissibility of additional documents, noting, “While permitting the relief of amendment based on ‘new documents’, this Court allowed the respondents to place the documents annexed with application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on record.” However, it was emphasized that these documents are subject to the test of admissibility and relevancy.

The High Court of Delhi set aside the trial court’s order denying the petitioner’s right to cross-examine witnesses and upheld the decision to admit additional documents into the record, with the caveat regarding their admissibility and relevancy.

Date of Decision: February 29, 2024

Surender Kumar Vs. Anita Chhabra & Ors.

Latest Legal News