Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rethinking Access to Justice: Proposing a Client-Choice Bar-Integrated Model as a Viable Alternative to the LADC System Delhi Police Grants Permission To Advocates To Protest At Jantar Mantar On August 7 Over LADC Concerns Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Courts Cannot Be Held Hostage to Technicalities: Delhi HC Sets Aside Orders for Non-Recording of Written Statement

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur on March 27, 2024, addressed significant legal points surrounding the procedural intricacies in commercial litigation. The court was tasked with adjudicating the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Raj Kumar Nair, challenging orders of the Learned District Judge (Commercial) which involved non-recording of his written statement and dismissal of his application for condonation of delay in a dispute against UCO Bank.

The pivotal legal question revolved around the application of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC in the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act. The court examined whether the Proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, which sets a time limit for filing a written statement, could be relaxed under specific circumstances.

Raj Kumar Nair, the petitioner, found himself entangled in a legal battle with UCO Bank over a commercial suit after his father’s demise left him uninformed about the business transactions. The suit escalated when Nair's written statement was not recorded owing to a delay in filing. His subsequent application for condonation of delay was dismissed by the Commercial Court, leading to the current petition.

Justice Shalinder Kaur critically analyzed the applicability of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC and the court's discretion under the Proviso. She observed, “The peculiar facts and circumstances of the case... the petitioner was not prompt in giving the details of the case and the defenses to be prepared on his behalf which had caused the delay of 17 days in filing the written statement.” The judgment recognized the need for flexibility in procedural laws, especially in cases involving unique circumstances.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 11.04.2023 and 17.10.2023, accepting the written statement on record and condoning the 17-day delay. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent, balancing the principles of law and equity.

Date of Decision: March 27, 2024

Raj Kumar Nair vs UCO Bank

 

Latest Legal News