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 Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court

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