Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Delhi High Court Grants Final Opportunity for Sole Witness Examination in Ejectment Suit

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi High Court, presided over by HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, granted a significant legal decision in a civil suit titled ‘MGR Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Loil Overseas Foods Ltd.’. The ruling addressed the crucial issue of permitting the examination of a sole witness in a case involving ejectment and recovery of mesne profits.

The court, in its observation, emphasized the importance of granting the petitioner a final opportunity for the examination of its sole witness. The judgment stated, “With the consent of the parties, the Petitioner is permitted to lead evidence of the sole defendant witness Sh. Balbir Singh Uppal on 11.12.2023 on the following terms.” This decision underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case.

The legal point emphasized in this judgment pertains to the discretion exercised by the court in allowing the examination of a sole witness. The court’s decision, based on the facts and law, emphasized that this opportunity is granted with strict terms and conditions. The court noted, “The Petitioner will not seek any adjournment, on account of the inconvenience of the witness and shall ensure that the examination and cross-examination of the witness are concluded on the date(s) fixed by the Trial Court.”

Furthermore, the court clarified that if the petitioner fails to lead evidence as per the specified terms, the previous orders of the Trial Court shall become operative. This decision underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring the timely and fair resolution of legal disputes.

Date of Decision: December 7, 2023

LOIL OVERSEAS FOODS LTD.  VS MGR HOLDING.

Latest Legal News