Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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

Latest Legal News