Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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