Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |    

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

Similar News