UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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