MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |    

Procedure is the Handmaid of Justice: Delhi High Court Allows Key Document in Commercial Dispute but Dismisses Affidavit of Admission/Denial at Advanced Trial Stage

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur, allowed the introduction of a critical letter dated 08.07.2022 in the ongoing legal battle between Sudhir Power Project Ltd. and Prime Meiden Pvt. Ltd., but rejected the plea to include an affidavit of admission/denial at this advanced stage of the trial.

The case hinged on the application of Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), focusing on the admissibility of additional documents submitted at a later stage in a trial. The key legal issue was balancing procedural fairness with the pursuit of substantial justice.

The dispute originated from the respondent's failure to adhere to terms in purchase orders, leading to liquidated damages imposed on the petitioner by their end customer, HSIIDC. The trial court had previously rejected the petitioner's request to include a letter and affidavit, both pivotal to the petitioner's defense.

Justice Shalinder Kaur meticulously analyzed the submissions and circumstances surrounding the delayed submission of the documents. Relying on precedents, the court observed, "procedure is the handmaid of justice," emphasizing the importance of enabling courts to uncover the truth and ensure justice.

The Court found the letter, issued after the filing of the written statement, to be relevant and the delay in its submission justifiable. However, the Court held that allowing the affidavit at this stage would not serve any purpose and might prolong the trial, which is already at the evidence stage.

The Court permitted the inclusion of the letter, recognizing its significance in the dispute. However, it declined to admit the affidavit, citing the need to avoid procedural delays and the advanced stage of the trial.

Date of Decision: March 11, 2024

Sudhir Power Project Ltd. vs Prime Meiden Pvt. Ltd.

Similar News