TIER-1

    A (on behalf of her mother) filed a suit against B for recovery of money. During the trial, A filed an application under Order XI to bring on record a transcript of phone recording. Commercial Court dismissed the application. At stage of recording the evidence before local commissioner, A tendered transcript. B filed writ under article 227 challenging the recording of transcript. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under: [1]   (i)                The plaintiff through her AR sought to bring the said audio recording on record by filing an application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC, however, the Commercial Court after considering the facts and the applicable law, by its order dated 25.03.2023 categorically dismissed the said application and denied permission to place the audio recording and transcript on record.   (ii)               The order dated 25.03.2023 though interlocutory in nature has attained finality in the suit proceedings. The plaintiff cannot overreach the said ord

  A filed a commercial suit against B. B receipt the summon but failed to file WS within prescribed time. The defense was struck off. Mr. B filed writ under article 227 against the order alleging that it has received the complete paper book on a later date and limitation must commence from date of receipt of complete summon/ paper book. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under : [1] Shubham Budhiraja [2] 1.     This Court is of the opinion that if the Petitioners had sincerely not received the entire paper book with the summon on 27.07.2022; they were legally obliged to approach the Trial Court at the earliest for seeking the copy of the paper book so that written statement is filed within limitation.   2.     However, the Petitioners admittedly at no stage approached the Trial Court for supply of the paper book. The 120 days expired on 24.11.2022. No such grievance was made before the Trial Court on 19.12.2022 when the impugned order was passed.   3.     In view of the afo

  [1]   Shubham Budhiraja [2] (i)              When there is a violation, of ‘SEBI Regulations’, a ‘Member’ of a ‘Company’ cannot ask for, ‘Rectification of Register’, although, the ‘Company’, itself, can apply for such ‘Rectification.   (ii)            Under the ‘Companies Act, 2013’, a Member of a Company, is not one of them, competent, to prefer an ‘Application’, for ‘Rectification’. (i) ‘Any Depositary’, (ii) ‘The Company’, (iii) ‘The Depositary Participant’, (iv) ‘The Holder of Securities’ and / or the ‘Securities and Exchange Board of India’, can seek for ‘Rectification’ of ‘Register’.   (iii)            In granting the Application for ‘Rectification’, it is necessary, to determine other issues concerning ‘complicated’, ‘questions of Law and Fact’, and ‘disputed questions of title’, right etc. then the ‘Company Court’ / ‘Tribunal’ may direct the parties to get their disputes, decided by the ‘Competent Civil Court’, in a Trial, in appropriate proceedings as the case ma

  Shubham Budhiraja [1] Company A has filed a commercial suit against Company B regarding the recovery of money for the job work. Company B was proceeded ex-parte. The learned trial court decreed the suit. Company-B filed an appeal under Section 96 CPC r/w Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It raised two questions of law: (i) The trial court had no territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen in Delhi; (ii) The complaint was non-est in law as it was filed without a statement of truth. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that [1] :   (i)                The Legislature had, in its wisdom, intentionally laid great stress on the filing of the Statement of Truth along with the plaint, in support thereof, to reduce the time spent in the litigation by parties.   (ii)                       The delay in filing of the same may be considered as a procedural irregularity, however, the filing of the same would be mandatory. Moreover, the filing of the Statem

  Shubham Budhiraja [1] Mr. A purchased stocks through Angel Brokers. He issued Cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the payment. The cheque got dishonored by ICICI Bank. The Bank cited technical glitch as reason. Mr. A filed consumer complaint against Bank. Hon’ble State Commission partly allowed the complaint and ordered Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation. In Appeal, Hon’ble National Commission held that [2] :   (i)              In order to determine the deficiency in service, it has to be seen as if there was inadequacy in the manner of performance which is required to be maintained by the service provider.   (ii)            Nowadays entire banking activities are linked with information technology. If for any technical fault, the transaction could not be performed, then it cannot be held as deficiency in service.   (iii)          Supreme Court in  Consumer Unity & Trust Society, Jaipur Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, (1995) 2 SCC 150 , held that bank’s fa

  Shubham Budhiraja [1] Mr. A and Mr. B entered into a registered lease agreement for 3 years. On expiry of lease period, Mr. B refused to vacate the premises. Mr. A filed suit for possession against Mr. B. Mr. B failed to file defense within the stipulated time. Mr. B took a plea of ‘oral understanding’ between the parties for renewal of lease. Mr. A filed application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC seeking judgment on basis of deemed admission. The learned trial court allowed the application and passed order to evict Mr. B. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Appeal upheld the judgment and observed as under: [2]   (i)                In an unregistered rent agreement or even in an oral tenancy, the tenancy can at best be considered on a month-to-month basis, and on serving of legal notice, the said tenancy can be terminated and premises ought to be vacated by the tenant.   (ii)               The due process of law does not entitle a litigant to force the Court to blindly put all suits

        A, cold storage company , taken a fire insurance policy for the stocks stored in its storage. The stocks are owned by the farmers and cold storage company holds them in trust. The fire has happened at cold storage and entire stock & building collapsed. The Insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that; (i) there is non-disclosure of parallel insurance policy from other insurance co. for the same subject and (ii) the ownership of stocks is disputed. Hon’ble NCDRC held that: [1]   (i)              For any loss or damage of stock the cold storage is liable to compensate the owners of the stock. If the Insurance had any grievance regarding ownership of the stock, they were required to clarify the same at the time of issuing the Policy.   (ii)            After issuance of the Policy, the Insurance Company cannot evade its liability on the ground that the cold storage was not owner of the insured stock.   (iii)          That purchasing one or more c

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A took his ford Eco-sport to the service center  around 10AM. It is his case that Job card was prepared at 11AM and there was in delay commencement of service due to which Mr. A had to un-necessary waste his precious time in waiting at the workshop. Learned District Forum and State Commission held the service center  is deficient in service. Hon’ble NCDRC held that [2] :   (i)              The service center/ workshop has failed to prove one record that the vehicles of the customers were serviced, as per first-come-first serve policy.   (ii)            No evidence has been produced by the workshop regarding adherence of schedule and priority followed in carrying on the servicing of vehicles.   (iii)          The consumer was unnecessarily made to wait in the waiting room, for about more than two hours, and by that time, his vehicles were not even touched by any worker of workshop.   (iv)          Thus, there is a clear-cut deficiency

    Hon’ble Delhi High in MMTC Limited v. Aust Grain Exports , OMP (Comm) 6/2022 has held that procedural irregularities like some of the Orders not been signed by the Arbitrator and one of the Arbitrators not being present during certain Arbitral Proceeding are such which do not affect the rights of the parties or cause denial of justice to any of the parties. These irregularities are not such which may affect the decision of the Arbitrators. The Arbitral Award can suffer from irregularity but the irregularity cannot be a ground to set aside the Award unless such irregularity goes to the root of the matter and shocks the conscience of the Court thus making the Award illegal. [Shubham Budhiraja, +91-9654055315]

  Shubham Budhiraja [LLB, ACS, BCOM(H)] Budhirajalawchambers@gmail.com  Company-A has filed section 7 against company-B. The rejoinder was not taken on record because it was filed after the stipulated time. Despite this, NCLT in its order relied upon the contents of rejoinder and read it against the Company. NCLAT in appeal held that relying on aforesaid pleading/ rejoinder which is not on record is a patent illegality. [1]   (i)              On the one hand the Court has passed the effective orders for not taking on record the rejoinder filed by the Financial Creditor and on the other hand the Court has made reference to the rejoinder under the specific head created for that purpose ‘rejoinder of the petitioner’ and then recorded the findings also on the basis thereof.   (ii)            The impugned order is patently illegal as it has taken into consideration the pleadings which were not on record and therefore, the appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order is set asid

    After Delhi municipal corporation elections, mayor/ RO called for meeting for purpose of election to standing committee. After this election, RO sent notice for re-poll on basis of re-scrutiny.   The dispute is with respect to candidate number 6 who according to the Mayor/RO should be Ms. Sarika Choudhary belonging to AAP and according to the petitioners Mr. Pankaj Luthra belonging to BJP. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that [1] :   (i)              The scheme of the DMC Act, 1957 is as follows— Chapter II of the DMC Act, 1957 deals with the establishment of Corporations .   (ii)            Section 35(1) provides that a corporation shall at its first meeting in each year, elect one of its members to be the chairperson, who is known as the mayor and another member to be the Deputy Mayor of the corporation. Section 3 provides for the establishment of the municipal corporation. Sub-section 3 of Section 3 then indicates the composition of the corporation.   (iii)