TIER-1

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed an infringement suit against B. The issues were framed by the court and local commissioner was appointed. The evidence affidavit field by parties but evidence yet to be recorded. A, plaintiff filed application under O24 R1 CPC seeking an additional issue to be framed on rendition of accounts. B opposed the same on ground that there is no question of rendition of accounts because dispute is as per terms of license agreement which does not contain any such condition of statement of account. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the court while framing an issue need not go into the fact that whether any of the parties would be ultimately able to prove the aforesaid issue or not. An application for framing additional issues cannot be rejected only on the ground of delay, if otherwise, the Court is of the view that additional issues are required to be framed in the facts and circumstances of the case. [2]   (I)              In terms of Order XIV Rule

      Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a commercial suit against B. B, in response filed the written statement and A filed the replication. The issues were framed and evidence affidavit was field. A, filed application under O XI CPC to place on record additional documents on the ground that they are in response to counter the B’s defence. Hon’ble Delhi High Court while rejecting the application held that: [2]   (i)              In a commercial suit, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to file additional documents at any stage of the suit on the ground that the same are in response to the case set up by the defendant in the written statement. Permitting a party to file additional documents at any stage would make a complete mockery of Order XI of the CPC as applicable to commercial suits.   (ii)            The whole object of the aforesaid provisions of the CPC pertaining to commercial suits would be defeated if a party is permitted to file additional documents at any sta

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A filed a partition suit against Mr. B. Mr. B took a defence that ad-valorem fees were not paid and there is already a will. The Hon’ble Court held that in the case of joint / co-owner unless ouster is pleaded, only fixed court fee to be paid. Merely because Mr. A married to a US citizen and she's living there doesn't mean she is not in possession of property. It further held that Mr. B can take a defence of will even if will is not probated. In Delhi, the Probate of a Will is not mandatory and if there is a challenge raised to the title of the defendants in any proceedings, they cannot be rendered remediless to set up the Wills in support of their claim to a share in property. Merely non-seeking of Probate by the defendant, would not render the Wills invalid nor are they debarred under law to rely on the Wills to establish their title to the suit property. [2]     (I)                 In Prakash Wati vs Dayawanti , (1990) 42 DLT 421, th

      Whether increase of pecuniary jurisdiction in IBC in year 2020 has any impact on maintainability of IBC petition filed in 2019 but registered /listed in 2021 i.e. after enhancement? Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A filed section 9 application against B in 2019 but the same got registered in 2021. i.e., after 24/03/2020 notification wherein threshold limit was raised to 1 crore. Hon’ble NCLT dismissed the application for want of threshold limit of 1 crore. Hon’ble NCLAT held that [2] :   (i)                  The application was filed in the year 2019 and the subsequent registration of application will not change the date of filing.   (ii)                 on the date of filing of the application, the threshold which was to be fulfilled was Rupees One Lakh only and not Rs. 1 crore.   (iii)               The impugned order is set aside and the application under Section 9 is revived before the Adjudicating Authority to be heard and decided in accordance with law. 

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A, NRI, issued 3 drafts for the purchase of 3 flats. Two drafts were of June dated and one is of July. The two drafts were in the name of XYZ builders. The current account no. 100 was in the name of XYZ builders Pvt. Ltd. whereas current account no. 200 was in in the name of XYZ builders opened by Mr. B, as his sole proprietor, when he was director of XYZ builders Pvt. Ltd. The two drafts got credited to the account of XYZ builders. Mr. A alleged that he was not aware of the separate company account and that director Mr. B has colluded with bank’s employee and has played fraud against him. Hon’ble State Commission and NCDRC allowed the complaint. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that [2] :   (i)                  The proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commissio