TIER-1

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A subscribed to the chit tickets of chit fund company. The chit company stopped the business and Mr. A instituted consumer case seeking refund of deposits made in chit fund. The chit company took a plea that Mr. A is not a consumer because transaction is for commercial purpose. The Learned District Forum, Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble NCDRC favoured the complainant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under [2] :   (i)              To file a complaint, one must be a complainant and for one to be a complainant, he must be a consumer. If a person fails to come within the definition of a consumer, he cannot be a complainant and therefore, such person cannot file a complaint under the Act.   (ii)            The definition of consumer has three parts. The significance of deconstructing the definition into three part...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A filed suit for deceleration of easement rights against Mr. B. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was nowhere pleaded in plaint that right was exercised for more than 20 years. Mere saying right was exercised for many years is not equal to 20 years. The evidence cannot go beyond pleadings. The deposition of POA can only of facts within his personal knowledge and not of someone else. Hence, suit fails. [2]     1.    The Power of Attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transaction cannot be examined as a witness.   2.    The functions of the General Power of Attorney holder cannot be delegated to any other person without there being a specific clause permitting such delegation in the Power of Attorney; meaning thereby ordinarily there cannot be any sub-delegation.                    ...

  Shubham Budhiraja [LLB, ACS, BCOM(H)],   Budhirajalawchambers@gmail.com , +91-9654055315 The Hon’ble NCLAT, New Delhi in the case of M/s Murphy Steel v. M/s Gujarat Wedge Wire Screens Limited , Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 171/2024 upheld the NCLT’s order wherein claim of operational creditor was dismissed for barred by limitation. This is a case where operational creditor set up a plea of running account to justify 26 invoices. All these invoices were of period between 2011 to 2016 whereas section 9 petition was filed in September 2020. The Learned NCLT dismissed the petition being time barred. The Hon’ble NCLAT upheld the findings of Learned NCLT and held that there is no document/agreement between the two parties which evidences running account payment underlying their business operations. In the absence of any documentary evidence which provides foundational basis to the claim that there was a running account, the decision in Shri Abhinandan Jain v. Tanaya En...

  Shubham Budhiraja Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that it is not the award amount but the claim amount + counter claim amount that determines pecuniary jurisdiction under section 34. [OMP (Comm) 465/2022]   (i)                  Under Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court is attracted in a suit valued at over Rs. 2 crores .   (ii)                 Section 12(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, relevant for valuation of these petitions under Section 34 of the Act, provides that the “specified value ” in an arbitration of a commercial dispute will include the value of both the claims and counter claims.   (iii)               Under Section 2(1)(e) ...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A filed a recovery suit against Mr. B. Mr. B filed the written statement to which Mr. A field the objection. The Learned Court through one of order observed that the written statement is not in compliance with Order VI Rule 15A. Mr. A thereafter filed an application for striking off Mr. B’s pleadings (WS) for non-compliance of provisions of commercial courts act, 2015. Mr. B filed an application for curing the defects. The Learned Trial Court allowed Mr. B’s application and strike off the pleadings. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court set aside the trial court’s order and held as under: [2]   (I)                 In FMC Corporation and Anr. v. NATCO Pharma Ltd ., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2074 wherein similarly the Court held that an application for amendment seeking to cure the defects in verification and pleading should be permitted liberally and a party should not be no...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for recovery of rent and possession against B. Later suit was withdrawn and fresh commercial suit filed. B filed application for amendment of WS to incorporate changes such as to correct typo error in suit property, etc. The trial court rejected the application and allowed plaintiff application for judgment on admission. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court affirmed the order and held that: [2]     (i)                  The provision under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of pleading was restored by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 with certain modifications. Post amendment, no application for amendment of pleadings shall, be allowed unless the Court concludes that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.   (ii)       ...

    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)             ...