“Cases Would Keep Hopping From Court To Court” – High Court Of Delhi On Misuse Of Section 24 Of The Civil Procedure Code

CAUSE TITLE:

Sanjay Goel V. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

DATE OF ORDER:

7th of may 2024

JUDGES:

Honeble Justice C. Hari Shankar

PARTIES TO THE CASE:

Petitioner – Sanjay Goel

Respondent – Majestic Buildcon Ovt. Ltd.

SUBJECT:

The petitioner challenged the competency of the commercial court and sought transfer to another court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS -

Section 241 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC)

Conviction on plea of guilty – under this section of civil procedure code the judge is to record the plea when the accused pleads guilty. After which, the judge under their discretion may convict the accused.

BRIEF FACTS

1. The case began due to a petition which sought the transfer of CS-04 from learned district judge to another commercial court in the same district.
2. This transfer was sought by the petitioner as they believed the commercial court – 04 to be incompetent. The petitioner challenged every order which was passed by commercial court -04 and considered it misconceived.
3. Whereas the court was of the stand that their actions occurred due to the numerous procedural irregularities and levied a fine on the defendant of rupees ten thousand due to issue of delay in filing application. 

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the commercial court-04 was adept to hear the matter despite the constant objections by the petitioners for every order passed by the court.
2. Whether the decision to not take the written statement of defendant no. 1 on record was in accordance with the law.
3. Whether the imposition of costs for delay in filing an application was justified.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY PETITIONER

1. Petitioner submits that they never conceded the competency of the kearned commercial cour – 04 raather they are stressing how the petitioner is driven to challenge every decision of the court.
2. The petitioner submits that it believes the prceedings being conducted in the commercial cour -04 to be imprudent and thus requests the court to exercise its power under section 24 and tranfer the matter.
3. Counsel while opposing the learned commercial court -04 decision of refusing to entertain the written statement, lays emphasis on the case of Prayag Polytech pvt. Ltd. V. raj kumar tulsian. wherein it was held that authentication of an affidavit in the nature of a statement of truth can be resolved.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENTS

1. The counsel stated that the period of mimitations stipulated under the commercial courts act is strict as well as non-negotiable. Therefore it was against the law to entertain a written dtatement which had well passed the condonabe period of 90 days from the dae of service of summons.
2. The court exercised its jurisdiction under the order VI rule 15A(A) and refused to enter the written statement on record.

ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT

1. The court found the petitioner's argument of the Commercial Court-04's incompetence due to challenging orders to be misconceived. The court stressed that merely petitoners choice to challenge the decisions does not render the court itself inept.
2. The court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court-04 to not take the written statement of defendant no. 1 on record, noting that the decision was based on a proper construction of the Commercial Courts Act.
3. The court deemed the imposition of a token cost of ₹10,000 for delay in filing the application as justified in the interest of expediency in commercial matters. The supreme court deemed the matter of urgency in commercial matters to be right and warranted the decision of the commercial court -04 to impose the fine.
4. The court held that if such a practice was continued the cases would keep on hopping from court to court.

CONCLUSION

The court held that this case was an example of damaging activity which has been adopted by lawyers. The court struck down the frivolous appeal by petitioner and held that the commercial court is completely competent to decide the matter.