SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Valtrom Technology Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
JPM Industries Limited - Respondent
CM(M) 1342 of 2022 & CM Appl. 52052 of 2022
Decided On : 01-12-2022




A party's inaction and failure to follow legal procedures bars them from claiming injustice in court proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act - The petitioners challenged the forfeiture of their right to file a written statement, citing deficiencies in document legibility. However, their failure to take necessary steps to rectify the situation led to dismissal. Court found no infraction of law from the Trial Court. (Paras 1-10)

(B) Right to be heard - The principle that failure to act in accordance with legal procedures precludes a party from claiming injustice. (Paras 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, defendants in a commercial suit, argued that their ability to file a written statement was hampered due to illegible documents, but did not formally raise these objections before the Trial Court.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Trial Court's order, noting the petitioners' inaction and failure to document their attempts to obtain clear copies.

Issues: The key issues included the petitioners' right to file a written statement and the justification behind the Trial Court's forfeiture of that right.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that a party cannot claim injustice after failing to take necessary legal steps and that the jurisdiction of the Trial Court was exercised correctly.

Result: Present petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)--By way of the present petition, the petitioners, who are defendants before the Trial Court challenges the order dated 02.08.2022 whereby, the right of the petitioners to file written statement was forfeited.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per the order dated 02.04.2022, it has been observed that the notice was served upon petitioners on 25.02.2022, however, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on that date had made a specific submission that certain pages of the documents forming part of the plaint were not legible and for that reason the petitioners were unable to file the written statement.

3. Learned counsel submits that subsequently, despite requesting the counsel for the respondent, the said deficiency in the copies of the documents furnished to the petitioners were not made good. Learned counsel submits that number of telephonic calls were made but got no response at all.

4. Learned counsel submits that all these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court while passing order dated 02.08.2022.

5. From a perusal of the record, it appears that counsel for the petitioners, who had appeared on 02.04.2022 had in fact mentioned this fact, however, on that date, the Presiding Officer of the Court was transferred and that noting was made by the Court Officer.

6. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the counsel for the petitioners had made numerous attempts to obtain the copies of the illegible documents from the counsel for the respondent telephonically and otherwise, it is clear that no notice to the counsel for the respondent or even an application to the learned Trial Court was ever made by the petitioners till date of the impugned order.

7. The present petition arises out of a suit falling within the Commercial Courts Act, and therefore, the prescription and the timelines provided therein are to be construed strictly.

8. That apart, the petitioners have utterly failed to place on record even one written document, in support of his contention that it was a bona fide attempt in the right earnest to obtain the copies of the illegible documents from the counsel for the respondent.

9. Having kept quiet and not taking steps in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot be heard to claim that injustice has been meted out to it.

10. In view of the above, this Court does not deem it fit nor does it find any infraction of law so far as the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the learned Trial Court is concerned and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is not inclined to interfere with it.

11. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications are dismissed in accordance with law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top