Introduction:
The case before us is Atcom Technology Co. Ltd Vs Rahul Gupta, with a Neutral Citation Number of 2023/DHC/001263. It involves a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which pertains to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. The petition challenges an order passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) on July 4, 2022, allowing the defendants to take certain documents on record.
Background:
The proceedings arise from CS (Comm) 179/2020, a suit initiated by Atcom Technology Co. Ltd against Rahul Gupta and others. The defendants sought to introduce documents that were not initially filed with their written statement. The Commercial Court allowed this, subject to a cost, but the plaintiff argued that this was contrary to Rule 14 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The plaintiff petitioned under Article 227, claiming that the Commercial Court's order should be set aside.
Relevant Provision of Law Applicable:
Article 227 of the Constitution of India grants the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction. This power is to ensure that these bodies act within their authority and in a legally expected manner. However, this power is not to be used to correct all wrong decisions but only in cases of serious dereliction of duty or violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.
Issue of the Case:
The primary issue is whether the High Court, in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, can interfere with the Commercial Court's decision to allow the defendants to take additional documents on record. This involves determining if the Commercial Court's order constitutes a serious dereliction of duty or a violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.
Reason of the Court:
The High Court, in its judgment, noted that the Supreme Court had advocated a liberal approach in admitting additional documents when the trial has not yet commenced. The High Court also considered the distinction between "good cause" and "sufficient cause" when allowing belated filing of documents, with "good cause" requiring a lower degree of proof. The High Court, in considering the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, found sufficient cause for the belated filing of documents by the defendants.
Final Decision:
The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Commercial Court's order. It held that there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the Commercial Court's decision under its supervisory jurisdiction. The High Court emphasized that its role under Article 227 is not to reappreciate evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the inferior court but to correct grave injustices or flagrant violations of law.
Case Citation: Atcom Technology Co. Ltd Vs Rahul Gupta: 20.02.2023: 2023/DHC/001263: CS (Comm) 179/2020: DHC: C Hari Shankar, H.J.
Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United
Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
