The power of superintendence over all courts by the high court: High Court Of New Delhi

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 1st September 2021, and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL, in the matter MED FRESH PVT LTD  V. HLL INFRATECH SERVICES LIMITED & ORS. dealt with an issue mentioned above.

The application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking waiver of cost imposed by the Trial CM(M) 957/2021 Court, while allowing amendment application of the petitioner, has been dismissed.

Later the vide order which was dated on 30th May 2019, the Trial Court rejected the plea of the petitioner for grant of interim injunction, to restrain the defendants no. 1 and 3 in the suit proceedings from invoking the aforesaid bank guarantee. They also mentioned that an amendment application was filed on behalf of the petitioner, only limited to the purpose of adding a relief concerning the recovery of the amount invoked under the bank guarantee.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the amendment was only procedural and consequent to subsequent events, the same should have been allowed without the imposition of any costs. He also states that no reasons have been given in the order dated 6th March 2021 for the imposition of costs.

It was further contended that the impugned order wrongly records that:

  • The costs of Rs.25,000/- was imposed by the order dated 6th March 2021, whereas costs of Rs. 20,000/- had been imposed.
  • The said amendment application was filed on 20th February 2020 instead of 20th February 2021.

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 on advance notice submits that the written statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 CM(M) 957/2021 was already on record when the amendment application was allowed, however, he cannot seriously dispute the contention that the amendment carried out was only procedural and consequential to the bank guarantee being invoked.

Ordinarily, It was mentioned that this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be loathed to interfere with orders of this nature passed by the Commercial Court, however, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the costs imposed by the Commercial Court in the present case would have to be borne by the counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Commercial Court.

The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it believed that- “In the facts and circumstance of the case, the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court is set aside. The amended plaint be taken on record without payment of costs. The present petition is disposed of in above terms”.

Click here for judgment

Judgment Reviewed By: Mandira BS 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat