The Delhi High Court has held that merely alleging that a party deliberately inflated the valuation of a civil suit to oust the jurisdiction of a particular court is not sufficient grounds to justify the transfer of that case. The ruling came in response to a petition filed by two individuals challenging an order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, who had dismissed their request to transfer a civil suit pending against them. The petitioners contended that the plaintiff had deliberately raised the monetary valuation of the case to move it from the jurisdiction of the original trial court to a different forum that would be more favorable to them.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, who presided over the matter, clarified that the mere existence of such an allegation does not automatically amount to a reasonable apprehension of bias or unfairness against the court before which the case is pending. The judge observed that a party’s claim that the opposing side has enhanced the valuation of a suit for jurisdictional advantage cannot, by itself, be interpreted as a lack of faith in the impartiality of the presiding judicial officer. The court emphasized that such assertions, particularly when made in pleadings before another forum, do not establish sufficient grounds for case transfer.
The court noted that in the present case, the petitioners had not expressed any specific apprehension of bias or partiality against the judge handling the original suit. Their sole argument revolved around the alleged manipulation of the suit’s valuation by the plaintiff to alter jurisdiction. The court held that this reasoning alone was inadequate to justify a transfer, as the law requires a clear demonstration of potential prejudice or unfairness to warrant such an order.
Justice Kathpalia further observed that if every instance of a contested valuation amendment were accepted as a valid ground for transfer, it would lead to a misuse of the judicial process and unnecessary delays in litigation. Allowing such claims, he noted, would result in a situation where litigants could routinely seek transfers on speculative grounds, thereby undermining the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system. The judge stated that such an outcome would be both unreasonable and counterproductive to the principles of justice.
The High Court concluded that the petition for transfer was devoid of merit and appeared to be an attempt to prolong the legal proceedings rather than a genuine concern about fairness or bias. It dismissed the petition accordingly and imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioners, directing them to deposit the amount with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
The civil suit at the center of this dispute was titled Usha Drager Private Limited and Another versus Draegerwerk Aktiengesellschaft and Others. By dismissing the petition, the court reaffirmed that the mere act of altering suit valuation, without substantiated evidence of bias or prejudice, cannot serve as a legitimate basis for transferring a case from one court to another. The decision underscores the judiciary’s stance that allegations concerning procedural or valuation changes must be supported by concrete proof of unfairness to justify interference with ongoing proceedings.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.