LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Girish Kumar Jain vs. UCO Bank

Regular First Appeal · 2026:DHC:8152Decided 22 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
RFA 634/2026CNR: DLHC010292852026
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Background

Girish Kumar Jain had leased a commercial property to UCO Bank from 1994. The electricity connection to the property was disconnected in 2006 after an electricity-theft case was registered (Jain blamed the Bank's excessive load; the Bank denied any theft). The Bank vacated in 2008, but Jain claimed he could not re-let the property until 2013 because electricity could not be restored, and sued the Bank for Rs. 9,94,000/- in lost rent (at Rs. 24,000/month) for a three-year period, plus interest. The trial court dismissed the suit, and Jain appealed.

Decision Breakdown

The High Court held that a claimant for damages must show he took all reasonable steps to mitigate his loss, and Jain had failed to prove that arranging an alternative electricity supply (which he eventually did in 2013, by drawing power from another of his own properties) was actually unavailable to him any earlier: he provided no evidence about when that alternative arrangement could have been made. Separately, the Court found Jain had not proved the claimed rental rate of Rs. 24,000/month with "reasonable certainty," since his only evidence was a 2013 lease at a different rate, while an earlier court had found the property's real 2006 rental value to be far lower, and he presented no evidence (advertisements, broker testimony, rejected tenant offers) that the property actually sat vacant solely because of the missing electricity. The appeal was dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

A claimant seeking damages for financial loss must not only prove the wrongdoing but must also prove (with real evidence, not just assertions) both that they took reasonable steps to minimise their own loss and the actual amount of the loss: vague claims about lost rent, without supporting proof of market rate or genuine efforts to re-let the property, will not succeed in court.

Search on eCourtsView Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case