LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

First Appeal from Order (Commercial) · 2026:DHC:8636-DBDecided 5 Oct 2026New Delhi Bench
FAO (COMM) 72/2024CNR: DLHC010226122024
Justice Bharat Parashar · Justice Anil Kshetarpal

Background

The respondent supplied fancy dress material worth Rs. 4,78,000 to the school on an invoice dated 6 January 2020, and an advance of Rs. 1,00,000 was paid. The balance of Rs. 3,78,000 was covered by seven cheques of Rs. 50,000 each, all of which were returned unpaid. The school blamed the closure of schools during the pandemic and claimed cash payments of Rs. 1,78,000, while the respondent denied receiving any payment beyond the advance. The school's application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, seeking to set aside the decree passed against it, was dismissed by the District Judge (Commercial Court) on 11 March 2024.

Decision Breakdown

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.

Lesson Learnt

An application to set aside a decree must show "sufficient cause" through genuine diligence and good faith, and a defendant that does not act diligently is unlikely to succeed. Cheques that bounce can strongly support a supplier's claim where payments are disputed.

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

Umendra Exports Private Limited vs. Four Cubes Investments Ltd & Ors.

The High Court held the lawsuit actually contained two legally distinct disputes: one over unpaid sale money (with a real Delhi connection, since payment was due and partly received in a Delhi bank account) and one over the transport arrangement (governed by its own jurisdictional rules pointing more toward Mumbai). Joining both in one suit does not transplant jurisdiction from one claim to the other. The Court set aside the order returning the entire plaint and remanded the case, allowing the exporter to amend or elect which claims to pursue in Delhi before jurisdiction is redecided.

Decided 28 Sept 2026Read case