The Delhi High Court overturned an improper transfer of a commercial suit, rejecting unsubstantiated allegations of bias against the trial judge. It restored the case to the original court, stressing due process and judicial integrity.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling that underscores the importance of due process in case transfers, the Delhi High Court has reversed an order of the Principal District & Sessions Judge that had shifted a commercial suit to a different court on allegations of judicial bias. Justice Girish Kathpalia reinstated the case before District Judge (Commercial Court) Sh. Rakesh Pandit, holding that the transfer had been made in disregard of established legal safeguards.
The matter, Bull Value Incorporated VCC Sub-Fund vs. Delphi World Money Ltd, involved a challenge to a transfer order passed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
ALSO READ: Judge Reeta Kaushik Promoted Despite Atul Subhash’s Rs 3 Crore Bribe Allegations
Background
The commercial suit was instituted in mid-November 2025. Within days, the judge originally handling the matter recused himself, and the defendant attempted a transfer petition, which was later withdrawn.
On November 27, the Principal District & Sessions Judge rejected another transfer request but directed the Commercial Court to determine the sequence for hearing two pending applications:
- one seeking the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, and
- another seeking interim relief under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 CPC.
Later that afternoon, the Commercial Court partly heard arguments on the Order VII Rule 10 plea and adjourned the matter to December 1, while instructing parties to maintain the status quo.
The following day, the defendant approached the Principal District & Sessions Judge again, claiming that the Commercial Court’s handling of the hearing and specifically the status quo direction, reflected bias. This second transfer application was allowed, prompting the challenge before the High Court.
High Court Observation
One allegation raised before the transfer court was that the Commercial Court judge had reportedly logged into a High Court virtual hearing involving the same case. Justice Kathpalia described this claim as “shocking,” noting that if such an incident had occurred, it should have been immediately brought to the High Court’s notice.
While examining the transfer order, the High Court highlighted several procedural lapses:
- Whether a transfer could be ordered without first inviting the judge’s response to the allegations of bias.
- Whether the Principal District & Sessions Judge could dictate the order in which a trial court must hear pending applications while considering a Section 24 CPC plea.
- Whether a routine status quo order, passed at the end of a hearing, could reasonably give rise to a perception of bias.
- Whether the transfer, based solely on unverified allegations, would have a demoralizing impact on the judicial officer.
The Court emphasized that transfer of cases on claims of bias must follow strict procedural discipline because such allegations strike at the integrity of the judiciary.
During the hearing, counsel for the respondent stated that they had instructions to agree to the restoration of the case before the original court. Accepting the concession, the High Court set aside the transfer order and redirected the suit back to District Judge Sh. Rakesh Pandit.
Both parties have been instructed to appear before the said court on December 12, 2025, to continue arguments in compliance with earlier Division Bench directions.
The High Court also directed that its order be sent immediately to the office of the Principal District & Sessions Judge for necessary follow-up.
Case Title:
BULL VALUE INCORPORATED VCC SUB-FUND versus DELPHI WORLD MONEY LTD
CM(M) 2349/2025, CM APPL. 76250/2025 & CM APPL. 76249/2025
READ ORDER
Read More Reports On Judiciary
