M/S Jay Colour Company vs. M/S Surender Kumar Jain
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Jay Colour Company, is a defendant in a commercial suit. The petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court seeking permission to summon a witness from the GST Department. The Trial Court dismissed this application vide an order dated 29.11.2024, primarily on grounds of the defendant's conduct and delay in filing the application. The petitioner challenged this order before the Delhi High Court. During the High Court proceedings, the respondent/plaintiff stated they had no objection to the petition being allowed to avoid further delay in their suit.
Held
The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Trial Court's order. The Court noted that the Trial Court had dismissed the application primarily due to the defendant's conduct and delay. However, given that the respondent/plaintiff had no objection to the examination of the GST official, the High Court directed the Trial Court to permit the defendant/petitioner to summon the concerned official from the GST Department with relevant records. The Court clarified that this would be the only effective opportunity for the defendant. The Court also expected the petitioner to take necessary steps without undue delay, as the suit was scheduled for further consideration the following day.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Trial Court erred in disallowing the petitioner's application to summon a witness from the GST Department, considering the petitioner's conduct and delay in filing the application. The petitioner argued that the Trial Court's order was erroneous and sought permission to examine an official from the GST Department. The respondent/plaintiff, to avoid unwarranted delay in their suit, stated they had no objection to the present petition being allowed and the petitioner being granted one opportunity to examine the concerned official from the GST Department.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T (oral)
Petitioner is defending a suit, which is commercial in nature.
During pendency of the abovesaid suit, the defendant (petitioner herein) moved an application seeking permission to summon witness from GST Department. Such request has been disallowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 29.11.2024. 3. Such order is under challenge.
After hearing arguments for some time, Sh. S.B. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that in order to avoid any unwarranted delay in his own suit, he would have no objection if the present petition is allowed and one opportunity is granted to the defendant/petitioner to examine the concerned official from GST Department.
The Court has gone through the impugned order and it is quite CM(M) 4000/2024
2
evident that the application has, primarily, been dismissed on the ground of conduct of the defendant as well as delay in moving such application.
Be that as it may, since learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff has no objection to such examination, the present petition is disposed of with direction to learned Trial Court to permit the defendant/petitioner to call the concerned official from GST Department with relevant record. However, it is clarified that only one effective opportunity in this regard would be available to the defendant.
This Court expects that requisite steps required for summoning the concerned official with the relevant record, are taken without any unnecessary delay.
The suit in question is fixed for further consideration before the learned Trial Court tomorrow itself and, as undertaken today, the defendant shall move appropriate application to the abovesaid effect.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE APRIL 22, 2025 st/pb
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.