The High Court of Delhi on September 25, 2025, dismissed a transfer petition filed by two individuals seeking to move a commercial suit from a District Judge at the Tis Hazari Courts. Justice Saurabh Banerjee found the petition to be based on “mere whims and fancies” and imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioners for casting “unwarranted, fictious and fallacious aspersions” on the judge.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Neeti Sharma and another, had filed a petition, TR.P.(C.) 180/2025, seeking the transfer of C.S. (COMM) No. 669/2025. This commercial suit, titled “Kailash Chand Gupta & Ors v. Neeti Sharma & Anr.,” pertains to the recovery of rent, mesne profits, and damages. It was pending before the District Judge (Commercial Court-01), Central, at Tis Hazari Courts.
The petitioners sought to transfer the case to any other competent court within the same district.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The sole ground for seeking the transfer was an incident that allegedly occurred in court on July 17, 2025. The petitioners claimed that the presiding District Judge had “addressed one of the persons standing in the Court in a friendly manner,” who they believed was associated with the respondents/plaintiffs in the suit.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Saurabh Banerjee noted several inconsistencies and a lack of candor in the petitioners’ conduct. The court observed that despite the alleged incident on July 17, 2025, the parties were referred to mediation on the same day, and the petitioners continued to appear before the same judge on subsequent dates, August 28 and September 3, 2025, without raising an issue.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the petitioners had already filed their written statement and statement of truth prior to August 28, 2025, yet failed to mention this or file these documents before the High Court.
It was also revealed that the petitioners had previously filed a similar transfer petition before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, which was withdrawn on September 18, 2025. The petitioners also failed to disclose this fact in their petition before the High Court.
The court took a stern view of the allegations against the sitting judge. Justice Banerjee stated, “The present petition is nothing but a figment of infertile imagination of the petitioners with bald assertions without any basis.”
The judgment emphasized the lack of evidence, noting that the counsel who was present during the alleged incident did not file an affidavit to support the claim. The court concluded that the petition was an attempt to make “flimsy, misleading and mythical assertions on a sitting Judge.”
In a key observation, the court held: “The petitioners by way of the present petition are trying to cast unwarranted, fictious and fallacious aspersions by making flimsy, misleading and mythical assertions on a sitting Judge of the learned Trial Court, which are not only contrary to the records before this Court but also without any backing thereto. This Court, in any event, takes a serious objection to the filing of the present petition, and that too by making and cooking up an imaginary story.”
Final Decision
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it along with any pending applications. Justice Banerjee imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioners, payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund within two weeks.
