On September 25, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by two persons seeking transfer of a commercial case from a District Judge of Tis Hazari Court. Justice Saurabh Banerjee found the petition to be based on “imagination and wishful thinking” and imposed a fine of ₹50,000 on the petitioners for making “unfair, fictitious and misleading allegations” against the judge.
Background of the case
The petitioners, Neeti Sharma and another, filed T.R.P.(C.) 180/2025 seeking transfer of C.S. (C.M.) No. 669/2025. The commercial case titled “Kailash Chand Gupta and Others vs. Neeti Sharma and Others” relates to recovery of rent, intermediary profits and compensation. The case was pending in the Tis Hazari Court before the District Judge (Commercial Court-01), Central Court.
The petitioners sought transfer of the case to another competent court in the same district.
Petitioner’s Argument
The sole basis for transfer was an alleged incident that occurred in the court on July 17, 2025. The petitioners claimed that the District Judge “spoke in a friendly manner to a person standing in the court”, whom they believed was with the defendant/plaintiffs in the case.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Saurabh Banerjee found several inconsistencies and lack of clarity in the conduct of the petitioners. The court noted that despite the alleged incident on July 17, 2025, the parties were sent for 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 any issues.
Further, the court noted that the petitioners had already filed their written statement and statement of facts before August 28, 2025, yet they failed to mention this information or submit these documents to the High Court.
It was also learnt that the petitioners had earlier filed a similar transfer application before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge (Central) of the Tis Hazari Court, which was withdrawn on September 18, 2025. The petitioners did not disclose this information in their application to the High Court.
The court took a sharp view of the allegations against the sitting judge. Justice Banerjee said, “This application is nothing but a figment of the wild imagination of the petitioners, which has no basis.”
The judgment emphasised the lack of evidence, noting that the lawyer present at the time of the alleged incident did not file an affidavit in support of the claim. The court concluded that the application was an attempt to make “frivolous, misleading and fabricated claims against a sitting judge”.
In a significant observation, the court said: “By this petition, the petitioners are attempting to make an unjust, fictitious and false allegation against a sitting judge of the lower court, which is not only contrary to the record of this court but also has no basis. This court, in any event, takes serious objection to the filing of this petition, which too creates a fictitious story.”
Final decision
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it and all the pending petitions. Justice Banerjee imposed a fine of ₹50,000 on the petitioners, which is to be deposited with the Delhi High Court within two weeks. The amount will be paid to the High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Social Security and Welfare Fund.”
