Mere Wrong Decision Without Anything More Not Enough To Attract Jurisdiction Under Article 227: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

"…it may be noted that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being one of judicial superintendence cannot be exercised to upset conclusions, howsoever erroneous they may be, unless there was something grossly wrong or unjust in the impugned order shocking the court's conscience or the conclusions were so perverse that it becomes absolutely necessary in the interest of justice for the court to interfere," Justice Asha Menon observed.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 by the petitioners, defendants in the suit, against an order dated 10th January, 2022 passed by the Commercial Court, Saket Courts.

It was the case of the petitioners that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as it contained directions contrary to law of the land and in contravention of the judgment dated 28th May, 2021 passed by the High Court in Black Diamond Track Parts Private Limited and Ors. v. Black Diamond Motors Private Limited.

It was argued that the Trial Court could not have directed the petitioners to deposit the sale proceeds in the court or furnish a bank guarantee, as such orders were beyond the jurisdiction vested in a court. Thus, it was prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

On the other hand, the respondent, plaintiff in the suit, submitted that the petition itself was not maintainable. It was argued that the scope of exercise of powers under Article 227 was very restricted and the petitioners had failed to disclose any error in the impugned orders.

Observing that the powers under Article 227 will be used sparingly, the Court relied on relevant judgments passed by the Apex Court and reiterated that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred to the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to overseeing that an inferior court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and is not meant to correct an error, even if apparent on the face of the record.

"A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract this jurisdiction. Even in the judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, mentioned above, the Division Bench of this court has again cautioned that Article 227 of the Constitution of India be used sparingly in such suits which under the CPC are revisable and which remedy has been taken away by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in order to preserve the legislative intent and give effect to the purpose behind the Commercial Courts Act, of expeditious disposal of commercial suits," it added.

Accordingly, finding no error in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the petition.

In the case of Harnam Dass Luthra v. Usha Chauhan, the Court was dealing with a petition filed under Article 227 challenging a judgment wherein appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Additional Rent Controller was dismissed, thereby allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent landlady under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Dismissing the petition, the Court held that in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of High Court Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court is not required to re-examine the evidence as an appellate forum, and interference is unwarranted so long as there is material to support the conclusion arrived at by the courts below.

In Smt. Usha v. Sh. Dilip Kumar Singh, the Court held that the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and discretionary and that it does not extend to reappreciation of evidence as an appellate forum. 

It said that the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, will not intervene to correct every error of law or fact committed by the courts below. 

Case Title: BLACK DIAMOND TRACKPARTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS v. BLACK DIAMOND MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED

Click Here To Read Order  [Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 164]

Click Here To Read SH. HARNAM DASS LUTHRA (NOW DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS) v. USHA CHAUHAN [Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 165]

Click Here To Read Order SMT.USHA @ DURGAWATI DEVI v. SH DILIP KUMAR SINGH [Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 166]