Dismissed

Usha Drager Private Limited & Anr. v. Draegerwerk Aktiengesellschaft & Ors.

Delhi HC16 Oct 2025CM(M)/2011/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought transfer of a civil suit claiming apprehension of bias arising from the opposite party's pleadings in another proceeding. The High Court held such allegations do not create reasonable apprehension of bias and upheld the dismissal of the Section 24 CPC transfer application, dismissing the petition with costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Usha Drager Private Limited & Anr. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~76

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 16.10.2025 + CM(M) 2011/2025, CM APPL. 65358/2025 & 65357/2025

¶4

USHA DRAGER PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Senior Advocate with Vierat K. Anand, Mr. Rahul Gaur and Ms. Shaivika Agrawal, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

DRAEGERWERK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT & ORS.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Through: Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shweta Bharti and Mr. J.K. Chaudhary, Advocates.

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶11

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶12

Petitioners have assailed order dated 23.09.2025 of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi, whereby their application under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of Civil Suit from one court to another court was dismissed.

¶13

Having heard learned senior counsel for petitioners, I do not find this petition worthy of even issuing notice.

¶14

To begin with, before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge

¶15

CM(M) 2011/2025 Page 1 of 4 pages

¶16

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.10.16 17:54:35 -07'00'

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 17:59:40

¶19

as well as before this court, the categorical stand of the petitioners is that there was no apprehension of bias against the concerned judicial officer, from whose court the suit is sought to be transferred. The only reason for seeking transfer is that the opposite side ( respondent herein ), in their reply filed before this court in CM(M) 2296/2024 alleged: “ While the Petitioners realised that their case is not likely to get a favourable consideration from the Ld. Trial Court, in order to avoid the current Judge presiding the Ld. Trial Court, the Petitioners weaved the ploy to enhance the valuation of the suit to such an extent that would oust the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ld. Trial Court, and which would lead to rehearing of the case by another individual.” By way of the impugned order, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, after citing various judicial precedents held it not to be a fit case to transfer the subject suit.

¶20

Today, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners commenced his submissions emphasising that the petitioners had no apprehension of bias against the concerned judicial officer but in view of the above extracted pleadings filed by the opposite party in CM(M) 2296/2024, now a reasonable apprehension of bias has arisen, therefore, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge ought to have transferred the suit. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners submits that in view of the above extracted pleadings, the petitioners feel that the undue interest shown by the opposite party to get the suit decided by the concerned judicial officer raises suspicion in the mind of the petitioners, therefore, this is a fit case to transfer the suit.

¶21

Page 2 of 4 pages

¶22

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.10.16 17:54:21 -07'00'

¶23

CM(M) 2011/2025

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 17:59:40

¶26

In the impugned order, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge has cited various judicial precedents on the issue involved in this case, which precedents are not being reiterated herein for brevity. Suffice it to record that the undisputed legal position is that the petitioner, seeking transfer of a case from one court to the other does not have to establish the actual bias; what is required is that the petitioner seeking transfer must have a reasonable apprehension of bias.

¶27

Merely because one of the parties, in its pleadings ( that too before a court other than the court where the subject suit is pending ), alleges that the other side deliberately enhanced the valuation of the suit to ensure that the suit comes out of jurisdiction of the concerned trial court, it cannot be overstretched to mean that the party making such pleadings is confident of getting relief from the concerned trial court, that too to an extent of holding the apprehension of bias to be reasonable. In every case, where the amendment in valuation of the suit is opposed on the ground that plaintiff has done so only to pull out the suit from pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court, the plaintiff would claim it to be a cause to suspect that the defendant is resisting amendment as he is confident of getting relief from the same trial court. Such resistance would be endless. That would be absurd.

¶28

Therefore, I do not find the apprehension of bias as expressed by the petitioners to be a reasonable apprehension.

¶29

I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same

CM(M) 2011/2025

Page 3 of 4 pages

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 17:59:40

¶35

is upheld.

¶36

Rather, it appears that the present petition has been preferred simply to protract the suit proceedings, either without going through the judicial precedents referred in the impugned order or, in worse situation, despite going through the same.

¶37

The petition is devoid of merit and is frivolous, so dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners with DHCLSC within one week. Pending applications stand disposed of.

¶38

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
GIRISH 5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
KATHPALIA 70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26
fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.10.16 17:53:51 -07'00'

¶39

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶40

OCTOBER 16, 2025/ ry

¶41

CM(M) 2011/2025

¶42

Page 4 of 4 pages

¶43

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 17:59:40

Usha Drager Private Limited & Anr. v. Draegerwerk Aktiengesellschaft & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Usha Drager Private Limited & Anr. v. Draegerwerk Aktiengesellschaft & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunal Shingla Vs Megha Shingla

Anil Verma Vs Anil Suneja & Ors.

Abhishek Mahajan Vs Shilpa Mahajan

Hanuman Beej Bhandar Vs Iffco-Mc Crop Science Private Limited

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs P.R. Thareja Prop Goldy Constructions Company and Anr.

Prakash Chand Kapoor (Now Decd) Thr Lrs Vs Vinod Kapoor @ Vinod Kumar

Deepika Sarees Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Meenakshi Sarees Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Nagesh Singh Chauhan Vs Princy Jadon

Anil Verma Vs Anil Suneja & Ors.

Hanuman Beej Bhandar Vs Iffco-Mc Crop Science Private Limited

Limra Graphics (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Subodh Kumar Singh

Union Bank of India Vs M/S Shabd Enterprises and Anr.

Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. Vs M/S Supreme Motors

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs P.R. Thareja Prop Goldy Constructions Company and Anr.