Delhi HC Dismisses Transfer Petition Filed on Oral Observations, Imposes Rs. 25,000 Costs for Abuse of Process

The Delhi High Court dismissed a transfer petition that relied solely on a trial judge's oral remarks as evidence of bias, finding no adverse adjudication to support the apprehension.

Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, sitting singly at the High Court of Delhi, dismissed a civil transfer petition on 10 August 2026 after holding that oral observations made by a trial judge during the course of proceedings cannot, by themselves, ground a claim of bias or justify transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petition was filed by Mohammad Ahmad seeking removal of a commercial suit from the Court of the learned District Judge (Commercial Court – 04), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, to any other competent Commercial Court in Delhi. The High Court found the petition unsupported by any adjudication adversely affecting the petitioner's rights, deprecated the manner in which serious allegations had been incorporated against the judicial officer, and dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 25,000.

The Commercial Suit and the Transfer Request

The underlying commercial suit, Asha Malik v. Mohammad Ahmad (CS (COMM.) 394/2025), was pending before the District Judge (Commercial Court – 04) at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Connected with it were two further proceedings: MISC. DJ 320/2026 and Execution (Commercial) 32/2026, pending before the same court.

Mohammad Ahmad filed TR.P.(C.) 144/2026 before the High Court under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking transfer of all three proceedings to another competent Commercial Court in Delhi. Three miscellaneous applications accompanied the transfer petition—one seeking exemption from filing a certified copy, one for stay, and one for condonation of a 23-day delay in filing.

Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Santosh and Mr. Noor-Ul-Islam, pressed two principal grievances. First, that the trial court had made certain oral observations and statements during hearings that caused a genuine and reasonable apprehension that the petitioner would not receive fair adjudication. Second, that the trial court had expressed reluctance to entertain an application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 13 of the CPC. The petitioner also alleged that the trial court had, on certain occasions, extended undue indulgence to the respondents' counsel concerning applications seeking his detention, and had even allegedly advised that counsel regarding the filing of such applications.

On this basis, counsel urged that the apprehension was neither fanciful nor imaginary and that a transfer was warranted.

Why Oral Observations Cannot Ground a Transfer

The High Court went straight to the character of the material on which the transfer petition rested. The court observed that the entire case for transfer was built on what the petitioner characterised as adverse oral exchanges during hearings—not on any formal order or ruling that had determined his rights against him.

On the nature of judicial proceedings, the court reasoned that interaction between a court and counsel is an inherent part of any hearing, and that “observations made during the course of such proceedings cannot, by themselves, be treated as a determination of the issues arising between the parties.” A remark made from the bench, even one perceived as unfavourable, does not amount to an adjudication.

The court pressed this further in the context of the Order XI Rule 13 application. The petitioner argued that the trial court's reluctance to entertain that application signalled bias. The High Court declined to accept the argument: an expressed reluctance to hear an application, short of an actual ruling on it, could not constitute sufficient basis for the extraordinary relief of transfer. If an order was eventually passed adversely, that order could be challenged in accordance with law. Transfer was not the remedy for an anticipated adverse decision.

Allegations Against the Judicial Officer

The second strand of the petitioner's case—that the trial court had advised the respondents' counsel on filing detention applications—drew a pointed response from the High Court. The court characterised these as serious allegations against a judicial officer, and said they “ought not to be made in a routine manner or founded merely upon an interpretation placed by a litigant upon the oral exchanges taking place during the course of proceedings.”

The court's concern was not only with the content of the allegation but with the ease with which it had been incorporated into the petition. Where no formal adjudication was cited, and where the entire claim rested on a litigant's reading of courtroom exchanges, the High Court found the allegations neither warranted nor conducive to the administration of justice.

The court restated the governing principle under Section 24 of the CPC: the power of transfer cannot be invoked merely because a litigant has developed an apprehension based on oral observations made during proceedings. Apprehension, to be actionable, must be grounded in something more concrete than courtroom dialogue.

Abuse of Process and Costs

The High Court went on to strongly deprecate the manner in which the allegations had been incorporated in the petition. Because the petitioner had pointed to no adjudication or determination that would substantiate the apprehension pleaded, the court held that the petition, filed on an apprehension unsupported by any sufficient material, “amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.”

This finding of abuse of process directly informed the decision to impose costs rather than simply dismiss the petition. The court ordered costs of Rs. 25,000 to be deposited by the petitioner with the Delhi High Court Bar Association within four weeks from 10 August 2026. The petitioner was further directed to place on record proof of that deposit within one week of the four-week period.

Outcome

TR.P.(C.) 144/2026, along with all pending applications including the stay application (CM APPL. 52580/2026), the exemption application (CM APPL. 52579/2026), and the delay condonation application (CM APPL. 52581/2026), stands dismissed. Costs of Rs. 25,000 are to be deposited by Mohammad Ahmad with the Delhi High Court Bar Association within four weeks from 10 August 2026, with proof of deposit to be placed on record within one week thereafter. The commercial suit, the miscellaneous proceeding, and the execution proceeding will continue before the Court of the District Judge (Commercial Court – 04), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.