The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking transfer of a commercial suit to another Commercial Court, holding that a litigant cannot seek transfer merely on the basis of apprehensions arising from oral observations made during court proceedings.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the judgment on August 10, 2026.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Mohammad Ahmad under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of CS (COMM.) 394/2025, along with connected proceedings, from the Commercial Court-04 at Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
The petitioner claimed that he had a reasonable apprehension that he would not receive a fair adjudication. According to the petition, certain oral observations by the Trial Court and its alleged reluctance to entertain an application under Order XI Rule 13 CPC had created this apprehension.
The petitioner also alleged that the Trial Court had shown undue indulgence to the respondents' counsel in proceedings concerning applications seeking his detention.
Court's Observation
The High Court rejected the basis of the transfer plea, observing that allegations against a judicial officer cannot be made lightly merely on the basis of oral observations during a hearing.
“The observations made during the course of such proceedings cannot, by themselves, be treated as a determination of the issues arising between the parties,” the Court observed.
Justice Shankar further noted that no adjudication had been identified showing that the petitioner's substantive rights had been adversely affected due to alleged bias or preferential treatment.
The Court also held that an alleged expression of reluctance to entertain an application, without any adjudication on that application, was insufficient to justify the extraordinary relief of transfer.
Decision
The High Court held that the allegations against the Trial Court were unsupported by sufficient material and were not conducive to the administration of justice. It deprecated the manner in which the allegations were incorporated into the petition and held that the petition amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court.
Accordingly, the transfer petition and pending applications were dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000, payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Association within four weeks.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mohammad Ahmad v. Asha Malik and Anr.
Case Number: TR.P.(C.) 144/2026
Judge: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Decision Date: August 10, 2026
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
 chief. Eknath Shinde – Shiv Sena leader-300x169.webp)
