Legal Updates & Case Notes | Conventus Law Offices

Bhandari Engineers: Asset Affidavits in Execution Proceedings

Posted on January 11, 2024November 14, 2026 by conventuslawoffices

Delhi High Court | Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharia Raj Joint Venture & Ors. | EX.P. 275/2012 and connected matter

Execution of a decree or arbitral award often involves identifying the judgment-debtor’s assets and financial means. In the Bhandari Engineers proceedings, the Delhi High Court addressed disclosures intended to assist executing courts in examining such matters.

Directions dated 5 August 2020

In its judgment dated 5 August 2020, the Court considered the limitations of the standard Form 16A under Order XXI Rule 41(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It formulated additional formats concerning assets, income and expenditure and explained procedures that executing courts could use to obtain and verify disclosures.

Subsequent modification in 2021

The directions and formats were subsequently addressed in a further judgment dated 24 June 2021. Reading only the August 2020 judgment without the later modification may give an incomplete picture of the applicable formats and directions.

Procedural points

Disclosure orders depend on the execution proceedings and applicable judicial directions.
The judgment-debtor’s assets, income and relevant liabilities may require examination under Order XXI and the Court’s directions.
The executing court may consider further verification, document production or examination where legally permissible.
The particular affidavit format and requirements should be checked against the later judgment and current orders of the court hearing the matter.

Decisions: Delhi High Court, 5 August 2020; subsequent judgment, 24 June 2021.

Editorial note: This article describes the cited orders and is not a substitute for checking subsequent case-specific or jurisdictional directions.

Electronic Evidence: Section 65B and BSA Section 63

Posted on January 4, 2024November 14, 2026 by conventuslawoffices

Case note | Supreme Court of India | Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal | 14 July 2020

The Section 65B certificate requirement

In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, a three-judge bench considered the admissibility of electronic records under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The judgment reaffirmed the statutory requirements of Section 65B for electronic records produced in the form of computer output and explained the significance of the certificate contemplated by Section 65B(4).

The Court considered its earlier decision in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and clarified the position arising from subsequent decisions. The judgment also discussed practical difficulties that may arise when the person holding the relevant device or system does not supply a certificate.

What changed from 1 July 2024?

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. Its Section 63 contains provisions concerning admissibility of electronic records and related certification requirements. In matters governed by the new enactment, the current statutory language and its certificate form must be considered, rather than relying only on the terminology of Section 65B of the repealed Evidence Act.

The commencement date and saving or transitional provisions may matter for proceedings that began under the earlier law. The governing statute should therefore be identified before preparing or objecting to a certificate.

Practical considerations

Identify the original device or system and how the electronic record was produced.
Preserve the relevant files and information about their source and integrity.
Check the precise statutory certificate requirements applicable to the proceeding.
Apply the relevant judicial authorities to the facts and procedural stage.

Sources: Arjun Panditrao Khotkar judgment (14 July 2020); Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (India Code PDF).

Editorial note: This is general information about the cited decision and statutory transition, not advice on the admissibility of a particular electronic record.

Written Statement Deadlines: Delhi High Court Original Side

Posted on June 21, 2023November 14, 2026 by conventuslawoffices

Procedural law case note | Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 | Gautam Gambhir v. Jai Ambey Traders

Why the court and type of suit matter

The period for filing a written statement is not identical in every Indian civil proceeding. The applicable rules depend on whether the suit is commercial or non-commercial and whether it is governed by the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, or by another procedural framework.

Proceedings on the Delhi High Court Original Side

Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules permits extension of the initial 30-day period for filing a written statement by a further period not exceeding 90 days, “but not thereafter.” In Gautam Gambhir v. Jai Ambey Traders (decision dated 6 August 2020), the Delhi High Court examined this language and held that the outer limit for filing a written statement in proceedings governed by those rules was 120 days.

The Court distinguished the wording of the Original Side Rules from the generally applicable formulation of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Subsequent Delhi High Court decisions have also examined the mandatory nature of that Original Side limit.

Other civil and commercial suits

Do not apply the Original Side rule automatically to all district-court civil suits. In ordinary non-commercial suits governed by the general CPC framework, the courts have treated the standard filing timeline and its extension provisions differently in appropriate circumstances. Commercial disputes governed by the Commercial Courts Act and amended Order VIII Rule 1 raise a separate mandatory outer-limit framework.

Consequently, identifying the court, statutory framework, nature of the suit, date of service, and any relevant procedural orders is essential before computing a filing deadline or seeking condonation.

Case references

Gautam Gambhir v. Jai Ambey Traders, Delhi High Court, 6 August 2020; Discussion of later Delhi High Court treatment of the Original Side Rules.

Editorial note: This article addresses the cited procedural distinction. It is not a universal rule for every suit in Delhi or a substitute for checking the applicable current rules and orders.