Delhi HIgh Court

Delhi HC: Amit Sehgal's Last-Minute Document Plea Denied in Money Recovery Suit

Updated
Dec 25, 2025 3:00 PM
delhi-hc-amit-sehgals-last-minute-document-plea-denied-in-money-recovery-suit

Here's a story about a court decision involving Amit Sehgal, who tried to add some new documents to his case at the last minute. The court wasn't having it. Let's dive into the details!

The Background: A Money Recovery Suit

Amit Sehgal filed a lawsuit in January 2023 to get money back from Rajesh Sandhyana. Everything seemed to be going as planned until the final stages of the trial.

The Twist: Missing Documents

On November 16, 2023, Amit Sehgal wanted to add more documents to his case. He said his health issues, like asthma and a prostate condition, made him miss these documents earlier. But, the court had already set the stage for final arguments, so this was a surprise move.

"I find no reason to delay the case waiting for the lawyer for Rajesh Sandhyana." — Judge Girish Kathpalia

The Court's Stand: Too Late for New Evidence

The court noted that Amit Sehgal had already submitted various tax bills and account records. These were enough to make his case. So, why didn't he include the new documents back then?

The Timeline: Key Dates

  • January 2023: Amit Sehgal files the lawsuit.
  • July 14, 2023: Case management meeting takes place.
  • August 16, 2023: Amit Sehgal's evidence is finished.
  • August 28, 2023: Rajesh Sandhyana's evidence is finished.
  • September 27, 2023: Final arguments are scheduled.

The Verdict: No New Documents Allowed

Judge Girish Kathpalia decided on November 28, 2025, that Amit Sehgal's last-minute attempt to add documents was just trying to fix gaps in his case. The court dismissed his request and upheld the previous decision.

"This is nothing but an effort to fix mistakes, which cannot be allowed." — Judge Girish Kathpalia

Summary of the Verdict

The court decided that Amit Sehgal could not add new documents at the last minute because it seemed like he was trying to cover up gaps in his case. The previous decision was upheld, and his request was denied.