Here's a quick look: On December 18, 2025, Justice Girish Kathpalia of the Delhi High Court turned down RINAL Investment Pvt. Ltd's request to change their written statement in a money recovery case against M/S Omsons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The court found the changes unnecessary and an attempt to slow down the trial.
This case is about a money dispute where M/S Omsons Marketing Pvt. Ltd is trying to get back ₹17,51,499.38 from RINAL Investment Pvt. Ltd. The case was at the stage where the plaintiff was presenting evidence when RINAL tried to change their written statement.
RINAL's lawyers, Mr. N.P. Singh and Mr. Barun Dey, argued that they wanted to add sections 5A to 5G to their statement. They claimed these changes were just to explain things better and wanted to include more documents to back these changes.
"The changes we want are only to explain things better, so they should be allowed," argued RINAL's lawyer.
Justice Girish Kathpalia pointed out that RINAL suggested these changes just as the trial was about to begin, questioning their motives. The court found that these changes were not important to the case and could disrupt the trial.
"Just by calling the changes explanatory, the party cannot be allowed to disrupt the trial," stated the judge.
The court noticed that the new information RINAL wanted to add wasn't related to the existing issues between the parties. The changes seemed to introduce new facts that didn't relate to the main dispute.
Along with the request to change their statement, RINAL wanted to submit new documents. However, the court also rejected this request because these documents didn't relate to the transactions between the parties in the case.
In the end, Justice Kathpalia agreed with the trial court's original decision to reject RINAL's requests. The court emphasized the importance of quick proceedings under the Commercial Courts Act, which aims for fast resolutions in business disputes.
"Both the challenged orders are upheld. The petition and the accompanying applications are dismissed," concluded Justice Kathpalia.
This decision shows the court's dedication to preventing unnecessary delays in business-related legal cases, ensuring that cases move forward quickly and fairly.
