Topic
Due diligence in Indian law refers to the reasonable care and effort required by parties to verify facts or legal positions before asserting claims or seeking court relief.
A belated amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed if due diligence is shown and it does not fundamentally alter the suit, the Supreme Court held. It vacated the trial and Orissa High Court orders, imposed costs, but left property question open.
Failure to exercise due diligence bars amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC when parallel NCLT proceedings exist on share transfer legality. It bars using pleading amendments to sidestep ongoing tribunal litigation in family shareholding disputes.
Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC after trial commencement require strict due diligence. Unexplained delay is fatal, and Article 227 cannot override the trial court’s discretion, reinforcing procedural discipline in property disputes.
MP High Court reaffirms that review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC cannot be used to reargue settled findings or introduce new claims without demonstrating due diligence. The ruling bars litigants from circumventing appellate finality by disguising fresh arguments as 'errors apparent on record'.
The Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Commission ruled that a complainant’s absence abroad and her advocate’s failure to appear do not constitute sufficient cause to condone a delay of over a year in filing an appeal. The ruling reinforces that litigants bear ultimate responsibility for pursuing their cases, even when represented, and cannot shift liability for procedural lapses onto external factors without demonstrable due diligence.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a 17-year delay in filing a second appeal cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without credible evidence of counsel misconduct or bona fide reliance. The court emphasized that limitation periods serve public policy, and professional negligence alone does not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation, impacting litigants seeking relief from inordinate delays.
Allahabad High Court rules that amendments to withdraw admissions under Order VI Rule 17 CPC are permissible only if the facts were unknown at the time of pleading. The court dismissed the petitioner's plea to amend the written statement in a motor accident claim, emphasizing that admissions cannot be retracted without demonstrating due diligence and lack of prior knowledge.
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that customs brokers cannot be penalized under Section 114(iii) for export valuation discrepancies unless there is direct evidence of abetment, not just procedural lapses. Documentary KYC compliance under CBLR 2018 fulfills due diligence obligations, rendering physical verification and punitive penalties unjustified. This sets a critical precedent for brokers facing arbitrary penalties based on negligence alone.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that amending a plaint to alter the nature of relief-from confirmation of possession to recovery-after trial commencement violates Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Such belated amendments, lacking due diligence, are liable to be dismissed to prevent abuse of process and prejudice to the defendant.
Madhya Pradesh High Court dismisses an appeal seeking additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC, ruling that the appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence in presenting mobile recordings during trial. The court held that belated claims of a 'love story' with the prosecutrix do not justify admitting evidence at the appellate stage, reinforcing that Section 391 is not a tool for remedying procedural lapses.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that parties seeking to amend pleadings after trial must demonstrate due diligence in raising the proposed changes; a failure to explain the delay or oversight renders the application unsustainable. This reinforces that procedural fairness cannot override strict compliance with civil procedure rules, affecting litigants and advocates in property, contract, and cooperative law disputes.
Punjab & Haryana High Court rules that a purchaser cannot claim bona fide protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act if they fail to verify the latest mutation entries. Reliance on outdated jamabandi records negates good faith, exposing buyers to legal risks in property disputes.
HP High Court reinforces that appellate courts cannot permit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC unless the party demonstrates strict due diligence and consistency in pleadings. The ruling underscores that 'complete justice' cannot override statutory conditions, impacting litigants seeking to introduce new evidence post-delay.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that amendments to pleadings after trial commencement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC demand strict proof of 'due diligence'-mere disclosure during cross-examination is insufficient. The decision reinforces judicial scrutiny on late amendments, impacting civil litigants seeking mid-trial modifications.
Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that amending a motor accident claim to change the deceased's status from 'passenger' to 'worker' fundamentally alters the cause of action, violating Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The court held that such amendments, lacking due diligence and contradicting the FIR, cannot be permitted, impacting insurance liability and procedural fairness in accident claims.