Skip to main content

Power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection

In Satnam Kaur v. Gurjeet Singh, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana said that Cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of CPC is that, ends of justice demand transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider plea of transfer, Courts have to take into consideration economic soundness of either of parties, social strata of spouses and behavioural pattern, their standard of life antecedent to marriage and subsequent thereto and circumstances of either of parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella, they are seeking their sustenance to life. Generally, it is wife's convenience which must be looked at by Courts, while deciding a transfer application.

Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh's case observed that, although discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a strait-jacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that, power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of CPC together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on points involved in suit; issues raised by parties; reasonable apprehension in mind of litigant that, he might not get justice in Court in which suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in litigation; interest of justice demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive.

In case of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, Supreme Court held that, question of expediency would depend on facts and circumstances of each case but paramount consideration for exercise of power must be to meet ends of justice. It is true that, if more than one Court has jurisdiction under Code to try suit, Plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to choose Court and Defendant cannot demand that, suit be tried in any particular court convenient to him. Mere convenience of parties or any one of them may not be enough for exercise of power but it must also be shown that trial in chosen forum will result in denial of justice.

In view of law laid down by Supreme Court as well as different High Courts, including this Court, it is unhesitatingly held that, Applicant-wife is entitled for getting petition under Section 9 of Act, transferred from SAS Nagar (Mohali) to Moga, so as to enable her to pursue litigation without facing any undue hardship or harassment at hands of Respondent-husband. It is settled principle of law that, justice is not only to be done but it should also appear to have been done. If applicant-wife is forced to go from Moga to SAS Nagar (Mohali), it would amount to denial of justice to her. Thus, to strike a balance between parties with a view to do complete and substantial justice and proceeding on a holistic view of matter, this Court is of considered view that it, would be just and expedient to transfer petition under Section 9 of Act from SAS Nagar (Mohali) to Moga. Instant transfer application deserves to be accepted and same is allowed. Petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as Gurjeet Singh v. Satnam Kaur filed by the respondent-husband is ordered to be transferred from SAS Nagar (Mohali) to Moga.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even