Functional Convenience Of A Party In Commercial Litigations Cannot Be A Ground To Transfer Case U/s 25 CPC

In M/S FUMO CHEM PVT. LTD. vs M/S RAJ PROCESS EQUIPMENTS AND SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. & ORS., the petitioners asked for transfer of a subsequent suit  instituted by the respondents against them in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune to the Commerical Court, Ahmedabad where the petitioners had already filed a suit for there common issues involved in both the suits, which are between the same parties.

The Supreme Court rejecting the petition held that the factor which needs consideration while examining a plea for transfer in a petition under Section 25 of the code is whether allowing such petition would be expedient in the ends of justice or not. This Court has to consider the prayer for transfer with an element of equity. The petitioners’ case is largely founded on the claim of having approached a judicial forum before the respondents did and both the suits emanate from the same set of facts with the same set of parties. These factors, by themselves cannot be the ground for invoking the provisions of Section 25 of the Code. Functional convenience of one of the parties in commercial litigations cannot determine exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 25 of the Code. A petitioner seeking transfer of a case involving business-related disputes from one jurisdiction to another will have to establish some grave difficulty or prejudice in prosecuting or defending the case in a forum otherwise having power to adjudicate the cause.