M/s Agarwal Polysacks Ltd. vs Aditya Singhvi And Ors

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following relief:

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be ordered 26.11.2020 (Annex.11) to be allowed and the application so filed by

humble petitioner under Section 24 read with Section 151 CPC may kindly to be ordered to be allowed and the impugned order may kindly be quashed

and set aside.

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in M/s. Agarwal

Polysacks Ltd. Vs. Aditya Singhvi & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.108/2021 decided on 03.02.2021), which reads as under:

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are seeking transfer of the proceedings on the ground that the petitioners suffer from a

reasonable apprehension that they might not get justice from the Court in which the suit is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted

that the application challenging the jurisdiction of the Court concerned was filed along with another application under Section 151 CPC and the learned

court below without deciding the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, was determined to decide the issue raised in the application under Section 151

CPC as well as jurisdictional application together. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it was submitted before the learned court

below that such joint disposal of applications shall prejudice the case of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the

precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kulwinder Kaur Alias Kulwinder Gurucharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education

Trust & Ors. reported in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 659,relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

Although the 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 the power to transfer a casemust be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection.

Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code 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 the points involved in the suit; issues

raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important

questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the 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 the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding.

They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the Court feels

that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a fair trial in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the

duty of the Court to make such order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the courts below have brushed aside the issue of the petitioners in the presence of the petitioners

in the Court and thus there is a bona-fide apprehension to the petitioners that there is likelihood of fair trial being not there and therefore, the transfer is

necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are not seeking change of place but are merely seeking change of Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the petition.

This Court after perusing the record as well as the precedent law is of the opinion that the order-sheets and the record do not point out any such thing

which could be said to come within the ambit of a reasonable apprehension of the petitioners of not having a fair trial. In case the petitioners are

aggrieved by any order on merits it is certainly open for them to challenge the same before the appropriate Court but just because the Court has

reflected an adverse order it does not mean that the interest of justice shall not be taken care of. Moreover, the decision of multiple applications

together after proper hearing cannot be said to be prejudicial to either of the parties by any stretch of imagination. The present case does not come in

the ambit laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kulwinder Kaur (supra).

In view of above, all the present writ petitions, being devoid of any force, are hereby dismissed.

Stay petitions also stand dismissed accordingly.

In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present petition is dismissed in the same terms. The stay application also stands dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.