Priknit Retails Ltd. And Ors. vs State Bank Of India And Ors.

S.N.H. Zaidi, J

Heard parties Counsel on application for transfer of the O.A. No. 157/2012 pending before the DRT-II, Chandigarh to some other DRT. The contention of Mr. Bajaj is that the applicants apprehend that they would not get justice from the Presiding Officer of the DRT concerned, because while hearing on I.A. No. 51/2012 filed by the Bank the learned Presiding Officer had made observations in respect of certain facts which were not available in the pleadings of either party. He points out to the observation at internal Page 7 of the order where the Presiding Officer has observed: "This point also cannot be ignored that other companies are now coming forward and claiming their dues from the defendants who are defaulters to those companies, one of such matter is pending before this Court too." According to Mr. Bajaj, this observation appears to have been made by the Presiding Officer from his personal knowledge as none of the parties had made any such averment in its pleading. Pointing out to another observation of the Presiding Officer that the higher ups of the Bank were required to probe this matter thoroughly for the delay in filing of this application and recovery proceedings for the months together, Mr. Bajaj contends that this observation reflects that the Presiding Officer was having a prejudicial mind against the applicants.

The respondent - Bank has filed the reply opposing the transfer application. Mr. Sharma vehemently contends that all the allegations made in the application are false and the applicants have also made allegations against the Bank officers. He points out that the applicants have not filed the written statement in the O.A. and have also not paid the cost imposed upon them when the application for review was disposed of by the DRT, vide order dated 8.6.2012. He further contends that they had also not cooperated with the Court Receiver when he had visited at the property in question to execute the writ.

In rejoinder, Mr. Bajaj submits that the applicants have never intended or made any allegation or accusation against the Bank's officers. Considering the parties submissions and going through the record, but without entering into the controversy, I am of the view that justice should not only be done but it should also appear to have been done. Since the applicants seriously apprehend that they will not get justice from a particular Court, it would be appropriate to transfer the matter from the said Court. The application is accordingly allowed. The aforementioned O.A. is transferred from DRT-II, Chandigarh to DRT-I, Chandigarh for its disposal in accordance with law.

Copy of this order be furnished to the parties as per law and be also sent to DRT-I, Chandigarh and DRT-II, Chandigarh.