9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhawa. In September, 2002, elections were held and Gurcharan Singh was again elected as the Chairman of the Trust. B.S. Randhawa and his wife Hardev Kaur raised protest against the said election. In December, 2002, Gurcharan Singh, Chairman of the Trust sought certain amendments in the Constitution of the Trust which were approved by majority though B.S. Randhawa and Hardev Kaur opposed to such amendments. On June 21, 2003, Gurcharan Singh, Chairman of the Trust was murdered while he was taking stroll in a park along with the appellant. B.S. Randhawa, who was one of the Trustees, was arrested as the main accused and was charged for committing murder of Gurcharan Singh. F.I.R. No. 271 of 2003 was registered on the same day at Mohali Police Station. In view of death of Gurcharan Singh, election of the Chairman was again held on July 23, 2003 and the appellant was unanimously elected as the Chairperson. Ms. Japneet Kaur was nominated as trustee being daughter of late Gurcharan Singh and she also started attending meetings of the Trust. B.S. Randhawa and Hardev Kaur were obviously unhappy with the development. Hardev Kaur, hence, filed a suit on July 25, 2003 for a declaration that all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no 'much progress' in the case. It was further alleged that there was lot of local pressure which had led to delay and it had given advantage to the defendants as they were in power and were trying to protract the proceedings. It was asserted that the Institution was one of the most prestigious institutions in the area and lots of funds were generated as there were several students. Hence, the Committee members who were in office were trying their level best to stall the proceedings by using various tactics. It was also stated that though the term of the appellant expired on August 31, 2005, she continued to be in power simply because no case filed against her was decided either way. A prayer was, therefore, made to transfer the case. 6. The appellant herein filed detailed reply to the application contending that false and scandalous allegations have been levelled by the plaintiff against the defendants which were not correct. It was submitted that suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable as there was no proper resolution and no authority had been given by the appellant- Chairperson to file such suit. It was further stated that no one could have a cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced Zimni which went to show that it was the plaintiff and not the defendants who was responsible for the delay. If it is so, the High Court was wrong in passing the impugned order. Finally, it was submitted that the High Court was not justified in transferring the case in the court of a particular named Judge. Normally, no such order is passed. Even in the transfer-application, no such prayer was made by the plaintiff. The order to that extent, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 12 . The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the High Court was satisfied that Section 24 of the Code confers discretionary power on the Court to transfer a case from one court to any other court subordinate to it. In exercise of the said power, an action has been taken which cannot be challenged under Article 136 of the Constitution. It was submitted that the High Court took into account Aground reality' that a suit of 2003 which was of an urgent nature was not disposed of even in 2006. If, in the light of the above fact, the case is transferred, it could not be said that the order deserves interference in exercise of discre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. (emphasis supplied) 16 . Similarly in Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde AIR1990SC113 , dealing with power of this Court to transfer a case under Section 25 of the Code, A.M. Ahmadi, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated; Under the old section the State Government was empowered to transfer a suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in the High Court of that State to any other High Court on receipt of a report from the Judge trying or hearing the suit that there existed reasonable grounds for such transfer provided the State Government of the State in which the other High Court had its principal seat consent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order transferring the case. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent no doubt submitted that the Court has not observed anything since observations by a High Court one way or the other might prejudice one of the parties to the suit. It is true that normally while making an order of transfer, the Court may not enter into merits of the matter as it may affect the final outcome of the proceedings or cause prejudice to one or the other side. At the same time, however, an order of transfer must reflect application of mind by the Court and the circumstances which weighed in taking the action. In the instant case, it was alleged by the plaintiff that though more than three years had passed from instituting the suit, it was not disposed of and delay had been caused by the defendants as they were in office and they wanted to prolong the proceedings so that they may take undue benefit of their status. The defendants, in the reply filed by them, contended that delay had not been caused by them, but it was the plaintiff who was responsible for not proceeding with the suit and was to be blamed for creation of such situation. In support of the contention, Zimni proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
