Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Sanjay Dhar, J., expressed that, there may be stray incidents where the advocates have resorted to levelling allegations against the Judicial Officers in order to seek transfer of their cases from one Court to another to suit their convenience, but then this cannot be generalized.

The petitioners have challenged an order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar whereby transfer application filed by the petitioners for transfer of a case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act from the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class to any other Court of competent jurisdiction was declined.

Analysis, Law and Decision

High Court noted that the main grouse of the petitioners was that their application for modification or vacation of order passed by the trial Magistrate in ex-parte against the petitioners was not being considered on its merits expeditiously.

Further, it was also noted that there had been some exchange of harsh words between the petitioners’ counsel and the Magistrate, which had forced the petitioner to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking transfer of proceedings from the Court of trial Magistrate.

The Bench expressed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had vide the impugned order rightly declined to transfer the proceedings from the Court of trial Magistrate, but, while doing so, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had made certain sweeping remarks against the advocates by stating that the advocates level unnecessary allegations against the Judicial Officers in order to facilitate their personal convenience.

“Merely because the Magistrate has failed to dispose of the application of the petitioners, is not a ground to transfer the case. It is also not a ground for transfer of a case if there is exchange of some hot words between the court and the Counsel.”

Hence, in view of the above, the decision of Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar to decline the transfer of the matter from the trial Magistrate, is legally correct and cannot be interfered with.

Therefore, the sweeping remarks made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate were uncalled for an unnecessary for the decision of the case.

High Court also remarked that,

Bench and Bar are two wheels of the chariot of justice. Both are equal and no one is superior to the other.

The members of the Bar, as such, deserve the utmost respect and dignity. There may be some rotten apples in profession, but to say that the advocates generally adopt these tactics is not the correct position.

Hence, the remarks of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as such, deserve to be expunged. [Latief Ahmad v. Shafeeqa Bhat, 2022 SCC OnLine J&K 249, decided on 8-4-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: Hazim Quershi, Advocate

For the Respondents: None

Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma, J. dismissed the petition favoring the wife and allowing her prayer to transfer the application.

The facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized but they were unable to live together for long on account of certain differences pertaining to which husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Solan seeking dissolution of marriage pending in the Court of Additional District Judge (II), Solan, District Solan, H.P. Hence the instant petition was filed under Sections 22 and 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer the proceedings from Solan, to the Court of District and Sessions Judge (Family Court) Shimla, H.P., on grounds of inconvenience, insufficiency of means, compulsive litigation and on the ground that the distance between Shimla and Solan is more than 50 KMs and it is difficult for her to attend the Court regularly.

The petitioner was represented by counsel Ravinder Singh Jaswal and the respondent was represented by counsel Rakesh Kumar Thakur.

On hearing the arguments of both sides the Court relied on the judgment titled Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237 observed that in a case seeking transfer of the case at the instance of the wife convenience of wife was the prime consideration.

In view of the above, the petition was allowed. [Poonam Sharma v. Prashant Bhardwaj, 2020 SCC OnLine HP 919 , decided on 08-07-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: H.S. Madaan, J. dismissed the application for the transfer of a divorce petition merely on the ground of inconvenience of the attorney in attending hearings.

The applicant herein was the wife of respondent who had filed a divorce petition against her in the Court of District Judge, Sangrur. Applicant filed the instant transfer application seeking transfer of the divorce case from Sangrur to a Court of competent jurisdiction in Patiala on the ground that she lives in Australia and her appointed attorney was facing difficulty in attending the hearings in Sangrur on dates of listing of a divorce case. Her second ground for seeking transfer was that since the respondent’s father was a senior advocate in the Sangrur District Court and had strong political links, there was a threat to the applicant and her family.

The Court observed that the contentions of the applicant were not sufficient to transfer the divorce petition. It remarked that “The Court is not to see the convenience of the attorney. If the attorney has got difficulty in attending the dates of hearing, the applicant can very well appoint some other person as her attorney, who can put in an appearance in the Court conveniently.” It was also opined that “Merely because respondent’s father is a senior advocate at Sangrur does not mean that he is capable of interfering in judicial proceedings or would do so.” If there is an apprehension of physical harm to the applicant then she should approach the legal enforcement agency. 

In view of the above, the instant application was dismissed. [Rubalpreet Kaur v. Harbarkamaljot Singh, TA-526 of 2019 (O&M), decided on 16-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: A transfer application was filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure before a Single Judge Bench of Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. for transfer of Motor Vehicles Claim petition pending before the Motor Vehicles Claim Tribunal.

A motor vehicle claim was filed before motor vehicle tribunal in order to receive compensation. The petitioner filed an application for transfer of matter pending before the tribunal. The question before the court was whether an application under the Motor Vehicles Act could be transferred under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure. For resolving the above dispute relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act were referred to. It was viewed that the Tribunal had been created under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the State Government.

Under Rule 221 of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 which mentions the cases where Code of Civil Procedure could be applied suggested that the Code has no application in the matter under Section 24 by virtue of the nature of the Act to be a complete code in itself. Section 24 states the general power to transfer matter pending in a court subordinate to High Court or District Court. Court referred to the case of Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo, 2011 (8) SCC 539 and viewed the Act to be specific and special thus giving limited applicability to the Code. The Tribunal was formed under a special Act which was sufficient in itself and cannot be said to be subordinate. Therefore, the transfer application was dismissed being not maintainable. [Shankar Lal v. Asha Devi,2018 SCC OnLine All 2545, order dated 12-11-2018]