Transfer Of Cases Outside The Court That Has The Jurisdiction Casts Aspersions On Impartiality And Integrity Of Judge; Should Not Be Resorted To Ordinarily: Delhi HC

The Court stated that such practice should not be resorted to ordinarily as it noted the misuse of section 24 CPC by the litigants for the sole reason that orders passed by the courts concerned are not palatable to the litigant.

The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed, “Transfer of a matter outside the court which is hearing it, and which has the jurisdiction to hear it, is an extremely serious matter. It is a step which is ordinarily not to be resorted to. It casts aspersions on the impartiality and, at times, even on the integrity, of the Judge hearing the matter. It seriously demoralizes the judge concerned. An order of transfer of a matter, even if innocuous in form, may be injurious in substance.”

Advocate Mayank Wadhwa appeared for the Petitioner.

Petitioner, Sanjay Goel sought transfer of a case pending before the District Judge under Section 24 CPC to any other Commercial Court in the said district.

The Court observed that “Competent” is employed, in Section 24 of the CPC, in the context of jurisdictional competence, and not judicial competence.

The Court stated that the passing of an order which, according to a litigant, may be incorrect, or even perverse, does not ipso facto render the court, which passes it, incompetent to deal with the matter.

The Court stated that the Supreme Court, as well as various Division Benches of Delhi High Court, have repeatedly held that proceedings in commercial matters have to be prosecuted, continued and completed with utmost expediency. Delay in commercial proceedings is to be avoided at all costs.

The Court stated, “It is only, therefore, where cogent, convincing and clear material placed on record to indicate that either that the judge hearing the matter is prejudiced or biased, or that continuance of the proceedings in that court is bound to result in manifest injustice to either of the parties, that a court can, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by Section 24 of the CPC, transfer the matter outside that court.”

According to the Court, a litigant cannot seek to argue a matter before a court which, according to a litigant, is the most convenient. Every order passed by a court that is not palatable to a litigant cannot constitute a basis to escape the court and argue the matter elsewhere. Such a practice has to be emphatically deprecated.

“It is a matter of common knowledge that, in commercial litigation, all stops are pulled out and the litigant tends to resort to every possible method to prejudice the proper continuance of the proceedings.”, the Court noted.

The Court dismissed the petition with costs of ₹50,000.