Back
2001(3) Supreme 551.1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., R.C. Lahoti, J.
Renu Gautam -Petitioner
versus
Vinod Gautam -Respondent
Transfer Petition (C) No. 820 of 1999
Decided on 3-1-2000
ORDER
The respondent is present in person. Counter has also been filed.
2. Heard.
3. Without going into the allegations made in the Transfer Petition and the rebuttal thereof made in the counter affidavit, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it appears appropriate to us to allow this Petition.
4. We accordingly, withdraw Divorce Petition filed by the respondent being H.M.A. No.22 of 1995 titled Vinod Kumar Gautam v. Renu Gautam, which is pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge Faridabad from that court and transfer it to the file of the learned District Judge, Delhi who may either try the petition himself or assign it to a court of competent jurisdiction under him.
5. The learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad shall send the record of the case to the transferee Court without any delay.
6. The petitioner through her learned counsel and the respondent, who is present in person, are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Delhi on 22nd January, 2000.
7. The transferee Court shall expeditiously dispose of the Matrimonial Petition.
8. The Transfer Petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.
Petition allowed.
***************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Renu Gautam v. Vinod Gautam, 2001(3) Supreme 551.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
