SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 965

K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, B.P.SINGH
VENU MENON – Appellant
Versus
HATHWAYINVESTMENT (P) LTD. – Respondent


ORDER

1. HEARD BOTH SIDES.

2. THE PETITIONER HEREIN SEEKS TRANSFER OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO. 32/01 OF 2003 ENTITLED HATHWAY INVESTMENT (P) LTD. V. VENU MENON PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, PATIALA HOUSE, NEW DELHI TO ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE COURT AT TRIVANDRUM. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS COUNSEL THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOW UNEMPLOYED AND STAYING AT TRIVANDRUM AND IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO COME TO DELHI AND DEFEND THE CASE AND WE ARE TOLD THAT THE COMPLAINANT RESPONDENT IS HAVING VARIOUS AGENCIES THROUGHOUT INDIA. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO. 32/01 OF 2003 ENTITLED HATHWAY INVESTMENT (P) LTD. V. VENU MENON PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, PATIALA HOUSE, NEW DELHI IS TRANSFERRED TO THE CHIEF, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT TRIVANDRUM.

3. THE TRANSFER PETITION IS ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top