Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., G.P. MATHUR AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.
MEENAKSHI - PETITIONER
VERSUS
MUKESH KUMAR - RESPONDENT
TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. 704 OF 2003,
DECIDED ON AUGUST 30, 2004
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 25 - Transfer of Matrimonial dispute - The sproceedings in the court at Gurgaon and that there was inconvenience in travelling from her residence to the place where the court is situated- The respondent assured that no inconvenience shall be caused to the petitioner and full care shall be taken of her safety and security - Undertaking given to pay in advance the conveyance charges incurred by the petitioner in travelling by taxi for attending the court at Gurgaon - In view thereof transfer petition dismissed. [Para 2]
ORDER
1. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER STATES THAT THE PETITIONER IS THREATENED WHILE PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT AT GURGAON AND FURTHER THERE IS INCONVENIENCE INVOLVED IN TRAVELLING FROM HER PLACE OF RESIDENCE TO THE PLACE WHERE THE COURT IS SITUATED.
2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT STATES, UNDER INSTRUCTIONS, THAT NO INCONVENIENCE SHALL BE CAUSED TO THE PETITIONER AND FULL CARE SHALL BE TAKEN OF THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE PETITIONER WHICH SHALL NOT BE JEOPARDISED IN ANY A MANNER WHATSOEVER. OVER AND ABOVE, THE RESPONDENT SHALL PAY IN ADVANCE BEFORE EVERY NEXT DATE OF HEARING THE CONVEYANCE CHARGES INCURRED BY THE PETITIONER IN TRAVELLING BY TAXI FOR ATTENDING THE COURT PROCEEDINGS AT GURGAON.
3. IN VIEW OF THAT STATEMENT MADE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT, THE TRANSFER PETITION IS DISMISSED.
4. LET A COPY OF THIS ORDER BE COMMUNICATED TO THE TRIAL COURT.
5. INTERIM ORDER DATED 21-11-2003 STAYING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT STANDS VACATED.
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
