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

2004 Supreme(SC) 972

R. C. LAHOTI, G. P. MATHUR, TARUN CHATTERJEE
MEENAKSHI – Appellant
Versus
MUKESH KUMAR – Respondent


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.

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