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

2009 Supreme(SC) 1388

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
State of Punjab & Others
TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.377 OF 2006
Decided on : 04-08-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Convenience of the parties including the witnesses is a relevant consideration for transfer of cases from one State to another.

Headnote:Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 406 – Transfer of cases from one jurisdiction to another – Convenience of the parties including the witnesses is a relevant consideration therefor – Company’s apprehension of injustice not reasonable – Prayer of transfer outside State not acceded to – District Judges of Chandigarh and Ludhiana however requested to transfer related cases to one court. (Para 17, 18, 19)

       (2000) 6 SCC 204 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The present petition is filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for transfer of multiple cases by way of complaints/FIRs for and against the Petitioner Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. to the Delhi High Court or any other High Court or courts subordinate to such High Court from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and/or Courts subordinate thereto.

       Finding of the Court:

       Company’s apprehensions are not reasonable.

       Result:

       Appeal dismissed.

Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.


1. The present petition is filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for transfer of multiple cases by way of complaints/FIRs for and against the Petitioner Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. to the Delhi High Court or any other High Court or courts subordinate to such High Court from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and/or Courts subordinate thereto.


2. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the company for the sake of brevity) is a company registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It manufactures Ayurvedic medicines. For the purpose of distribution of its products, it engages Carrying and Forwarding Agents to receive goods from it, store and sell them to the stockists.


3. The company appointed M/s. S. Bhatia Enterprises, Ludhiana (Respondent No.5 herein) (for short, `the firm) of which Praveen Bhatia, Ramkishan Bhatia, Ashwani Bhatia and Promila Bhatia are partners. The agreement between the parties incorporating the terms and conditions of Carrying and Forwarding Agency contained an arbitration clause.


4. Between 2000 and 2001, Respondent No.5 allegedly made fraudulent credits amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- in the account of M/s. Dhanwantri Ayurvedic Store, Hambram, said to be a bogus firm. However, subsequent audit reports of the company allegedly continued to show fraudulent credit entries which were said to be detected by Companys Account Manager. The respondents were warned in respect thereof.


5. On or about 18.10.2001, allegedly, one of the respondents, namely, the Respondent No.5, along with some other persons assaulted Companys Account Manager, namely, T.S. Thakur and made a threat on his life, and also snatched audit reports and other documents from him. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Kailash Chowk, Ludhiana vide FIR No.29 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 382, 323 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The police filed a closure report on the premise that the accused no longer has any interest in M/s. S. Bhatia Enterprises. However, at the instance of the petitioner, a competent court directed the police to make investigation. No charge-sheet in the said case is said to have been filed as yet.


6. A report of the company dated 2.11.2001 allegedly revealed that the respondent had embezzled the goods and sale proceeds amounting to Rs.2.36 crores. On 13.11.2001, an FIR being No.303 came to be registered at Jhansi against the respondents. However, the said FIR was transferred from Jhansi to Ludhiana by an order dated 29.5.2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.


7. Soon thereafter, an FIR being No.276 was filed against the petitioners under Sections 452, 383, 384, 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code in Ludhiana on a complaint being made by the respondents alleging forcible trespass into their godown.


8. Subsequently, the respondents filed four different petitions [CMM No.18962 of 2003, 18958 of 2003, 14773 of 2003 and 39666 of 2003] seeking quashing of FIR No.303. Respondents also filed CMM No.19961 of 2003 seeking the stay of arrest in any future case filed against them by the petitioners.


9. On or about 15.5.2003, Respondents again filed CM No.21830M of 2003 asking for registration of FIR against the petitioners herein for having secretly removed the stocks from the firms godown.


10. Petitioners thereafter filed CM No.23513 of 2003 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to direct the State to have the investigation of all the cases pending between the parties to be conducted by an independent agency outside the State of Punjab.


11. Indisputably, the parties have filed a large number of criminal cases against each other. The company filed as many as nine criminal cases which are pending in different courts of Punjab and Haryana. The firm also filed six criminal cases against the company and/or its officers which are pending in the courts of CJM, Chandigarh and sever






















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
whatsapp-icon Back to top