2010 Supreme(SC) 608

2010 (5) Supreme 622
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM and ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.
D.A.V. Boys Sr. Sec. School Etc.Etc. — Petitioners
versus
DAV College Managing Committee — Respondents
Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 1233-1237 of 2008
Decided on : 23-07-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 25 of Civil Procedure Code itself makes it clear that if any application is made for transfer, after notice to the parties,if the Court is satisfied that an order of transfer is expedient for the ends of justice necessary direction may be issued for transfer of any suit, appeal or other proceedings from a High Court or other Civil Court in one State to another High Court or other Civil Court in any other State.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code,1908- Section 25- Respondent-Committee running about 700 educational institutions had obtained a trademark registration in respect of the letters “DAV” and “Dayanand Anglo Vedic” under Class 41 which was a service mark- Respondent-Committee filed four suits under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi against various schools run by petitioners-Transfer Petitions filed by petitioners praying to transfer the suits filed by the respondent-Committee pending before Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to the City Civil Court, Chennai, Tamil Nadu contending that no cause of action had arisen at Delhi, that petitioners did not have any school at Delhi and that Secretary of the Society being of 84 years and being very old, it was difficult for him to come to Delhi-Held if the request of the petitioners was acceded to, taking note of the fact that their institutions numbering more than 700 were spread over India and 50 other suits were pending in various places, it would be more difficult for respondent/plaintiff to continue with their suits and in that event their sufferings would be more than inconvenience to be caused by the petitioners/defendants- Hence held that it would be far more practical and in the best interest of the parties that proceedings are conducted in Delhi- Again, if petitioners’ claim was accepted, it would open floodgates for similarly placed persons infringing registered trade marks to approach this Court to transfer their suits to locations convenient to themselves all over India and defeat the purpose of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act which confers a jurisdiction with respect to a registered trade mark-No valid ground for transfer of the suits as claimed by the petitioners- Transfer petitions dismissed. (Paras 12 to 14)

       Civil Procedure Code,1908- Section 25-Scope and ambit-Section 25 of the Code itself makes it clear that if any application is made for transfer, after notice to the parties, if the Court is satisfied that an order of transfer is expedient for the ends of justice necessary direction may be issued for transfer of any suit, appeal or other proceedings from a High Court or other Civil Court in one State to another High Court or other Civil Court in any other State-In order to maintain fair trial, Apex Court can exercise this power and transfer the proceedings to an appropriate Court- The mere convenience of the parties may not be enough for the exercise of power but it must also be shown that trial in the chosen forum will result in denial of justice. (Para 11)

       Facts of the Case :

       Respondent-Committee running about 700 educational institutions. had obtained a trademark registration in respect of the letters “DAV” and “Dayanand Anglo Vedic” under Class 41 which was a service mark herein in the instant case. Respondent-Committee filed four suits under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi against various schools run by petitioners. Transfer Petitions were filed by petitioners praying to transfer the suits filed by the respondent-Committee pending before Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to the City Civil Court, Chennai, Tamil Nadu contending that no cause of action had arisen at Delhi, that petitioners did not have any school at Delhi and that Secretary of the Society being of 84 years and being very old, it was difficult for him to come to Delhi.

       Findings of the Court :

       Held if the request of the petitioners was acceded to, taking note of the fact that their institutions numbering more than 700 were spread over India and 50 other suits were pending in various places, it would be more difficult for respondent/plaintiff to continue with their suits and in that event their sufferings would be more than inconvenience to be caused by the petitioners/defendants. Hence held that it would be far more practical and in the best interest of the parties that proceedings are conducted in Delhi. Again, if petitioners’ claim was accepted, it would open floodgates for similarly placed persons infringing registered trade marks to approach this Court to transfer their suits to locations convenient to themselves all over India and defeat the purpose of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act which confers a jurisdiction with respect to a registered trade mark. No valid ground was found for transfer of the suits as claimed by the petitioners. Transfer petitions were dismissed

       Result : Transfer petitions dismissed.