1. Transfer petitions under Section 25, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of execution proceedings and civil applications from one district court to another. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1609
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, JJ.
Anupam Ghosh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Faiz Mohammed & Ors. – Respondents
Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 2331-2334 of 2021
Decided On : 02-09-2022
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Mehra, Advocate, Mr. Bharat Garg, Advocate, Ms. Divya Kashyap, Advocate, Sheezan Hashmi, Advocate, Mr. Akshat Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Saxena, Advocate, Mr. Partha Sil, Advocate, Mr. Mukesh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate, Mr. Tavish B. Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Arvind Varma, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sharan Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Shantanu Singh, Advocate, Mr. Nishant Shoken, Advocate, Ms. Deepshikha Bhati, Advocate, Mr. Rohit K. Singh, Advocate, Mr. Bishwendra Singh, Advocate, Mr. Mustafa Sajad, Advocate, Ms. Sumita Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Sehgal, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Mehra, Advocate, Mr. Bharat Garg, Advocate, Ms. Divya Kashyap, Advocate, Sheezan Hashmi, Advocate, Mr. Akshat Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Saxena, Advocate, Mr. Partha Sil, Advocate, Mr. Mukesh Kr. Tiwari, Advocate, Mr. Tavish B. Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Arvind Varma, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sharan Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Shantanu Singh, Advocate, Mr. Nishant Shoken, Advocate, Ms. Deepshikha Bhati, Advocate, Mr. Rohit K. Singh, Advocate, Mr. Bishwendra Singh, Advocate, Mr. Mustafa Sajad, Advocate, Ms. Sumita Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Sehgal, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Allegations of unfair trial and local influence must be substantiated, and proper legal remedies should be pursued for challenging adverse judicial orders and false criminal FIRs.
Headnote:
Transfer Petitions - Transfer of Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 25
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought transfer of multiple proceedings from one court to another, citing unfair trial and local influence as grounds for transfer.
Finding of the Court:
The court deprecated the petitioners' claims of unfair trial and local influence, stating that adverse judicial orders cannot be attributed to influence and that such allegations obstruct the administration of justice. The court also dismissed the ground of a false criminal FIR as a basis for transfer, emphasizing that the proper remedy would be to challenge the FIR through appropriate legal channels.
Issues: Unfair trial, local influence, false criminal FIR, transfer of proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: Adverse judicial orders cannot be attributed to influence, and allegations of local influence obstruct the administration of justice. The proper remedy for challenging a false criminal FIR is through appropriate legal channels.
Final Decision: The Transfer Petitions were dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Transfer sought on grounds of alleged lack of fair trial due to local influence and apprehension of life following the filing of a criminal FIR. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Adverse judicial orders do not prove influence; the appropriate remedy is challenging such orders in higher forums rather than alleging bias to seek transfer. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Allegations of judicial influence based on adverse orders or the filing of a separate criminal FIR are insufficient grounds for transferring proceedings under Section 25, CPC. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Transfer petitions dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. Does the passing of adverse judicial orders constitute a valid ground for transferring a case based on alleged judicial influence?
No. The court held that adverse orders on the judicial side do not imply that the court was influenced. The proper remedy for aggrieved litigants is to challenge such orders before a higher forum. (Para 3 )
7. Can the filing of a criminal FIR against a party be a ground for transferring civil proceedings?
No. The court observed that if a party is aggrieved by an FIR, the appropriate remedy is to seek its quashing, and such a circumstance does not justify transferring the proceedings. (Para 4 )
8. What is the court's view on making allegations of influence against judicial officers when orders are unfavorable?
The court deprecates such practices, stating that they demoralize judicial officers and can be considered an obstruction to the administration of justice. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. We have heard Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Shri Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents.
2. The present Transfer Petitions have been filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of (i) Execution Petition No. 34 of 2021 titled as "M/s Anondita Healthcare & Anr. vs. Faiz Mohammed & Ors.", (ii) Civil Application No. 15 of 2021 titled as "Swear Health Care Private Limited & Anr. vs. M/s Anondita Healthcare & Ors.", (iii) Civil Application No. 16 of 2021 titled as "Swear Health Care Private Limited & Anr. vs. M/s Anondita Healthcare & Ors." and (iv) Application No. 18 of 2021 titled as "M/s Anondita Healthcare & Anr. vs. Swear Health Care Private Limited & Ors.", all pending before the learned District and Session Judge, Dhaulpur (Rajasthan) to the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Noida.
3. One of the grounds on which the proceedings are sought to be transferred is that the petitioners believe that they are not getting a fair trial and the respondents being local bigwigs are able to influence the local Court. We deprecate such a stand and the ground on which the proceedings are sought to be transferred. Merely because some Orders are passed on judicial side (in the present case in the execution proceedings) which may be against the petitioners, it cannot be said that the Court, which passed the order was influenced. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any judicial order, the proper remedy would be to challenge the same before higher forum. But merely because some Orders adverse to them are passed by the Court, it cannot be said that the Orders on judicial side are passed under influence. Nowadays, there is a tendency to make such allegations against the judicial Officers whenever the orders are passed against a litigant and the orders are not liked by the concerned litigant. We deprecate such a practice. If such a practice is continued, it will ultimately demoralize the judicial officer. In fact, such an allegation can be said to be obstructing the administration of justice.
4. The another ground that, when the warrant issued by the learned Executing Court was sought to be executed, a false criminal FIR was filed and therefore, there is an apprehension on the life of the petitioners are concerned and the submission that the FIR is bogus is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the FIR, the remedy would have been to approach the quashing of the same. It is reported that the closure report (which is disputed by Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondents) is filed so far as the FIR is concerned. The aforesaid cannot be a ground to transfer the proceedings. No ground is made out to transfer any of the proceedings as sought to be transferred.
5. The Transfer Petitions stand dismissed, accordingly.
