IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) TA-98-2023 (O&M)

M/s The Dream Group ...Applicant VERSUS District Bar Association and another ...Respondents (ii) TA-120-2023 (O&M)

M/s The Dream Group ...Applicant VERSUS District Bar Association and another ...Respondents Date of Decision: August 29, 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present: Mr.Naresh Jain, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr.Prateek Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

These are two transfer applications, filed at the instance of M/s The Dream Group through its proprietor Rajesh Sood, thereby, seeking transfer of Arbitration Cases No.385 and 386 of 2021, which relates to the objections filed, at the instance of the applicant as well as the respondent No.1, to the Arbitral Award award dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Sole Arbitrator.

Both the objection petitions are pending in the Courts at Chandigarh and the applicant is seeking transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction, either at Panchkula or Mohali.

In pursuance of the notice issued, contesting respondent No.1 made appearance through counsel and filed respective replies.

Learned counsel for the parties heard.

The work with regard to the construction of 440 Lawyers’

chambers in the District Court, Sector-43, Chandigarh, was allotted to the applicant, in due course. A contract agreement dated 15.12.2010 was executed between the applicant and the District Bar Association (DBA) through the then President. Later on, dispute arose between the parties, with regard to non-compliance of the terms of the agreement and consequent payments not made. Thereupon, Arbitrator was appointed, who had passed the Arbitral Award dated 25.11.2020. Feeling aggrieved with the said Award, the applicant as well as respondent-DBA filed the respective objection petitions, which are pending in the Courts at Chandigarh.

It is now submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that respondent No.1 is District Bar Association itself and therefore, the pressure built up during the hearing is not very healthy one. For the said reason, the applicant is facing hardship, in pursuing its case. No lawyer is ready to appear, on behalf of the applicant and not just this, the applicant is also facing threat, while appearing in the said case. In view of the same, a prayer has been made for acceptance of both the transfer applications.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent submits that simply, on the score of the rival party to be District Bar Association, does not ipso facto, make out a ground for the transfer of the case. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon D.A.V. College Hoshiarpur Soceity (Regd.) and another vs. D.M.Sharma and others, 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 71 and Gurnam Singh and another vs. Amandeep Singh and others, 2005(2) RCR (Civil)

314 Section 24 CPC empowers the High Court or District Court to transfer inter-alia any suit, appeal or other proceedings, pending before it or in any Court subordinate to it to any other Court for trial or disposal. Said provision confers comprehensive power on the Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings ‘at any stage’, either on an application by any party or suo motu. However, it is well settled that there is no cast iron formula unanimously applicable to all the situations. One differential/distinctive circumstance can change the decision of the transfer application. In the light of the same, it is incumbent upon the Court concerned to exercise this power with due care, caution and circumspection.

Time and again, broad propositions have been laid down by the Courts, as to what may constitute a ground for transfer. There are numerous circumstances and amongst the same, the foremost to be relevant for the present applications is reasonable apprehension, in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the Court, in which the suit is pending, on account of considerable