Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 2054
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION(S) (CIVIL) No(S).2221 of 2026
SAI MAGHALAKSHMI TRADERS & ORS. .....PETITIIONER(S)
VERSUS
M/S SRI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA AGRO FOODS & ANR. .....RESPONDENT(S)
...........................................,J.(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
.........................................,J.(R. MAHADEVAN)
NEW DELHI OCTOBER 28, 2026.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.3 SECTION XVI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 2221/2026
SAI MAGHALAKSHMI TRADERS & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S SRI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA AGRO FOODS & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 28-10-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakshman Raja T, Adv.
Mr. S T Stalin, Adv.
Mr. M. P. Srivignesh- 4194, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha- 2304, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Transfer Petition is allowed in terms of the signed order, which is placed on file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
O R D E R
1. This Transfer Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:
“Transfer CS(COMM) 625/2026 titled “M/s. Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agro Foods & Anr. v. Sai Maghalakshmi Traders & Ors.” together with all pending applications therein, from the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi to the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras for trial and disposal in accordance with law.”
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Signature Not Verified BORRA LM VALLI Date: 2026.11.0c6 ounsel for the respondents.Reason:
3. We find that the petitioners herein, who are the defendants in the suit, are carrying on business at Chennai and the respondents herein, who are the plaintiffs, have their principal place of business at Nelmangala, Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka.
4. We fail to understand as to why the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit before the Delhi High Court when both the parties are residing in the neighbouring States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and the Madras High Court also has original jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
5. We wish to observe that it is not merely concerns of convenience that animate the need for transfer of proceedings in the instant case. While it could be true that various High Courts may have the jurisdiction to hear a particular case, especially in the case of intellectual property disputes, any perception of a particular High Court being better suited to hearing a particular type of dispute is entirely misguided and erroneous. The mere existence of territorial jurisdiction in various courts cannot on its own become justification for forum shopping and cannot result in the perpetuation of notions of a hierarchy among the High Courts of this country. We also wish to highlight that, ordinarily, in a case whose respective parties, genesis and factual locus are based in a particular location, the courts of the said location would be most suited to understanding the nuances of that case.
6. We therefore, find that the petitioner has made out a case for transfer of the suit from the Delhi High Court to the Madras High Court. We also find that the interests of justice would be served in the instant case, having regard to the fact that the parties are carrying on their respective businesses in the neighbouring States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and therefore for the expediency of disposal and bearing in mind all practical aspects, the Transfer Petition is liable to be allowed.
7. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed and the case viz., CS(COMM) 625/2026 on the file of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi is transferred to the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
8. The respondents are at liberty to appear before the Transferee Court either in person or through video conferencing facility.
