✦ Bombay High Court · 07 Apr 2010

Haresh N. Chheda v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case Details Bombay High Court · 07 Apr 2010
Court
Bombay High Court
Case No.
Writ Petition No. 2484 of 2010
Decided
07 Apr 2010
Bench
Length
1,236 words

Summary

A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.

Precedent status

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

Original judgment text

Appeal from Order and a Writ Petition arising out of the orders passed in the said two suits. This Court expedited hearing of the suits and directed that the hearing should be concluded on or before 30th April, 2010. This Court observed that if the suits are pending in different Courts, the learned Principal District Judge, Raigad shall pass an administrative Order of assigning the suits to one and the same Court. It must be noted here that on the basis of the order dated 7th October, 2009 passed by this Court, the learned Principal District Judge transferred SRJ 3 wp-2484-10.sxw Regular Civil Suit No.99 of 2001 filed by the Petitioner which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Panvel to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alibag where Special Civil Suit filed by the Petitioner was already pending. On 24th February 2010, the Petitioner made an application under section 24 of the said Code for transfer of both the suits to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Panvel. It was contended in the said application filed by the Petitioner that on the basis of the application made by the Respondent, the Special Civil Suit No.26 of 2001 was transferred to the Court at Alibag only on the ground that allegations of bias were made by the Respondent against learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Panvel, at Panvel before whom the suit was pending. It is contended that now the said ground is not in existence, as the concerned Judge has been transferred long back. It was contended that both the suits were filed in the Court at Panvel and, therefore, both the suits be sent to the Court at Panvel considering the convenience of the parties. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 4] The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Special Civil Suit pertains to the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Panvel and the Regular Civil Suit filed by the Petitioner also pertains to the jurisdiction of a Court at Panvel. He submitted that on the basis of allegations made by the Respondent in the year 2001, the SRJ 4 wp-2484-10.sxw Special Civil Suit was transferred from the Court at Panvel to the Court at Alibag. He submitted that now the situation has changed as the learned Judge against whom allegations were made has been transferred and, therefore, the said suit must be now transferred back to the original Court where it was filed. He submitted that the Regular Civil Suit filed by the Petitioner will have to be heard alongwith the Special Civil Suit and, therefore, the said suits have to be transferred to the Court at Panvel. He submitted that the Court at Panvel is more convenient to both the parties. 5] I have given careful consideration to the submissions.When this Court passed an order on 7th October, 2009, the Petitioner was represented by a Counsel. The Petitioner was fully aware that the Special Civil Suit filed by him was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alibag and the Regular Civil Suit was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)at Panvel. After hearing the counsel representing both the parties and in the presence of the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, this Court directed the learned Principal District Judge to transfer the suits to one and the same Court. Further direction was issued for concluding the trial of the suits on or before 30th April, 2010. When time bound schedule was fixed by this Court, a request ought to have been made to this Court for transferring both the suits to the Court at Panvel. When the order dated 7th September, 2009 was being passed, in fairness, the SRJ 5 wp-2484-10.sxw Petitioner ought have pointed out that he desired to apply for transfer of the suit pending in the Court at Alibag to the Court at Panvel. Moreover, the Petitioner allowed the order dated 7th October, 2009 to be acted upon. On the basis of the order of this Court, the learned Principal District Judge transferred the Regular Civil Suit filed by the Petitioner to Court at Alibag, where the other suit filed by the Petitioner was already pending. Thereafter, on 24th February, 2010, Petitioner filed the application for transfer on which the impugned order has been passed. The Special Civil Suit filed by the Petitioner was transferred to the Court at Alibag way back in the year

2002. The Petitioner had no grievance about the pendency of the suit in the Court at Alibag till 7th October, 2009 when this Court passed the aforesaid order. After hearing the Petitioner, a direction was issued by this Court to dispose of both the suits on or before 30th April, 2010. Considering the aforesaid aspects, no interference can be made with the impugned order. Reliance was sought to be placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank, Madras vs. Chemical Construction Company and Others [(1979) 4 SCC (cid:19) 358]. The said decision will have no application in as much as from the year 2002 till February 2010, the Petitioner had no grievance about pendency of his Special Civil Suit in the Court at Alibag. SRJ 6] Considering the conduct of the Petitioner and 6 wp-2484-10.sxw considering the earlier order of this Court passed on 7th October, 2009, no interference is called for with the impugned order. Writ Petition is rejected. Time for disposal of the suits is extended till 31st August, 2010. (A.S.OKA,J.)

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 2484 of 2010). ← Search more judgments