Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2021 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 1068 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking to transfer the case to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi - Use of the trade mark SACHAMOTI in respect of sago or sabudana by Rajkumar Sabu (the petitioner) - Respondents claim proprietary right over the said trade mark - alleged offences under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 - HELD THAT:- The suits being heard by the Delhi High Court would have points which could overlap with those involved in the criminal case pending in the Salem Court. But that very fact, by itself, would not justify transfer of the said case. Substantial progress has been made in the said complaint before the Salem Court. So far as the subject-criminal case is concerned, the ground of overlapping points in any event cannot justify the petitioner’s case for transfer as even if the petition is allowed, the criminal case shall have to proceed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate and not in the High Court where the civil suits are being heard. Two different judicial fora would be hearing the civil cases and the criminal case. Whether the civil cases and the criminal case would continue together or not is not a question which falls for determination in this Transfer Petition. Moreover, it does not appear that earlier any complaint was made about the proceeding being carried on at Salem. In fact, the petitioner had applied for quashing the complaint before the Madras High Court but at that point of time, no proceeding was taken out for transferring the criminal complaint. The petitioner does not appear to have had expressed their grievances on the basis of which this petition has been filed at that point of time. Barring claims being made by the petitioner of the respondents being influential person in Salem, no material has been produced to demonstrate that such perceived influence can impair a neutral trial. These allegations, inter-alia, appear in an additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner affirmed on 26th February, 2021. The claims of the petitioner do not match the level of unjust influence exerted on the defence in the case of JAYENDRA SARASWATHY SWAMIGAL, TAMIL NADU VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [2005 (10) TMI 610 - SUPREME COURT], on the basis of which the transfer petition was allowed. In that case, this Court found the prosecuting authorities were harassing the defence team of lawyers and there were materials demonstrated by the petitioner to show that the State machinery was going out of its way in preventing the accused from defending himself. The petitioner’s case of possible tainted trial is unfounded and does not meet the standard laid down in the cases of GURUCHARAN DAS CHADHA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN [1965 (11) TMI 157 - SUPREME COURT] and UMESH KUMAR SHARMA VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. [2020 (10) TMI 1367 - SUPREME COURT] - It cannot be concluded that justice would be in peril if the case continues in the Salem Court. It is not satisfying that on the basis of materials available that the petitioner would not get impartial trial in the Salem Court. Problem of language faced by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The respondents seem to be carrying on their business from Salem. In course of hearing before me, no question has been raised as regards territorial jurisdiction of the Salem Court in proceeding with the case, the transfer of which is asked for. Now, complaint is being made that the petitioner not being able to understand Tamil language, the case ought to be transferred to a Court in Delhi. Language was a factor considered by this Court in the case of Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal, while selecting the Court to which the case was to be transferred. But language was not the criteria based on which transfer of the case was directed - The language factor weighed with this Court while deciding the forum to which the case was to be transferred after decision was taken to transfer the case for certain other reasons. The petitioner’s plea for transfer is based primarily on convenience. But convenience of one of the parties cannot be a ground for allowing his application. Transfer of a criminal case under Section 406 of the 1973 Code can be directed when such transfer would be “expedient for the ends of justice”. This expression entails factors beyond mere convenience of the parties or one of them in conducting a case before a Court having jurisdiction to hear the case. The parties are related, and are essentially fighting commercial litigations filed in multiple jurisdictions. While instituting civil suits, both the parties had chosen fora, some of which were away from their primary places of business, or the main places of business of the defendants - The ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of MRUDUL M. DAMLE AND ORS. VERSUS C.B.I., NEW DELHI. [2012 (5) TMI 865 - SUPREME COURT] cannot apply in the factual context of this case. In that case, a proceeding pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Rohini Courts, New Delhi was directed to be transferred to the Special Judge, CBI cases, Court of Session, Thane. Out of 92 witnesses enlisted in the charge sheet, 88 were from different parts of Maharashtra. That was a case which this Court found was not “Delhi-centric”. The accused persons were based in western part of this Country. It was because of these reasons, the case was directed to be transferred. The present transfer petition is dismissed.
|