TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 17 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 7-5-2021 - Hon ble Aniruddha Bose, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR, Mr. Parikshit Ahuja, Adv., Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv., Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Adv., Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv., Mr. Kartik Lahoti, Adv., Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv., Mr. La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered. I am to examine the plea for transfer of the aforesaid criminal case only. Before the Salem Court, examination-in-chief of three prosecution witnesses have been completed on 2nd March 2019, 5th April 2019 and 27th May 2019 (as has been pleaded in the Transfer Petition). Next date was fixed by the Salem Court for appearance of the two accused persons. 3. Several proceedings have been instituted over the question of ownership of the trade mark SACHAMOTI, and these litigations bear features of a family dispute. The petitioner, intervenor and Gopal Sabu, who appears to be in effective control of the respondents business are brothers. The businesses of petitioner and the respondent-company also seems to have had association or connection in the past. There was a burst of litigations between the two parties, Raj Kumar and Gopal in substance, in the year 2016. The petitioner filed a suit in the High Court of Delhi on 9th June, 2016 alleging infringement and passing off of the same trade mark by the respondent. He claims to have registration of the subject-trade mark in his favour, on the strength of an assignment from his late mother, Chandrakanta Sabu. The said suit was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch of the High Court as against the order dated 22.01.2019, stand disposed of. (iii) The order of the Madras High Court dated 07.01.2019 in CMA No. 846 of 2018 and CMP No. 6995 of 2018, as also the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Principal District Court, Salem, are set aside. The application for injunction filed in OS No. 148 of 2016 by Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd. (through Gopal Sabu) also stands revived, and is transferred along with the said suit to the Delhi High Court to be heard in the transferred suit along with the application revived in CS (COMM) No. 761 of 2016 mentioned above. (iv) The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court is requested to decide both the abovementioned applications for injunction in the respective suits within three months. (v) In view of the clubbing of OS No. 148 of 2016, titled as Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajkumar Sabu Anr., pending before the District Court, Salem, along with CS (COMM) No. 761 of 2016, titled as Mr. Rajkumar Sabu v. Ms. Kaushalya Devi Sabu Ors. pending before the Delhi High Court, and the fact that C.S.No.195/2016, pending before the Calcutta High Court, is identical to the one transferred above, we think it is unne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spensed with by an order of the Madras High Court. It is also his submission that the case pending in the Salem Court has criminal elements, which ought not to be mixed up with the civil suit. Relying on a judgment of a Coordinate Bench in the case of Umesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand [(2020) SCC Online SC 845] and an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Gurcharan Dass Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan [(1966) 2 SCR 678], he has argued that to sustain allegation of lack of neutrality in trial as a ground for transfer, credible materials will have to be brought before the Court. His argument is that there is no such material that would justify transfer on this ground. Certain decisions have been referred to on behalf of the respondents on the point that civil and criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously in relation to similar transactions. But I do not consider it necessary to deal with these authorities, as that point does not arise in the present proceeding, which is a Transfer Petition. 7. I shall proceed on the basis that the suits being heard by the Delhi High Court would have points which could overlap with those involved in the criminal case pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d does not meet the standard laid down in the cases of Gurucharan Dass Chadha (supra) and Umesh Kumar Sharma (supra). I cannot come to a conclusion that justice would be in peril if the case continues in the Salem Court. I am not satisfied on the basis of materials available that the petitioner would not get impartial trial in the Salem Court. 8. Next, I shall turn to the question of the problem of language faced by the petitioner. 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 (supra), 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. I have briefly discussed earlier the reason for which transfer of the case was directed. The language factor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 circumstances surrounding the case pending in the Salem Court are entirely different. In the case of Rajesh Talwar vs. CBI [(2012) 4 SCC 217] it was held:- 46. Jurisdiction of a court to conduct criminal prosecution is based on the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Often either the complainant or the accused have to travel across an entire State to attend to criminal proceedings before a jurisdictional court. In some cases to reach the venue of the trial court, a complainant or an accused may have to travel across several States. Likewise, witnesses too may also have to travel long distances in order to depose before the jurisdictional court. If the plea of inconvenience for transferring the cases from one court to another, on the basis of time taken to travel to the court conducting the criminal trial is accepted, the provisions contained in the Criminal procedure Code earmarking the courts havin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
