1. Kalpana Devi Prakash Thakar vs. Dev Prakash Thakar

In this case, the Supreme Court disallowed the wife’s plea for the transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Mumbai to Palanpur, Gujarat. The decision was based on several considerations:

• Professional Commitments: The husband was a medical practitioner, and his absence from Mumbai would inconvenience his patients.
• Caregiving Responsibilities: The husband’s elderly and ailing mother, who required regular medical check-ups and constant care, lived with him.
• Witness Proximity: The witnesses were principally from Mumbai, making it a practical location for the trial.
• Accommodation Arrangements: The wife had relatives in Mumbai with whom she could stay whenever she attended court.
• Travel Expenses: The husband was willing to bear the wife’s travel expenses and those of an escort.
• Connectivity: Palanpur was well connected to Mumbai by train, ensuring ease of travel.

This case illustrates the Court’s careful consideration of the practical implications and fairness for both parties before deciding on a transfer petition.

2. Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha vs. Ramesh Shitla Prasad Ojha

The Court disallowed a woman’s application for the transfer of a succession certificate application from Gujarat to Uttar Pradesh. Her main plea was her inability to travel from Uttar Pradesh to Gujarat. The Court rejected the petition based on:

• Travel Expenses: The respondent’s readiness to pay her travel expenses.
• Legal Representation: The Court suggested that if the petitioner had financial constraints in engaging counsel, she could file an application to recover these costs from the respondent in the trial court at Gujarat.

This case emphasizes the Court’s focus on practical solutions to logistical challenges rather than transferring cases as a matter of convenience.

3. Kiran Ramanlal Jani vs. Gulam Kadar

In this case, the petitioner sought the transfer of a motor accident claim from Jammu and Kashmir to Gujarat. The Supreme Court allowed the transfer in the absence of objections from the respondents. However, the decision highlighted the need for a sound legal basis for such transfers. When a transfer is sought involving Jammu and Kashmir, special procedures may be required, such as filing a petition for special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.

4. Bihar State Food and Supplies Corporation vs. Godrej Soaps (P) Ltd. and Sons

A civil suit pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Patna was transferred to the Bombay High Court. After the suit in Bombay was decided and taken in appeal, a petition was filed for re-transfer to Patna. The Court disallowed this petition, emphasizing judicial efficiency and avoiding conflicting decisions. The Court requested the learned Judge on the Original Side to expedite the process by framing issues and taking evidence on a day-to-day basis.

5. State of Assam vs. Dr. Brojen Gogoi

The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail and transferred the application to the Gauhati High Court. The rationale was that the alleged offences were committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court, making it the appropriate forum.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to Withdraw and Transfer Cases Under Article 139-A of the Constitution

Article 139-A

• Withdrawal to Supreme Court: The Supreme Court can withdraw cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law from High Courts to itself.
• Transfer between High Courts: The Supreme Court can transfer cases, appeals, or other proceedings from one High Court to another for the ends of justice.

Case Examples:

• Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India: The Supreme Court rejected the plea that withdrawal of the main civil suit and criminal proceedings was improper, reinforcing its powers under Articles 136 and 142.
• Vinod Chandra Chiman Lal Shah vs. Union of India: The Court refused to transfer writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of COFEPOSA and SAFEMA, as the petitioners undertook to give up this ground.
• Union of India vs. Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui: The Court withdrew writ petitions from the Allahabad High Court to itself concerning the Babri Masjid issue due to the overlapping legal questions with a Presidential reference.
• Central Coal Fields vs. State of M.P: The Court denied a transfer petition, noting that interim relief could be sought in High Courts.
• SEBI vs. Bombay Stock Exchange Brokers Forum: The Court transferred some cases to itself while staying similar High Court proceedings, allowing for intervention applications in transferred cases.
• Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Constructions: All cases concerning Skipper Constructions were transferred to the Supreme Court.
• K.V. Venkatapathi vs. State: The Supreme Court issued a stay on appeals in the High Court of Tamil Nadu involving a Special Prosecutor, illustrating its supervisory powers under Article 139-A.

Contact for Legal Light Consulting

If you need expert legal assistance for filing a transfer petition under Section 25 of the CPC, contact Legal Light Consulting:

Legal Light Consulting

Expert Legal Assistance for Transfer Petitions

• Phone: +91-9999 641 341
• Email: legallightconsulting@gmail.com
• Website: www.legallightconsulting.com

Services Offered:

• Case Evaluation: Detailed assessment of the merits and grounds for your transfer petition.
• Documentation and Filing: Professional drafting and filing of the petition with all necessary supporting documents.
• Legal Representation: Expert representation in Supreme Court hearings to advocate for your transfer request.

For personalized consultation and further information, please reach out to Legal Light Consulting using the provided contact details.