Delhi High Court
Dibyendu Bhattacharjee vs Bch Electric Ltd on 9 November, 2017
$~S-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ TR.P.(C.) 44/2017
DIBYENDU BHATTACHARJEE ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Saurabh Prakash with
Mr.Kunal Gosain, Advocates.
versus
BCH ELECTRIC LTD ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Gauhar Mirza with
Mr.Shivang Singh, Advocates.
% Date of Decision: 9th November, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of
Civil Procedure for transfer of Civil Suit No.59168/2016 titled
Mr.Dibyendu Bhattacharjee Vs. BCH Electric Ltd. from the Court of
Ms..Rekha, learned ADJ, Patiala House Courts to this Court.
2. In the present petition, it has been averred that initially the
petitioner had filed a joint suit with Mr.Pradeep Mehra and Mr.Suprio
Mukherjee who also allegedly resigned on the same date as the
petitioner/plaintiff. Learned predecessor of this Court directed the
said three plaintiffs to file separate suits as it was of the opinion that
though a common grievance had been raised that the plaintiffs'
resignations were not voluntary, yet the averments as to how that
result was brought about were different.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the present
petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Mehra and Mr. Suprio Mukherjee have a
common grievance against the respondent and they all rely on same or
similar evidence as well as the documents, common/similar/identical
issues arise for consideration in all the three suits. Consequently, he
prays that the present transfer petition be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that
as the present petitioner as well as Mr.Pradeep Mehra and Mr.Suprio
Mukherjee have a separate story to tell, this Court should not transfer
the said suit to this Court. He further states that if the present petition
is allowed, it would amount to setting at naught the order passed by
the learned predecessor of this Court on 19th September, 2016.
5. He further states that a transfer petition should be allowed only
when the superior court is satisfied that the proceedings in one court
constitute an abuse of the process or where some prejudice is caused
to one of the parties or if a party feels that he is not likely to have a
fair trial before a particular court. In support of his submission, he
relies upon the judgment of Madras High Court in S. Kousalya Vs.
P.K.Ilavarasan, P.Pugalendhi and N.Velmurugan, Manu/TN/
1285/2008.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of
the view that the power of the High Court to transfer any proceedings
to itself is plenary and the grounds mentioned by the Madras High
Court in S.Kousalya (supra) are only illustrative. It is pertinent to
mention that the powers under Section 24 CPC can be exercised by the
Court even suo moto.
7. This court is also of the view that even if it is assumed that
Section 24 CPC cannot be invoked for transfer of proceedings in the
present case, this Court has the ample power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to transfer such proceedings. The Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Maharajkumar Gajbir Singh & Anr. Vs.His.
Highness Maharaja Satbir Singh & Ors., 1968 Cri LJ 971 has held
as under:
"...Assuming that section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure
cannot be invoked for transfer of such proceedings, this
Court has ample jurisdiction to transfer the case in exercise
of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution."
8. Since it is the case of the petitioner as well as Mr.Pradeep
Mehra and Mr.Suprio Mukherjee that on acceptance of their
resignations, just and proper terminal dues had not been paid to them
by the same respondent, this Court is of the opinion that a number of
common/similar/identical issues arise for consideration in all the three
cases.
9. This Court is further of the view that the learned predecessor
of this Court while passing the order dated 19 th September, 2016 did
not deal with the issue of transfer of the suit to the High Court. The
order dated 19th September, 2016 was passed in the context of an
application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Consequently, the observations in the said order are not germane
while deciding the present transfer petition.
10. In any event, as this Court is of the view that since a number of
common/similar/identical issues arise for consideration in all the three
suits, the Civil Suit No.59168/2016 is transferred to this Court to
avoid any conflict of judgment and is directed to be heard by the same
Court which is hearing CS(OS) Nos.1856/2015 and 577/2016 filed by
Mr.Pradeep Mehra and Mr. Suprio Mukherjee respectively. This
Court clarifies that the evidence led in the present case would not be
read in the other case, but all three cases would be heard by the same
court and judgment should be pronounced on the same day.
11. With the aforesaid directions, present transfer petition stands
disposed of.
12. Registry is directed to summon Civil Suit No.59168/2016 to
this Court and re-number the same.
13. The parties are given liberty to file their documents in the said
suit within a period of two weeks.
14. List the Civil Suit No.59168/2016 after re-numbering it before
the Joint Registrar along with CS(OS) Nos.1856/2015 and 577/2016
on 28th November, 2017.
MANMOHAN, J
NOVEMBER 09, 2017
KA
