Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

P&H High Court Rules Heated Exchanges Not Sufficient Grounds for Transfer: Emphasizes Need for Court Decorum”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana clarified that “heated exchanges between counsel and Presiding Officer were not sufficient grounds for transfer.” The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Aggarwal, emphasized the importance of maintaining court decorum by both Presiding Officers and Bar Members.

The case revolved around a transfer petition filed by the petitioners, who were aggrieved by the District Judge, Gurugram’s dismissal of their transfer application for Civil Suit No. CS/1615/2023. The petitioners claimed that they were denied a fair hearing, causing them to apprehend that they would not receive justice.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that their clients were denied an opportunity for a fair hearing by the trial court. In opposition, the counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 stated that the trial court had been adjourning the matter and did not display any haste. Interestingly, the counsel for proforma respondent no.3 supported the petitioners.

Justice Vikram Aggarwal, in his observation, stated that “this alone would not be reason enough for an apprehension to crop up in the minds of any of the parties that they would not get justice from the Court concerned.” He further emphasized that it is for the Presiding Officers also to ensure that no acts of theirs give rise to such an apprehension.

The High Court found no illegality in the order passed by the District Judge, Gurugram, and dismissed the revision petition. However, it directed the concerned court to ensure a fair hearing to all parties in future proceedings.

Date of Decision: August 23, 2023

Raj Bala and another vs Rishabh Birla and others        

Latest Legal News