Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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