Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution 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