Delhi High Court Fines Litigant ₹25K For Seeking Transfer Of Case Following Judge's Oral Remarks

The Delhi High Court has recently fined a litigant seeking transfer of a commercial dispute, observing that allegations against a Judicial Officer cannot be made lightly, merely on the basis of oral observations or remarks made during court proceedings.

Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar deprecated the manner in which the allegations were made in the transfer petition and dismissed the same while imposing costs of Rs. 25,000 on the litigant.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by one Mohammad Ahmad seeking transfer of a commercial suit titled Asha Malik v. Mohammad Ahmad, from the Court of District Judge (Commercial Court-04), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, to another competent Commercial Court.

Ahmad claimed that he had a genuine and reasonable apprehension that he would not receive a fair adjudication before the Trial Court judge.

His apprehension was primarily based on certain oral observations and statements allegedly made by the Trial Court judge during the proceedings.

It was alleged that the Trial Court judge had expressed reluctance to entertain an application filed by Ahmad under Order XI Rule 13 of CPC.

Further, the litigant alleged that the Trial Court judge had advised the counsel of the Respondents regarding filing of applications for his detention.

Dismissing the plea, the Court said that the allegations of such nature against a Judicial Officer cannot be lightly made merely on the basis of oral observations or statements made during the course of a hearing.

“A judicial proceeding necessarily involves interaction between the Court and the counsel appearing before it, and observations made during the course of such proceedings cannot, by themselves, be treated as a determination of the issues arising between the parties,” the Court said.

It added that the transfer petition did not point out any adjudication by the Trial Court judge whereby the litigant's substantive rights had been determined adversely on account of any alleged bias or preferential treatment.

Justice Shankar also was unable to accept that the mere alleged expression of reluctance by the Trial Court judge to entertain an Application under Order XI Rule 13 of the CPC, without there being any adjudication on the application itself, could constitute a sufficient basis for the extraordinary relief of transfer of the proceedings.

“The correctness or otherwise of any order ultimately passed by the learned Trial Court is a matter which can be assailed in accordance with law, if so permissible, and cannot furnish a ground for seeking transfer merely on the basis of an apprehension arising from an oral observation,” the Court said.

It added that the allegations regarding indulgence allegedly shown to the counsel appearing for the Respondents and the alleged advice concerning an application for detention of the litigant were serious allegations against a Judicial Officer.

The Court opined that such allegations ought not to be made in a routine manner or founded merely upon an interpretation placed by a litigant upon the oral exchanges taking place during the course of proceedings.

“In the considered view of this Court, the power of transfer under Section 24 of the CPC cannot be invoked merely because a litigant has developed an apprehension based upon the oral observations made during the course of proceedings. Therefore, the allegations made against the learned Trial Court are neither warranted nor conducive to the administration of justice,” the Court said.

Deprecating the conduct of the litigant, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association within four weeks.

Title: MOHAMMAD AHMAD v. ASHA MALIK AND ANR

Click here to read order