Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.38 seconds)Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan ... vs Kandi Friends Education Trust And ... on 11 January, 2008
"Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be
imprisoned within a strait-jacket of any cast-iron formula
unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid
that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due
care, caution and circumspection. Reading Section 24 and 25 of
the Code together and keeping in view various judicial
pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may
constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts.
They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or
defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a
particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence
on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties;
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he
might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending;
important questions of law involved or a considerable section of
public interested in the litigation; interest of justice demanding
for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceedings, etc. Above are
some of the instances which are germane in considering the
6 CRTA No. 3/2016
question of transfer of suit, appeal or other proceedings. They
are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as
exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations,
the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely
to have a fair trial in the Court from which he seeks to
transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court
to make such order."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 24 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Abdul Rashid Tantray And Anr vs Ut Of Jk And Ors on 31 December, 2022
and vide trial court order dated 12.12.2015 a process against the petitioner
u/s 499 RPC has been issued; that a PIL No. 06 of 2014 titled Abdul
Rashid Tantray vs State and others was pending in the Srinagar Wing of
J&K High Court wherein petitioner has been arrayed as respondent No.3
in the said PIL for the allegations that the respondent by misusing his
2 CRTA No. 3/2016
official position as a Director ISM has issued DAWASAAZ(Pharmacist)
ISM Certificates in favour of hundreds of persons including private
respondents when none of them have ever been admitted in any college or
institute for undergoing such training or having attended classes or
practicals without appearing in any tests or examinations, such candidates
have never been selected on the basis of entrance, competitive test for
imparting any training if any, yet certificates have been sold of
DAWASAAZ(Pharmacist) ISM on monetary considerations, more
surprisingly in glaring violation; that in addition to the points raised in the
writ petition the arbitrary and malafide method of selecting candidates for
the said training course without conducting any test or selection process
from amongst eligible candidates so that merit could be evaluated and
selection made accordingly; that respondent No.2 figuring in PIL No. 06
of 2014 i.e Commissioner/Secretary Health and Medical Department
realizing this fraud issued Govt. Order No. 121-HME of 2008 dated
17thOctober 2008 pursuant to which the list forwarded by respondent No.3
i.e the respondent herein in the present petition i.e Director ISM J&K to
Commissioner/Secretary Health and Medical Department of as many as
994 candidates for DAWASAAZ training was withdrawn and cancelled
by the Govt.; that some of the candidates have challenged the said
cancellation order through OWP No. 839/2008 and the writ Court after
taking serious cognizance of this fraudulent and arbitrary method of
selecting candidates for training, dismissed the writ petition and while
dismissing the writ petition, issued specific directions as to how said
selection for undergoing training of DAWASAAZ (Pharmacist) can be
issued by respondents in the writ petition; that the Govt. ordered inquiry
into the facts of the case forming the subject of the PIL No. 06/2014, the
inquiry officer conducted the inquiry and submitted his report appears to
have been published in the newspaper which inquiry report has been made
the basis for filing the complaint against the petitioner herein by
respondent Kabir Dar; that the motive behind the filing of the complaint is
only to drag the petitioner to valley and to get the petitioner eliminated
because the petitioner is running the leading newspaper of the State which
has wide circulation and the newspaper condemns anti-national activities
carried on by the anti-national elements in the state especially in the
valley; that the petitioner apprehends threat to his life and is not in a
3 CRTA No. 3/2016
position to fairly face the trial in the court of Judicial Magistrate (Sub-
Registrar), Srinagar owing to his being the journalist and proprietor of a
newspaper Daily Excelsior he is receiving threats to his life off and on
from anti-national elements because of his fair reporting; that the
petitioner is facing great hardship, inconvenience in visiting the valley,
there is every likelihood of him being eliminated, as such, the petitioner is
not in a position to appear and attend the trial court of Judicial Magistrate
(Sub-Registrar) Srinagar and face the trial.
1