Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Textile Intenational v. Union Of India & Others - TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 360 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19756 (21 November 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 24

Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 360 of 2006

Textile International, Kanpur Vs. Union of India & others

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

This transfer petition under Section 24 of C.P.C. has been filed seeking the transfer of Misc. Case No. 8 of 2006 pending before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar to any other district of the State.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid misc. case under Section 9 (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act  was filed for certain interim measures before the District Judge in which the respondents-Union of India and others though, served with the notice, did not appear before the court on 4.10.2006 resulting into direction of the court to proceed exparte in the case and 10.10.2006 was fixed by the court for exparte hearing. On the next date (10.10.2006) the respondents-opposite parties did not appear nor were represented through anybody and since the court was closed on account of death of an Advocate, the date was fixed for hearing after two days i.e. 12.10.2006. On that particular date (12.10.2006) an application was moved from the side of the respondents for recalling the order dated 4.10.2006. After hearing the parties at length, by a reasoned order the court below has allowed the prayer of the respondents-opposite parties and the order dated 4.10.2006 by which the case was proceeded exparte, was recalled. Learned counsel in the face of those orders has emphasised that the District Judge has become prejudiced against the petitioner-applicant and the matter should not be heard and decided by him.

The argument of the learned counsel appears to be wholly fallacious and misconceived. The District Judge before whom the proceedings are pending, passes certain orders and if later on finds that the said order is worth recalling and he recalls it on a petition of the party, this is not a sufficient ground to presume that the court is prejudiced against other party. If the order recalling the order dated 4.10.2006 was unjustified or legally and factually not tenable, the proper recourse against that should have been taken by the petitioner-applicant before the competent forum. No revision against that order has been preferred by the petitioner-applicant and that has been made basis of its prayer in the present matter of transfer of the case from that court. Such a prayer is wholly misconceived and is based on frivolous grounds.

The application has absolutely no merits and is hereby dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.