Bench:
Justice Ahmadi, Justice Shetty
Petitioner:
Dr. Subramaniam Swamy
Respondent:
Ramkrishna Hegde
Issue
Can a transfer Petition be allowed on the ground of forum non-convenience?
Facts
- Respondent filed a suit for defamation in Bombay High Court against the petitioner, claiming Rupees One Crore as damages for the injury caused to his reputation by the publication of certain defamatory statements made by the petitioner at a Press Conference in New Delhi on January 10, 1989.
- The allegation was that the petitioner levelled several accusations at the above-mentioned press conference which was widely reported in the newspapers of January 11,1989.
- In substance, the allegation was that the respondent and his family members pocketed more than Rupees 300 crores through fraudulent deals in lands situated in Bangalore and other parts of Karnataka, where the respondent favoured his relatives and friends, other than non-resident Indians.
- Petitioner filed an instant petition under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code and prayed for the transfer of the said suit from Bombay High Court to a Civil Court in Karnataka, preferably the City Civil Court at Bangalore on the grounds of forum non-conveniens.
Petitioner’s Prayer
- Petitioner urged that the petitioner’s father maintained a family house at Bangalore.
- All the events that provided for the defence to the litigation took place in Bangalore, Karnataka.
- The entire documentary evidence of the alleged act being in official files and in private custody would be easily available in Bangalore.
- The witnesses who are aware of the respondent's wrongs are residents of Karnataka, more particularly Bangalore.
- Inspection and discovery of documents could be conveniently done in Bangalore.
- The evidence relating to telephone tapping at the behest of the respondent was available in Karnataka.
- The people of Karnataka are vitally interested in the outcome of the litigation.
Respondent’s Contentions
- The petitioner has aligned himself with the ruling party at the Centre and is indulging in making intemperate, slanderous and false accusations against the respondent with the intention of maligning him and advancing the interest of the ruling party at the centre.
- The hearing of the suit has been delayed as the petitioner has not filed his written statement.
- He further contended that being the dominus litis, he was entitled to choose the forum.
Relevant Paragraphs (Paragraph 8, 10, 11 of the Original Judgement)
- Since most of the witnesses relevant to the case reside in Bangalore, it would be inconvenient for them to travel to Bombay to give the appropriate evidence. This will also cost the petitioner highly due to the travel expenses that he needs to incur to secure the evidence.
- If circumstances permit the Court to transfer a case from one Court to another in appropriate cases, then it shall proceed with it to meet the ends of justice. And while doing so, considering the right of dominus litis to choose the forum and considerations of plaintiff's convenience, etc. is irrelevant.
Judgement
The Supreme Court held that the ends of justice in the instant case demanded that the suit be transferred from the Bombay High Court to the City Civil Court, Bangalore, where most of the documentary evidence and witnesses were available. Since the respondent was a resident of Bangalore and was the Chief Minister of Karnataka when the acts accused upon him took place, the impact of the accusation would be more on the readers of Bangalore. Less prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the suit was transferred as prayed by the petitioner, stated the Court. Thereby, the suit was transferred to the City Civil Court, Bangalore for trial and disposal in accordance with law from the stage at which the suit is pending.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
