Delhi High Court: Plea Moved To Transfer Case To Another Court Must Be Based On Reason, Not Apprehension Of An Over

The Delhi High Court in the case Upinder Kaur Malhotra v. Capt Teghjeet Singh Malhotra and Anr and other connected matters observed and has dismissed the petition moved for transfer of matters pending before the Family Judge, Patiala House Courts to another court of competent jurisdiction.
The court observed that the apprehension underlying such pleas ought to be founded on reason and not merely an over sensitive mind.
The court in the matter stated that while there being absolutely no doubt in the legal proposition that Justice must not only be done, but also appear to be done, and where a party has a reasonable doubt that such a party may not get justice in a particular Court, thus, the same may be a ground to transfer the proceedings to another Court, at the same time, such apprehension must be founded on reason and should not be merely of an over sensitive mind.
The bench headed by Justice Navin Chawla in the case observed and has stated that the vacillating stand of the petitioner in prosecution of the proceedings before the Family Court.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before the court that the concerned Judge’s remarks had led to the formation of an opinion in the petitioner’s mind that she may not get justice from the said court.
Further, it has been argued that apprehension may or may not be adequately founded in facts, but once the apprehension was expressed, thus, the court must transfer the matter.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent urged that the petitioner was adopting dilatory tactics before the Family Court and any basis for apprehension was ill-found.
The court also referred to the case R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, wherein it has been opined by the Supreme Court that the mere allegation of apprehension that justice will not be done was not sufficient.
Therefore, the court stated that the apprehension ought to appear reasonable, genuine, and justifiable to a court.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has stated that the petitions were another attempt by the petitioner to delay adjudication of the proceedings before the Family Court.
The bench of Justice Chawla in the case observed and found no such reason to transfer the matters to another court and dismissed the petitions.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.
The counsel, Advocate Basab Sengupta and Advocate Nandini Sen appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Advocate Gauri Gupta represented the respondents.