Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 05-05-2017 in case of petitioner name Milap Choraria vs Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Or
| |

Supreme Court Rejects Transfer and Writ Petition in Milap Choraria vs. Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala

The case of Milap Choraria vs. Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. involves a Transfer Petition and a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner, Milap Choraria, sought the transfer of a civil suit from the Calcutta High Court to a competent court in Delhi, citing health reasons and alleged threats to his life.

Background of the Case

The transfer petition was filed under Article 139A of the Constitution, seeking the transfer of Suit No. 250 of 2011, titled “Sanjay Jhunjhunwala vs. Milap Choraria & Ors.”, from the Calcutta High Court to a competent court in Delhi. The petitioner contended that he was unable to travel due to health issues and alleged threats to his life.

Additionally, a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 82 of 2016 was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a direction to investigate crimes allegedly committed against the petitioner under a conspiracy involving politicians and public servants.

Legal Issues Involved

1. Transfer of Civil Suit under Article 139A

The petitioner requested a transfer of the case to Delhi, arguing that he faced difficulties in traveling to Kolkata.

2. Invocation of Article 142 for Dismissing the Suit

The petitioner also requested the Supreme Court to invoke Article 142 and dismiss the suit, claiming it was frivolous and an abuse of the judicial process.

3. Writ Petition under Article 32

The petitioner sought a direction for an investigation into alleged criminal conspiracies against him, arguing that such crimes fell beyond the jurisdiction of state law enforcement authorities.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s (Milap Choraria) Arguments

  • Due to advanced age and health problems, he was unable to travel to Kolkata.
  • He alleged threats to his life, making it unsafe for him to appear in Kolkata courts.
  • He urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit under Article 142, stating that a similar suit had already been dismissed by the High Court.
  • Regarding the writ petition, he claimed that the crimes committed against him were politically motivated and required investigation by central agencies.

Respondent’s (Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Others) Arguments

  • The petitioner had been actively prosecuting multiple cases in Kolkata even after filing the transfer petition in 2012.
  • The cause of action arose in Kolkata; hence, the suit should be heard there.
  • The petitioner could pursue legal remedies before the appropriate courts instead of seeking intervention from the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court made the following key observations:

  • The petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances justifying the transfer of the case.
  • The allegation of threats to life was not supported by substantive evidence.
  • Article 142 could not be invoked to dismiss the civil suit, as it was the petitioner’s responsibility to raise the issue of maintainability before the trial court.
  • The writ petition under Article 32 was not maintainable for investigating criminal allegations; the petitioner was free to approach the High Court for appropriate relief.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed both the transfer petition and the writ petition, stating:

  • The petitioner had no valid grounds for transferring the case.
  • The writ petition was not maintainable under Article 32.
  • The petitioner was free to raise a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the suit before the appropriate court.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s approach to transfer petitions and writ petitions:

  • Transfer requests must be supported by compelling reasons; inconvenience alone is insufficient.
  • The Supreme Court does not exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 to dismiss suits unless exceptional circumstances exist.
  • Article 32 cannot be invoked for criminal investigations; such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the appropriate High Court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Milap Choraria vs. Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala reaffirms that transfer petitions require strong justification and that writ petitions under Article 32 are not an alternative to regular legal remedies. The judgment underscores the need for litigants to follow the appropriate legal channels for their grievances.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Milap Choraria vs Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhu Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-05-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category

Similar Posts