CHANDIGARH, Sept 7: — The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea by a contractor seeking transfer of proceedings against the Chandigarh District Bar Association, ruling that judicial functioning cannot be “stone-walled” by litigants or members of the Bar.
A bench of Justice Archana Puri, while rejecting the application filed by M/s The Dream Group, observed, “The process of judicial delivery system must run its even course, unbridled by any litigant, be it a private person or an advocate or bunch of advocates or the advocates together, being members of District Bar Association.”
The dispute relates to the construction of 440 lawyers’ chambers in Sector 43 district courts, a project awarded to The Dream Group in December 2010. After disagreements with the Bar body, the matter went to arbitration, and an award was passed in November 2020. Proceedings arising from that award are currently pending in the Chandigarh district courts.
The contractor sought to have the case transferred to either Panchkula or Mohali, arguing that no local lawyer was willing to appear on its behalf since the opposite party was the Bar Association. The firm also claimed its representatives faced threats while appearing in court.
The Bar Association opposed the transfer, contending that the mere fact that the rival litigant is a Bar body does not automatically justify moving the case elsewhere.
The court agreed, clarifying that while it has the authority to accept transfer applications involving advocates, there must be concrete circumstances showing that the opposing party is attempting to overreach or influence the court to the point of undermining a fair trial. “Being advocate, ipso facto, is not a ground for transfer of the case,” Justice Puri noted.
Addressing concerns raised by the petitioner, the court said that allegations based solely on apprehensions or “mystic maybes” cannot be the basis for shifting proceedings. “Mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done, do not make out any case for transfer,” the order stated.
The bench further observed that suggesting a presiding officer would bow to the will of the Bar Association “impliedly casts aspersions upon the functioning of the judicial system,” which, it said, must be avoided.
Finding no substance in the contractor’s claims, the High Court dismissed the plea, allowing the case to proceed in Chandigarh.
