D.A.V. BOYS SR. SEC. SCHOOL ETC. ETC. versus DAV COLLEGE MANAGING COMMITIEE

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 952 · Decided: 23-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 8 S.C.R. 952 
A 
D.A.V. BOYS SR. SEC. SCHOOL ETC. ETC. 
B 
v. 
DAV COLLEGE MANAGING COMMITIEE 
(Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 1233-1237 of 2008 etc) 
JULY 23, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 25 - Transfer petition 
- Allegations of infringement of registered trade mark against 
C schools run by Chennai based Society - Suits filed by 
respondent-Committee, in District Court in Delhi under s. 134 
of the Trade Marks Act - Defendant-schools filed petition for 
transfer of the suits to civil court in Chennai - Held: The mere 
convenience of the parties may not be enough for the 
o exercise of power but it must also be shown that trial in the 
chosen forum will result in denial of justice - On facts, there 
is no valid ground for transfer of the suits since balance of 
convenience and other attendant circumstances are not in 
favour of the defendant-schools transferring the suits to their 
E place - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - s.134. 
The respondent-Committee obtained a trademark 
registration in respect of the letters "DAV" and 
"Dayanand Anglo Vedic", and issued a notice of "cease 
and desist" to various schools run by the Tamil Nadu 
F 
Arya Samaj Education Society asking them not to use the 
words "DAV" for their schools. It also filed four suits 
against the said schools under Section 134 of the Trade 
Marks Act, 1999 before the District Court, Tis Hazari, 
Delhi. 
G 
The defendant-schools filed transfer petitions before 
the Supreme Court praying for transfer of the said suits 
to City Civil Court, Chennai, Tamil Nadu inter alia on the 
grounds of inconvenience due to distance, language and 
H 
952 
D.A.V. BOYS SR. SEC. SCHOOL v. DAV COLLEGE 953 
MANAGING COMMITTEE 
the old age of the Secretary of the said Tamil Nadu 
A 
Society. 
Dismissing the ·transfer petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Mere convenience of the parties may not 
be enough for the exercise of power u/s. 25, CPC but it 
must also be shown that trial in the chosen forum will 
result in denial of justice. In the interest of justice and to 
adherence of fair trial, this Court exercises its discretion 
and orders transfer in a suit or appeal or other 
proceedings. [Para 11} [961-E-F} 
1.2. Section 25, CPC itself makes it clear that if any 
application is made for transfer, after notice to the parties, 
and if the Court is satisfied that an order of transfer is 
expedient for the ends of justice necessary direction may 
be issued for transfer of any suit, appeal or other 
proceedings from a High Court or other civil court in one 
State to another High Court or other civil court in any 
other State. In order to maintain fair trial, this Court can 
exercise this power and transfer the proceedings to an 
appropriate court. [Para 11] [961-C-E] 
1.3. In the present case, the respondent-Committee 
has instituted various suits at Delhi under Section 134 of 
the Trade Marks Act, 1999 impleading the petitioners 
herein as defendants. The respondent has also pointed 
out that more than 50 suits have been pending all over 
India. Though the petitioners have raised the problem of 
distance, language and age of the President/Secretary of 
their respective Trust, the same nurdles are applicable to 
the respondent also, if their suits are transferred outside 
Delhi. [Para 12] [961-G-H; 962-A-B] 
. 
1.4. It is true that the petitioners, who are defendants, 
in order to defend their case necessarily have to spend 
sometime at Delhi. However, in view of the amendment 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
954 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 
A made in the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of 
recording of evidence and of the fact that Delhi being a 
Capital of the country and the petitioners who are 
running educational institutions have to visit this place 
for their official work, balance of convenience and all 
B other attendant circumstances are not in favour of the 
petitioners getting transfer of the suits to their place. If the 
request of the petitioners is acceded to, taking note of the 
fact that the institutions of the respondent numbering 
more than 700 are spread over India and 50 other suits 
c are pending in various places, it would be more difficult 
for the respondent/plaintiff to continue with their suits 
and in that event their sufferings would be more than the 
inconvenience to be caused to the petitioners/ 
defendants. It would be far more practical and in the best 
0 interest of the parties that the proceeding

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.