DR. SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY versus RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 18-10-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY 
A 
v. 
RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE 
OCTOBER 18, 1989 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure-Section 25-Transfer of civil proceed-
ings-Supreme Court to be satisfied that it is expedient for the ends of 
justice. 
The Respondent had filed a suit for defamation in the Bombay 
High Court against the petitioner, claiming Rupees one crore as 
C 
damages for the injury alleged to have been caused to his reputation by 
the publication/imputation of certain alleged defamatory statements 
made by the petitioner at a Press Conference held al New Delhi on 
January 10, 1989. The allegation in the plaint was that the petitioner 
levelled several accusations at the said Press Conference which were 
D 
widely circulated/reported in the newspapers of January 11, 1989. In 
substance the allegation was that the Respondent and his family 
members pocketed more than Rs.300 crores through fraudulent deals in 
lands situate in Bangalore and other parts of Karnataka, whereby the 
respondent favoured hi.s relatives/friends, besides non-resident Indians. 
By the instant petition, filed by the petitioner under section 25, 
Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner prays for the transfer of the said 
E 
suit pending in Bombay High Court to any Civil Court in Karnataka, 
preferably the City Civil Court at Bangalore on the ground of forum 
non-convenience. In support of the petition it is urge~ by the petitioner 
that: (i) the petitioner's father maintains a family house at Bangalore; 
F 
(ii) that all the events that provide the defence to the litigation took 
place in Karnataka at Bangalore; (iii) that the entire documentary 
evidence touching the alleged acts being in official files and in private 
custody would be easily available in Bangalore, (iv) that most of the 
witnesses who are in the know of respondent's wrongs are residents of 
Karnataka, more particularly Bangalore; (v) that the discovery and 
G 
inspection of documents can be conveniently had in Bangalore; (vi) that 
the evidence relating to telephone tappings done at the behest of the 
respondent would be available in Karnataka, and (vii) that the people of 
Karnataka State are vitally interested in the outcome of the litigation. 
For these reasons, amongst others, the petjtioner prays for the Transfer 
of the suit from Bombay to Bangalore. 
H 
469 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. I S.C.R. 
The respondent while opposing the transfer of the suit contends 
that the petitioner having aligned himself with the Ruling Party at the 
Centre was indulging in making intemperate, slanderous and false 
allegations against him with a view to maligning him and advancing the 
political interest of the Ruling Party at the Centre. According to him the 
hearing of the suit has been delayed as the petitioner has not filed his 
written statement. The respondent further contends that being the 
dominus litis he was entitled to choose the forum. 
Allowing the petition, this Court, 
HELD: The Supreme Court is empowered at any stage to trans-
fer any suit, appeal or other proceeding from a High Court or other 
Civil Court in one State to a High Court or other Civil Court of another 
State if it is satisfied that such an Order is expedient for the ends of 
justice. [474H; 47SA] 
The question of expediency would depend on the facts and 
circumstances of each case bnt the paramount consideration for the 
exercise of power must be to meet the ends of justice. [476C] 
Words of wide amplitude-for the ends of justice-have been 
advisedly used to leave the matter to the discretion of the apex court as 
it is not possible to conceive of all situations requiring or justifying the 
exercise of power. [ 4 7 SD I 
If ,the ends of justice so demand, the case may be transferred 
under this provision notwithstanding the right of dominus litus to 
choose the fourm and considerations of plaintiff's convenience, etc. 
cannot eclipse the requirement of justice. Justice must be done at 
F 
all costs, if necessary by the transfer of the case from one Court to 
4 
;mother. [476D-E] 
t 
The ends of justice in the instant case demand that the suit be 
transferred from the Bombay High Court to the City Civil Court, 
Bangalore, where most of the documentary evidence and the majority 
G 
of witnesses are available. Since the respondent ordinarily resides in 
Bangalore and was the Chief Minister of Karnataka during the period 
the various acts of which he is accus

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