SHRI BHAJANLAL, CHIEF MINISTER, HARYANA versus MIS JINDAL STRIPS LTD. AND ORS .

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 445 · Decided: 08-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, S. MOHAN

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. , 
SHRI BHAJANLAL, CHIEF MINISTER, HARYANA 
A 
v. 
MIS JINDAL STRIPS LTD. AND ORS . 
AUGUST 8, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALAIAH CJ. AND S. MOHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 25-Transfer Petition-Bias-Ap-
prehension of-<:ase admitted by a Judge who later became acting Chief Jus-
tice-Case listed before another Bench-Direction for delisting from other 
Bench and listing before the said Judge-Application'for transfer-After ad-
C 
vance stage of arguments-Held: Mere Transfer of the case from one Bench 
to another is not justified ground for allegation of bias. 
Administrative Law-Natural Justice-Bias-The decision maker 
should have no interest direct or indirect-Non-pecuniary bias-Nature and 
extent of interest to be seen. 
D 
Practice and Procedure-Affidavit relating the events and conversation 
among the judges-Litigant cannot seek information about what transpired 
between the Judges of the Cowt regarding his case. 
Judicial Propriety-Case directed to be delisted from one Bench for 
listing before another Bench-Another judge of the Court wrote letter enquir-
ing about delisting-Held : enquiries and letters not consistent with the 
restraint expected of the high offices. 
E 
In a writ petition filed by the Respondent No.1, allegations of 
F 
malafide were levelled against the Petitioner. Petition was admitted by 
Judge 's' who later became acting Chief Justice and the matter was listed 
before another Tax Bench, Judge 'S' directed the matter to be delisted from 
the other Bench and listed before him. Judge 'M' gave letters to Registrar 
seeking bis explanation regarding the delisting. Judge '.S' delisted the G 
matter from bis Bench and the petition was listed before Tax Bench. Aller 
appointment of Chief Justice, Judge 'S' became senior most Judge presid-
ing over the tax bench and the petition was again listed before him. At the 
advance stage 'or hearing, appellant filed application for transfer of the 
petition on the ground of bias. During the hearing Judge 'M' had written 
to the Chief Justice requesting tO know the reasons for transfer of the case H 
445 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A to the bench comprising or Judge 'S'. 
Appellant filed affidavit stating the events and commu·nication be-
tween the Judges of the High Court regardi_ng the listing and delisting or 
the petition without stating the source or the information. In the rejoinder 
affidavit he stated that before filing of the petition the information was 
B confirmed by the then Chief Justice, but his name was not mentioned in 
the petition since he had refused. 
Contention of the appellant was that transfer of single case is 
sufficient to establish the interestedness or Judge 'S'. The contention of 
C Respondent No. 1 was that it was the normal practice, if date was fixed for 
final hearing by a particular Bench, it should come before the same Bench. 
Therefore, delisting from Tax Bench and listing it before his Bench was 
not the sign of bias. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, this court 
HELD: 1. On the ground of allegation of malafides it cannot be said, 
a particular Bench cannot hear the case. To make the transfer of the writ 
petition from one Bench to another, a ground for allegation of bias Is 
unjustified. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is nothing 
to indicate that the then Acting Chief Justice evinced and inierest In 
E hearing this matter, or that he was biased. [454-F, GI 
F 
G 
H 
2. In the case of non-pecuniary bias, regard is to be had to the extent 
and nature of interest. Then alone the Judge wm be disqualified. Bias is 
the second limb or natural justice. Prima facie no one should be a judge in 
what is to be regarded as 'Sua Causa' Whether or not he is named as a 
party. The decision maker should have no interest by way of gain or 
detriment in the outcome or a proceeding. Interest may take many forms. 
It may be direct, it may be indirect, it may arise from personal relationship 
or from a relationship with the subject matter, from a close relationship 
or from_ a tenuous one. [455-B, 454-H, 455-A] 
R. v. Sussex Justices, Ex. P Mc Carthy, [1924] 1 KB 256 and R. v. 
Branslcy Lisensing Justices, Ex 0 Bransley and District Licensed Victuallers' 
Association, [1960] 2 QB 167, Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC) Ltd. 
Lannon, [1969] 1 QB 577, referred to. 
3. It is deprecating that the appellants sought information as to what 
' I ' 
_r
BHAJANLAL v. JINDAL STRIPS LTD. [MOHAN, J.) 
447 

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