Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Interlocutory Application Nos. 4-5
In
Transfer Petition (C) No. 945 of 2006
Union of India & Ors. …Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/s Jayant Oils & Derivatives Ltd. & Ors. .Respondent(s)
O R D E R
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. This is an application for restoration of the
Transfer Petition being T.P. No. 945 of 2006 as
against the respondent, on whom notices have
been served and also for a direction that the order
of the dismissal would operate only against those
respondents whose addresses were not furnished
by the petitioners and for other incidental reliefs.
2
3. It appears from the record that the petitioners
were required to file process fee and copies of the
Transfer Petition and the Amendment Petition
with correct addresses of all the respondents for
effecting service of notice on the respondents.
However, Petitioners filed an application before
this Court seeking an exemption from filing spare
copies of annexures attached to the Transfer
Petition. The application for exemption was
th
disallowed by this Court by an order dated 8 of
May, 2007. Accordingly, the petitioners were
directed to take steps to file the process fee and
spare copies. Since the petitioners did not comply
th
with the office report dated 8 of May, 2007,
directing the petitioners to file process fee and to
furnish correct and latest address of the some of
the respondents, the matter was placed before
th
Hon’ble The Chamber Judge on 24 of July, 2008
when the following order was passed :-
3
“If requisite steps in compliance with the Office
Report dated 22.04.2008 are not taken within
four weeks, the Transfer Petition shall stand
dismissed.”
4.
Subsequent to this order, the petitioners filed an
application seeking extension of time to comply
nd
with the office report dated 22 of April, 2008 and
th
the order dated 24 of July, 2008. However, the
said application was not listed because it was
barred by time by four days. Since the petitioners
nd
have not complied with the office report dated 22
of April, 2008 i.e. for want of correct addresses of
the respondents, the Transfer Petition stood
dismissed for non-compliance of the said office
report.
5. Now, this application has been filed for restoration
of the Transfer Petition, praying for restoration as
against the respondents on whom the notices were
served. There has also been a prayer for a
direction upon the Department that the dismissal
4
order would operate only against those
respondents whose addresses were not furnished
by the petitioners.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the statements made in
the application, we allow the application for
restoration and direct the Transfer Petition to be
restored to its original file only against the
respondents on whom notices have already been
served. The order of dismissal would operate only
against those respondents whose addresses were
not furnished by the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the application for restoration is
allowed to the extent indicated above. There will
be no order as to costs.
…………………………J.
[TARUN CHATTERJEE]
NEW DELHI; ….….……………
…….J.
5
MARCH 16, 2009. [H. L.
DATTU]