Allowed

Neha Gupta v. Maya Academy of Advanced Cinematics and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2023TA/4/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Transfer Application seeking to move a defamation suit from Civil Judge Chandigarh to Panipat. The petitioner, a student alleging sexual harassment, argued hardship due to distance and health, citing prior Supreme Court rulings on such transfers.

What did the court decide?

Civil suit transferred from Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Chandigarh to a competent court at Panipat.

Neha Gupta Vs Maya Academy of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

TA No.4/2020 (O&M)

¶2

Page 1 of 3 2023:PHHC:057056

¶3

TA No.4/2020 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.04.2023

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Neha Gupta

………..Petitioner.

Vs.

Maya Academy of Advanced Cinematics, Chandigarh and another

¶9

………..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. J.S.Johal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

¶13

Nidhi Gupta, J.

¶14

Petitioner/defendant by way of present Transfer Application under Section 24 CPC seeks transfer of Civil Suit titled as “Maya Academy of Advanced Academics and Another v Neha Gupta” numbered as CS CJ/2017/2019 from the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Chandigarh, to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Panipat.

¶15

As per allegations made in the petition, petitioner took admission in respondent Institute at Chandigarh in the year 2017 for pursuing Advanced Program in 3-D Animation course and was staying in Chandigarh as a Paying Guest. It is alleged that one of the Faculty Members namely Kapil Kaushik tried to make sexual advances towards her regarding which she made a complaint to respondent no.2-Director of the said Institute, who instead of taking action against the guilty person rebuked the petitioner. She then approached Police Station, Sector 34, Chandigarh, to get an FIR registered but to no avail. Ultimately, petitioner filed a complaint

¶16

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.04.27 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

TA No.4/2020 (O&M)

¶18

Page 2 of 3 2023:PHHC:057056

¶19

addressed to SSP Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) at Public Window, Sector 9, Chandigarh. It is further allegation of the petitioner that now as a counterblast to the complaint made by the petitioner against the respondent Institute, latter has filed a suit for damages for defamation and compensation of Rs.10 lac on account of loss of reputation and goodwill, as detailed in para 1 above, transfer of which is sought by the petitioner. Ld. Counsel places reliance upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neelam Kanwar v Devinder Singh Kanwar 2000(10) SCC 589; Sumita Singh v Kumar Sanjay and another, 2001(10 SCC 41; Pratibha Khemka v Sanjay Kumar Khemka, 2004(13) SCC 686 and of this Court in Rimpal v Balinder Kumar 2010(7) RCR (Civil) 286; Anju v Sanjay 2011(6) RCR (Civil) 112; and Komal Devi v Harbhajan Singh 2012(8) Civil 84.

¶20

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that (i) petitioner is a resident of Panipat which is 160 kms. away from Chandigarh; (ii) economic condition of her family is not sound; (iii) her father, as per Annexure P-3, is 40% medically disabled; and (iv) mother of the petitioner was admitted to ICU due to some lung problems.

¶21

In response, it is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the respondent that petitioner misbehaved and misconducted herself in the class by using mobile phone and wearing headphone and when Mr. Kapil Kaushik objected to it, she misbehaved with him. When the matter was brought to the notice of respondent no.2, petitioner demanded back her fees and also filed a complaint no. 873959 on the Website of Department of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India levelling allegations of fraud. It is further submitted that petitioner did not stop at this but went on to file a false complaint of molestation to the Police. Transfer of the pending suit is objected on the

¶22

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.04.27 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

TA No.4/2020 (O&M)

¶24

Page 3 of 3 2023:PHHC:057056

¶25

ground that if it is done so, petitioner may implicate the respondent in some false case.

¶26

No other argument has been raised.

¶27

Heard ld. Counsel for the parties.

¶28

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it appropriate to allow the present Transfer Application. Even no case law to the contrary has been cited on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, the same is allowed with the following directions: -

¶29

a) the civil suit filed by respondent-Institute pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh is transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Panipat.

¶30

b) The ld. District Judge, Chandigarh is directed to transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Panipat.

¶31

c) The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District & Sessions Judge, Panipat on 26.5.2023.

¶32

d) The District Judge, Panipat will assign the said suit to a Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶33

(Nidhi Gupta) Judge

¶34

20.04.2023 Joshi

¶35

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No