www.PunjabColleges.com
Largest database of Universities and Colleges in India situated in more than 9000 towns.
Home   Contact Us
Enter College / University Name or City:
Punjab Colleges
Pvt Institutes in Punjab


Bhaddal Institutes Group, Bhaddal, Punjab



Contact


Bhaddal Institutes Group, Bhaddal, Punjab
Address:IET Campus, PO. Mianpur
Bhaddal (District Roopnagar (Ropar))
Punjab, India
Pin Code : 140108


Bhaddal Institutes Group, Bhaddal Punjab is a group of colleges having many colleges in different streams. Bhaddal Institutes Group, Bhaddal Punjab is managed by Society: Kandi Friends Educational Trust.
Bhaddal Institutes Group, Bhaddal Punjab is situated in Bhaddal of Punjab state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Fax # of Bhaddal Institutes Group, Bhaddal Punjab is 01881-244749.

Contact Person(s) of the Bhaddal Institutes Group, Bhaddal Punjab is (are): Director General Mr R. Jha.

Mobile No(s) of concerned persons at Bhaddal Institutes Group, Bhaddal Punjab are S Jang Singh, Administrative Officer 94179-70462, 78373-36450, 98159-02698, 78373-36414, 78373-36466.

email ID(s) is Bhaddal Institutes Group Bhaddal Punjab

Website of Bhaddal Institutes Group, Bhaddal Punjab is www.ietbhaddal.edu.in, www.bhaddalinstitutes.ac.in.

Chairman : Mrs Kulwinder Gurcharan Kaur.
General Secretary : Prof Devinder Singh.

Contact Details of Bhaddal Institutes Group, Bhaddal Punjab are : 01881-244777, 244748, 244578, 244777

20.09.2011
Telephone call received from 98881-88884 (Mr JK Sharma, Administrative Officer). He told (in not so-soft voice) that various information about IET Group has been incorrect as put on this site. Then he was gently requested to send an email in this regard and upon receipt of his email, his clarification regrding incorrect information will be published on this website. He told that he will send an email.

Information and Placement Cell : SCF 9, Phase V, Mohali (Chandigarh) Phone: 0172- 2546857, 2266191

Other colleges of Bhaddal Institutes Group, Bhaddal
Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET), Bhaddal
IET College of Architecture, Bhaddal
Institute of Management Studies IMS, Bhaddal


Courses




Profile of Bhaddal Institutes Group

The institute (nestled in a vast 60-acre area draped in lush green lawns that provide a clean, open and pollution free academic environment) is located at village Bhaddal (Ropar district), which is 8 kms from Rangilpur-Purkhali road. Rangilpur is 6 kms short of Ropar on NH-21 (Chandigarh-Ropar-Mandi Highway.)

Trustees of Kandi Friends Educational Trust
for term Sept 2005 to Sept 2008 (as per Press Release in August 2005):
Ms Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh, Chairperson
Dr H.S Gurm, Vice-Chairman
Farmesh, Finance Secretary
Prof Devinder Singh, General Secretary
Prof Ajit Singh (former Senator and Syndic of Punjab University), Member
MLA Bir Devinder Singh, Member
Maj Rajinder Singh Virk, Member
Mr Satwinder Singh, Member
Gurtej Singh, Member
Jaspreet Kaur, Member
Ms Guneet Kaur, Member
Jagmohan Singh, Member
Mewa Singh, Member
Surinder Singh, Member

Stuff



Images / newspaper cuttings related to Bhaddal Institutes Group

Asstt Professor for Architecture (Bhaddal Institutes Group)
Job Vacancy: 16th April, 2014
Asstt Professor for Architecture
Navneet Kaur elected as best athlete award (Bhaddal Institutes Group)
News: 17th March, 2014
Navneet Kaur elected as best athlete award
15th Athletic meet started (Bhaddal Institutes Group)
News: 15th March, 2014
15th Athletic meet started

12th Annual Convocation and Prize Distribution Function (Convocation)
Senior positions for Linguistics (Job Vacancy)
Asstt and Asso Professor (Job Vacancy)
BTech, MTech and MBA (Admission Notice)
Sales of various cars (Tender)
Ladkiya nu study deke hi samaj nu sikhyat kitta ja skda (News)
BTech, B Arch, MBA and MCA Courses (Admission Notice)
Chairperson nu kitta sanmanit (News)
Bhaddal Institute me Alumeet ka ayojan (News)
Students remember past in Bhaddal Institute (News)
Bhaddal institute ka sathapna diwas manaya (News)
Bhaddal Institute ke Mandeep Singh Lahore ravana (News)
Niti te Agvai subject te seminar (News)
Bhaddal Institute campus wich Vista 2012 da ayojan (News)
PTU exam wich Bhaddal Institute de Students ne naam rushnaya (News)
Bhaddal College de trusty vallo goli chalaun naal dehshat da mahal (News)
BTech, MTech, MBA and MCA Courses etc (Admission Notice)
9th Anniversary of Er Gurcharan Singh (Advertisement)
BTech,MTech and MBA Courses etc (Admission Notice)
BTech,MTech,BBA,BCA and MBA Courses etc (Admission Notice)
Bhaddal Institutes di Chaiparsan Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Mahila Udasi Award nal sanmanit (News)
BTech,BArch,BBA and BCA Courses (Admission Notice)
Prof, Asstt Prof, Associate Professor etc (Job Vacancy)
Congratulations our Meritorious Students (Advertisement)
MBA and MCA Programmes (Admission Notice)
Camp wich 90 pashua da checkup kitta (Job Vacancy)
Camp wich 90 pashua da checkup kitta (News)
Finance Officer (Job Vacancy)
Professor Assistant Professor and Associate Professor (Job Vacancy)
Bhaddal Institute da Gramin Vikas Program (News)
Principal,Professor and Assistant Professor etc (Job Vacancy)
Bhaddal Institutes vallo Khundan Camp (News)
Sabhiachar nu jinda rakhna ek vadda kadam (News)
Bhaddal Institute de 7 Students TCS Company wich Naukri layi chune (News)
Proffessors Associate Proffessors Lecturers and Assistant Proffessors etc (Job Vacancy)
Students nu CBSE pattern te Siksha den layi nave Schools di Usari Shuru (News)
Professors Associate Professors Lecturers and Assistant Professors etc (Job Vacancy)
Proffessors Associate Proffessors Lecturers and Assistant Proffessors etc (Job Vacancy)
MBA and MCA Programmes (Admission Notice)
Professor and Assistant Professor required (Job Vacancy)
Lab Technicians (Job Vacancy)
Annual convocation ()
Assistant Professors Associate Professors and Lab Technician etc (Job Vacancy)
13th Foundation Day ()
Riaj 2010 wich daljit ne khub rang baneya (News)
Annual Cultural Function ()
Proffesor Assistant Proffesor and Associate Proffesor etc (Job Vacancy)
Achitecture and Management Studies (Job Vacancy)
8th Annual Convocation and Prize Distribution (Convocation)
Professor Assistant Professor and Associate Professor etc (Job Vacancy)
Best of Luck to CET Aspirants (Admission Notice)
Professors Assistant Professors and Associate Professors (Job Vacancy)

Media coverage of Bhaddal Institutes Group, Bhaddal Punjab, Punjab

Kulwinder Kaur vs State of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No. 427-M of 2006 ( O&M )

DATE OF DECISION : 17.01.2007

Kulwinder Kaur

.... PETITIONER

Versus

State of Punjab and others

..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vikrant Duggal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. N.S. Gill, AAG, Punjab.

* * *

Complainant Kulwinder Kaur wife of deceased Gurcharan Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') for further investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation in FIR No. 271 dated 21.6.2003 under Sections 302, 34 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Mohali, in respect of murder of her husband.

2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that deceased Gurcharan Singh was the founder Chairman of Kandi Educational Trust, which runs an institute known as the Institute of Engineering and Technology, Bhaddal. There were 8 trustees of the said institution, including Bakhshish Singh Randhawa (respondent No.4 herein), who is one of the accused in the aforesaid case. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Bakhshish Singh Randhawa and his wife Hardev Kaur used to give threats to deceased Gurcharan Singh because Bakhshish Singh Randhawa wanted to be Chairman of the Trust. It is alleged that in the year 2002, the election of the office of Chairman of the said Trust was held which was contested by deceased Gurcharan Singh and respondent Bakhshish Singh Randhawa. Bakhshish Singh Randhawa lost the election, due to which he was having a grudge against deceased Gurcharan Singh. It is further alleged that on 21.6.2003, when the deceased went for morning walk, he was attacked by accused Rachhpal Singh and Satbir Singh with daggers. The occurrence was witnessed by the petitioner. When the deceased was taken to Fortis Hospital, Mohali, he was declared dead. It is alleged that the said murder was committed in a conspiracy and at the instance of Bakshish Singh Randhawa, as he wanted to be the Chairman of the Trust. On the statement of the petitioner, the aforesaid FIR was registered.

3. After investigation, the challan was filed against Rachhpal Singh, Satbir Singh and Bakhshish Singh Randhawa. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it is still pending. Charge against the accused has already been framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. During the course of arguments, learned State Counsel informed that in the said case, all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and even the statements of all the accused under Section 313 of the Code have also been recorded on 23.12.2006.

4. When the aforesaid case was at the stage of prosecution evidence, the instant petition was filed by the petitioner alleging therein that investigation of the case was not properly conducted by the investigating agency, as statements of the witnesses before whom confessional statements were made by the accused were not recorded, but later statements of wrong persons, who were the friends of the accused were recorded alleging that the confessional statements were made before them. Those witnesses have now resiled from their stand. All these facts clearly show that the fair and proper investigation was not conducted by the investigating agency, therefore, in the interest of justice, further investigation is required to be ordered under Section 173 (8) of the Code. In this regard, it has been mentioned that accused Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh made extra judicial confession before one Baldev Singh son of Jagjit Singh resident of Village Hafizpur, District Yamuna Nagar and the said Baldev Singh made a statement before the Investigating Officer on 3.7.2003, but his statement was not recorded by the then Investigating Officer DSP Daljit Singh Rana, who partly investigated the case. It is alleged that in stead of recording the statement of genuine witness Baldev Singh, the statement of a bogus and false witness supplied by accused Bakhshish Singh Randhawa was recorded showing that the extra judicial confession was made before him, who subsequently did not support the prosecution version. It is further alleged that on 10.6.2003, one Hardeep Singh son of Netar Singh overheard the accused in a liquor shop at Mohali, while they were conspiring to kill the deceased, and said Hardeep Singh made a statement before the Investigating Officer on 26.6.2003, but his statement was also not recorded. Instead of that, statement of one Charanjit Singh to that effect was recorded, who later on also did not support the prosecution case. In view of these facts, it has been alleged that proper investigation was not conducted and the investigating agency had acted from the very inception to help the accused.

5. In the petition, it has also been alleged that during the trial, accused Rachhpal Singh filed two applications before the trial court for making confessional statement. Notice of the said application was given to the prosecution, but the prosecution for the reasons best known to it delayed to file reply for several months with object to provide time to accused to change his mind. Subsequently, the statement was recorded on 10.8.2005, in which he stated that those applications were moved by him under pressure.

6. During the pendency of this petition, an application (Crl. Misc. No. 66199 of 2006) was filed alleging therein that during the pendency of the instant petition, a conversation between accused Rachhpal Singh and one Surinder Singh son of Sardara Singh, resident of Mohali was tape recorded, in which he disclosed conspiracy between him and accused Bakhshish Singh Randhawa. It is case of the petitioner that investigation of the case with regard to the conspiracy hatched by the accused has not been properly conducted, therefore, in the interest of justice, further investigation in the case is necessary.

7. While referring to the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the investigation was not properly conducted by the investigating agency, further investigation is necessary in the interest of justice. Since the trial court has already taken cognizance of the matter, therefore, only this court, in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code, can order for further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Code. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration, 1988 (2) RCR (Criminal) 44 and a judgment of Delhi High Court in Kulbhushan Sharma v. State 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 408.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that a fair investigation was conducted by the investigating agency and thereafter, challan was filed against three accused. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions, charge was framed and the trial commenced. Learned counsel submitted that at a belated stage, the instant petition was filed. Prior to that, during the investigation and after submission of the challan, no such grouse was made nor at any point of time, it was agitated that the confessional statement was made before Baldev Singh. He further submitted that at a belated stage, this petition was filed on the allegation that confessional statement was made before Baldev Singh. Learned State Counsel contended that now the trial is at the fag end, as statements of all the prosecution witnesses have been recorded and even statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code have been recorded. In view of these facts and circumstances, the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code, which are to be exercised in exceptional circumstances, should not be exercised to order further investigation, as issuance of such directions will not be in the interest of justice and a fair trial.

9. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that no case is made out by the petitioner to order further investigation of the case under Section 173 (8) of the Code, in exercise of the inherent power of this court under Section 482 of the Code. This Court has been given wide inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, but these extra ordinary powers are to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases. This Court may or may not exercise this power, in a given situation, particularly having regard to lapse of time. Recently, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Popular Muthiah v. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 296, that the inherent power of the High Court is required to be exercised sparingly. It was further held that investigation of an offence is a statutory power of the police. The State in its discretion may get the investigation done by any investigating agency unless there exists an extra ordinary situation. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court cannot issue direction to investigate a case from a particular angle or by a particular agency and cannot direct that a particular witness be examined, who had not been cited as a prosecution witness. It was further held that it will be beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court in directing the prosecution to investigate the case from a particular angle.

10. In the instant case, a thorough investigation was conducted. Statement of the witness, before whom the confessional statement was made by the accused, was duly recorded, challan was filed, case was committed, charge was framed and the trial had commenced, but no grouse with regard to the unfair investigation was made at that stage. However, when some of the prosecution witnesses alleged to have not fully supported the prosecution case, the instant petition was filed with the allegations that statement of the witness, before whom the actual confessional statement was made, was not recorded, and in spite of that, statement of different person was recorded, but he did not support the prosecution version. Such kind of plea cannot be allowed after the examination of the prosecution witnesses at a belated stage. It will cause serious prejudice to the fair trial. The power of further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Code has been given with an object to advance the cause of justice. This power has to be exercised by the court sparingly and cautiously. It cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. It will result in unjustified interference in the investigation, which is in the domain of the police, or may cause serious prejudice to a fair trial. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

11. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, at this belated stage, in my opinion, no further investigation in the case is required on the grounds mentioned in the petition.

12. Dismissed. January 17, 2007 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE

Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh vs Kandi Friends Educational Trust

Bench: C Thakker, M Katju

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 338 of 2007

PETITIONER:
KULWINDER KAUR @ KULWINDER GURCHARAN SINGH

RESPONDENT:
KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATION TRUST AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/01/2008

BENCH:
C.K. THAKKER & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 21147 OF 2006

C.K. THAKKER, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated November 17, 2006 in Civil Miscellaneous No. 22108 CII of 2006. By the said order, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana transferred Civil Suit No. 506 of 2003 from the Court of Smt. Asha Kondal, Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Ropar to the Court of Sh. Y.S. Rathore, Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Chandigarh.

3. Short facts giving rise to present appeal are that Kandi Friends Educational Trust (Trust for short) was set up for establishing professional educational institutions with prominent educationists and industrialists of the State of Punjab on September 24, 1997. It is the case of the appellant that Gurcharan Singh, her husband was the Founder Chairman of the Trust whereas the appellant was a Trustee along with the Founder Chairman. In 1998, certain new trustees were inducted including one B.S. Randhawa. In September, 2002, elections were held and Gurcharan Singh was again elected as the Chairman of the Trust. B.S. Randhawa and his wife Hardev Kaur raised protest against the said election. In December, 2002, Gurcharan Singh, Chairman of the Trust sought certain amendments in the Constitution of the Trust which were approved by majority though B.S. Randhawa and Hardev Kaur opposed to such amendments. On June 21, 2003, Gurcharan Singh, Chairman of the Trust was murdered while he was taking stroll in a park along with the appellant. B.S. Randhawa, who was one of the Trustees, was arrested as the main accused and was charged for committing murder of Gurcharan Singh. F.I.R. No. 271 of 2003 was registered on the same day at Mohali Police Station. In view of death of Gurcharan Singh, election of the Chairman was again held on July 23, 2003 and the appellant was unanimously elected as the Chairperson. Ms. Japneet Kaur was nominated as trustee being daughter of late Gurcharan Singh and she also started attending meetings of the Trust. B.S. Randhawa and Hardev Kaur were obviously unhappy with the development. Hardev Kaur, hence, filed a suit on July 25, 2003 for a declaration that all proceedings conducted by the defendants in the Meeting dated July 23, 2003 in which the appellant was elected as the Chairperson were illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside. Certain other reliefs were also claimed. In the suit, the appellant herein was impleaded as defendant No. 4. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for interim relief, but only limited interim relief was granted and the plaintiff Smt. Hardev Kaur was allowed to attend meetings of the Trust. Other interim reliefs were expressly refused. Having failed to get relief sought in interim application, Hardev Kaur and B.S. Randhawa filed another suit, i.e. the present suit in October, 2003 in the name of Kandi Friends Education Trust through its so-called General Secretary Jaspal Singh. Though the appellant was duly elected as Chairperson of the Trust, she was wrongly described as Trustee and it was stated by the plaintiff that they were in-charge and in management of the Trust. A declaration was sought that the resolution dated October 14, 2003 adopted by the defendants was illegal, null and void. Consequential reliefs were also prayed.

4. On June 4, 2005, one more suit was filed by Jaspal Singh for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant. In interim injunction, only status quo was ordered to be maintained by the Court. Jaspal Singh also filed a transfer application No. 14 of 2006 in the District Court, Ropar for transfer of suit from the Court of Smt. Asha Kondal to the Court of Shri A.S. Garewal, which was, however, dismissed as withdrawn.

5. On November 2, 2006, the Trust filed an application under Section 24 of the Code in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana being Civil Miscellaneous No. 22108 CII of 2006 for transfer of Suit No. 506 of 2003 pending in the Court of Smt. Asha Kondal, Sub-Judge, (Sr. Dvn.), Ropar to any other Court of competent jurisdiction in Chandigarh or in the State of Haryana in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. It was inter alia alleged in the Transfer Application that though the suit was instituted in 2003 seeking injunction against the defendant-appellant herein and others, it was pending even in November, 2006. More than three years had passed and yet there was no much progress in the case. It was further alleged that there was lot of local pressure which had led to delay and it had given advantage to the defendants as they were in power and were trying to protract the proceedings. It was asserted that the Institution was one of the most prestigious institutions in the area and lots of funds were generated as there were several students. Hence, the Committee members who were in office were trying their level best to stall the proceedings by using various tactics. It was also stated that though the term of the appellant expired on August 31, 2005, she continued to be in power simply because no case filed against her was decided either way. A prayer was, therefore, made to transfer the case.

6. The appellant herein filed detailed reply to the application contending that false and scandalous allegations have been levelled by the plaintiff against the defendants which were not correct. It was submitted that suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable as there was no proper resolution and no authority had been given by the appellant-Chairperson to file such suit. It was further stated that no one could have a court of ones own choice and on the facts and in the circumstances, no case was made out for transfer of suit. It was stated that Zimni orders clearly revealed that there was no delay on the part of the defendants. The delay was largely attributable to the plaintiff-trust.

7. In this connection, it was stated in the reply as under;

Date of filing : 11.11.2003

Issues framed : 24.12.2003

For PWs. : 30.3.2004

No PWs. Produced : Till date 29.11.2006 It was, therefore, submitted that the application was devoid of merit, laced with malice and was liable to be dismissed.

8. The learned Single Judge of the High Court observed that it was alleged by the plaintiff that though the suit was filed in 2003, there was no substantive progress in the suit. The learned Judge no doubt observed that certain allegations levelled by the plaintiff had been controverted and counter- allegations had been made by the defendants. But without going into the allegations and counter-allegations, it would be appropriate to transfer the suit to Chandigarh. Accordingly, by the impugned order, the suit was transferred and a direction was issued to decide the matter expeditiously by giving two opportunities to each of the parties spread over a period of six months.

9. The aforesaid order is challenged by the appellant in the present appeal. On January 5, 2007, notice was issued by this Court and further proceedings in the suit were stayed. Counter affidavit was thereafter filed. The matter then was ordered to be posted for final hearing.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court committed an error of law and of jurisdiction in transferring the case from Ropar to Chandigarh. It was submitted that no reasons/grounds have been disclosed for taking such action of transferring the suit. The counsel submitted that all the allegations levelled by the plaintiff had been controverted by the defendants and even the learned Judge of the High Court had observed in the order that there were allegations and counter-allegations by the parties. In spite of such situation, the Court passed the impugned order of transfer which is not in consonance with law. On merits, it was submitted that it was factually incorrect to allege that there was delay on the part of the defendants. The defendants had produced Zimni which went to show that it was the plaintiff and not the defendants who was responsible for the delay. If it is so, the High Court was wrong in passing the impugned order. Finally, it was submitted that the High Court was not justified in transferring the case in the court of a particular named Judge. Normally, no such order is passed. Even in the transfer- application, no such prayer was made by the plaintiff. The order to that extent, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the High Court was satisfied that Section 24 of the Code confers discretionary power on the Court to transfer a case from one court to any other court subordinate to it. In exercise of the said power, an action has been taken which cannot be challenged under Article 136 of the Constitution. It was submitted that the High Court took into account ground reality that a suit of 2003 which was of an urgent nature was not disposed of even in 2006. If, in the light of the above fact, the case is transferred, it could not be said that the order deserves interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by this Court. It was, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

13. Having considered rival contentions of the parties and having gone through the proceedings of the case, we are of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. So far as the power of transfer is concerned, Section 24 of the Code empowers a High Court or a District Court to transfer inter alia any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it or in any Court subordinate to it to any other Court for trial and disposal. The said provision confers comprehensive power on the Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings at any stage either on an application by any party or suo motu.

14. Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a strait-jacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; interest of justice demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a fair trial in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order.

15. In Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, (1979) 2 SCR 378, this Court stated;

Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative

convenience of a party or easy

availability of legal services or like mini grievances. Something more

substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal

principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. (emphasis supplied)

16. Similarly in Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna Hegde, (1990) 1 SCC 4, dealing with power of this Court to transfer a case under Section 25 of the Code, A.M. Ahmadi, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated;

Under the old section the State Government was empowered to transfer a suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in the High Court of that State to any other High Court on receipt of a report from the Judge trying or hearing the suit that there existed reasonable grounds for such transfer provided the State Government of the State in which the other High Court had its principal seat consented to the transfer. The present Section 25 confers the power of transfer on the Supreme Court and is of wide amplitude. Under the present provision the Supreme Court is empowered at any stage to transfer 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. The cardinal

principle for the exercise of power under this section is that the ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. The question of expediency would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but the paramount consideration for the exercise of power must be to meet the ends of justice. It is true that if more than one court has

jurisdiction under the Code to try the suit, the plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to choose the Court and the defendant cannot demand that the suit be tried in any particular court convenient to him. The mere

convenience of the parties or any one of them may not be enough for the exercise of power but it must also be shown that trial in the chosen forum will result in denial of justice. Cases are not unknown where a party seeking justice chooses a forum most inconvenient to the adversary with a view to depriving that party of a fair trial. The Parliament has therefore, invested this Court with the

discretion to transfer the case from one Court to another if that is

considered expedient to meet the ends of justice. 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. But the paramount consideration must be to see that justice according to law is done; if for achieving that objective the transfer of the case is imperative, there should be no hesitation to transfer the case even if it is likely to cause some inconvenience to the plaintiff. The petitioner's plea for the transfer of the case must be tested on this touchstone.

(emphasis supplied)

17. In the case on hand, the High Court without stating anything whatsoever as to allegations and counter-allegations, without considering the reply submitted by the appellant herein and without recording any reason/ground passed the impugned order transferring the case. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent no doubt submitted that the Court has not observed anything since observations by a High Court one way or the other might prejudice one of the parties to the suit. It is true that normally while making an order of transfer, the Court may not enter into merits of the matter as it may affect the final outcome of the proceedings or cause prejudice to one or the other side. At the same time, however, an order of transfer must reflect application of mind by the Court and the circumstances which weighed in taking the action. In the instant case, it was alleged by the plaintiff that though more than three years had passed from instituting the suit, it was not disposed of and delay had been caused by the defendants as they were in office and they wanted to prolong the proceedings so that they may take undue benefit of their status. The defendants, in the reply filed by them, contended that delay had not been caused by them, but it was the plaintiff who was responsible for not proceeding with the suit and was to be blamed for creation of such situation. In support of the contention, Zimni proceedings were relied upon. It was also urged that the plaintiff-side could not get favourable order on applications under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code and, hence, it wanted to get the case transferred. In view of the assertion and retraction by the plaintiff and the defendants, in our considered opinion, the High Court ought to have applied its mind to those aspects and prima facie satisfied as to the grounds put forward by the plaintiff in the transfer application and ought to have passed an order one way or the other without entering into the controversy in the suit. Unfortunately, the High Court allowed the application observing that it would be appropriate to transfer the suit pending in the Court of Smt. Asha Konal, Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.), Ropar to the Court of Sh. Y.S. Rathore, Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Chandigarh. In our opinion, powers under Section 24 of the Code cannot be exercised ipse dixit in the manner in which it has been done. Only on that ground and without entering into larger issue, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed.

18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after hearing the parties. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

19. Before parting with the matter, we make it clear that we have not entered into correctness or otherwise of what is stated by the plaintiff or by the defendants and we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on allegations and counter-allegations. As and when the matter will be placed before the High Court, the Court will take an appropriate decision on its own merits without being inhibited or influenced by the observations made by us in this judgment.

Killers of IET chairman get life term

Ropar, February 17, 2007
After three years, finally three persons were today sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Gurcharan Singh, founder-chairman of the trust running the Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET), Bhaddal, by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mr Gobinder Singh.

The convicts for the life term include the former trust member Bakshish Singh Randhawa, his nephew Satbir Singh, and Rachpal Singh.

Gurcharan Singh was stabbed to death by Satbir Singh, and Rachpal Singh on June 21, 2003 in Phase XI, Mohali when Gurcharan Singh along with his wife Kulwinder were walking in a park near their house in the morning. He was attacked with the dagger near the park gate.

Gurcharan Singh had sustained deep injuries on his neck and chest. The attackers had escaped from the spot on scooter.

During the police investigation it surfaced that the motive for the murder was the taking over the chairmanship of the Kandi Trust controlling the IET Bhaddal set up in May 1998 in Ropar. When in 2002 Gurcharan Singh was again elected as the chairman of trust, it led to rivalry between Gurcharan Singh and Randhawa.

Randhawa had even threatened the daughter of Gurcharan Singh who was then a student of the college with dire consequences.

Later, Bakshish Singh Randhawa, who wanted to become the chairman of trust, had hired Satbir Singh, and Rachpal Singh to kill Gurcharan Singh. Randhawa along with his wife Hardev Kaur gone to Pakistan to participate in a religious ceremony when the murder was committed.

The three accused were in custody after their arrest in the case.

Ms Kulwinder Kaur, now chairman of the trust, was the complainant and an eyewitness of the case.

The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mr Gobinder Singh, awarded life term to Randhawa under Section 302 read with 120-B of the IPC and a fine of Rs 5,000. In case of default of fine, the accused has to under go three months more rigorous imprisonment.

While Satbir Singh and Rachpal Singh were sentenced to life term in 302 IPC and also in 120-B IPC separately.

They were also fined Rs 1000 in a case of default of fine the two accused have to undergo one more month rigorous imprisonment.

After the verdict in the case, Kulwinder Kaur, the chairman of the trust who came here said that she would file an appeal in the high court to seek death penalty for the three accused. She said it was a great relief that her husband's killers had been punished.

While claiming to be innocent, Satbir Singh while coming out of the court, said he would appeal in the high court against the court order.



Some other Colleges in Punjab
Dr IT Institute of Management and Technology, Banur
Chandigarh-Patiala National Highway,
Adjoining Reliance Petrol Pump,
Jalalpur Village, Near Chandigarh
Banur (District Patiala)
Punjab
Kenway College of Education, Abohar
Hanumangarh Road, Near Radha Swami Dera
Azimgarh
Abohar (District Abohar)
Punjab
Mai Bhago Group of Colleges, Ralla Village

Ralla Village (District Mansa)
Punjab
Arihant Spinning Mills ITI, Malerkotla
Industrial Area
Malerkotla (District Sangrur)
Punjab
Mahavir Girls College, Fazilka

Fazilka (District Fazilka)
Punjab



Students voice
Write to us giving good and bad things about your college, we will publish it on this site. email us at punjabcolleges @ gmail.com (without spaces)
© www.punjabcolleges.com : Engineering Colleges and deemed Universities in India      Disclaimer