{"id":165788,"date":"2021-05-12T18:17:24","date_gmt":"2021-05-12T12:47:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=165788"},"modified":"2021-05-12T19:58:20","modified_gmt":"2021-05-12T14:28:20","slug":"supreme-court-denies-criminal-case-transfer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/top-news-of-the-day\/news\/supreme-court-denies-criminal-case-transfer\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court denies transfer of criminal case for the convenience of one party"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The Supreme court<\/a> has<\/strong>\u00a0disavowed the transfer of a criminal case under section 406 of CrPC\u00a0merely because the party does not understand the language of the Court which has jurisdiction to hear the case\u00a0by stating that\u00a0\u201cthe petitioner\u2019s plea for transfer is based primarily on convenience, but convenience of one of the parties cannot be a ground for\u00a0allowing his application to transfer\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The facts of the case can be attained by the allegation of the respondents over the use of the trade mark SACHAMOTI in respect of sago or sabudana by the petitioner. Subsequently, a suit for declaration and injunction to prevent use of the said trade mark in the Court of District Judge, Salem was filed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S. Guru Krishnakumarappearing on behalf of the petitioner by relying on Sri JayendraSaraswathy Swamigal (II), T.N. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [(2005) 8 SCC 771]and Mrudul M. Damle & Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi [(2012) 5 SCC 706]<\/strong> submitted that the petitioner wants the criminal case pending in the Salem Court to be transferred to the Patiala House Court, New Delhi and grounds have been urged on behalf of the petitioner in support of his plea-<\/p>\n\n\n\n