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.   

1

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

disallowed by this Court by an order dated 8th 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

with  the  office  report  dated  8th 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

Hon’ble The Chamber Judge on 24th of July, 2008

when the following order was passed :-

2

“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

with the office report dated 22nd of April, 2008 and

the order dated 24th of July, 2008.  However, the

said  application  was  not  listed  because  it  was

barred by time by four days.  Since the petitioners

have not complied with the office report dated 22nd

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

3

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.

4

MARCH 16, 2009.                        [H.  L. DATTU]

5