Rapping the State Bank of India (SBI) for hurriedly filing a transfer application to block proceedings before a district commission and causing a trial by media, the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) dismissed the transfer application filed by SBI.
In
an order last month, the NCDRC bench of justice AP Sahi (president) and Dr Inder Jit Singh (member) says, "The pleadings (before Madurai district consumer dispute redressal commission) are not yet over and complete and no evidence has been led and the complaint has not yet even matured for hearing. The allegations casting insinuations on a person holding a constitutional office only because justice J Nisha Banu happens to be a judge cannot be a ground to exercise the jurisdiction of transfer. A tirade of discussions on a media platform without even verifying the facts as noted above, cannot be approved and must not be encouraged by litigants either by themselves or through anybody. The likelihood of any influence to the proceedings by justice J Nisha Banu is, therefore, unfounded."
SBI had filed the transfer application with allegations of the hearing of the complaint being influenced by justice Nisha Banu, stating that the complaint may not be dealt with in a fair manner, as she is a sitting high court judge and is herself stationed at Madurai.
Referring to copies of media reports submitted by senior counsel R Gandhi, representing justice Nisha Banu, NCDRC says, "It is thus seen that a trial by media seems to have been attempted and commenced which in our opinion ought not to have been occasioned in a case involving a responsible institution like SBI making allegations against a judge. It is not known as to who provided the entire copy of the transfer application with its allegations and the history of the litigation but in all probability it is obvious that justice Nisha Banu has not done so. The inference in all probability therefore is that it might have been done by those involved in the filing of the transfer application."
The bench also expressed displeasure over advocate Uttam Kumar turning up and making a statement that the matter should not be taken up and should be adjourned as SBI's counsel, Jitendra Kumar, is unwell.
It says, "...the vakalatnama on behalf of SBI has been executed in the name of three advocates, namely, Jitendra Kumar, Alok Kumar and Abhijeet Kumar, whose signatures and names are available on the vakalatnama on record. It is not understood as to why these counsel whose names appear in the vakalatnama did not or could not appear to assist the Commission and instead Uttam Kumar who is not on vakalatnama was sent as a proxy to seek adjournment. There is no explanation about the absence of the other two counsel and we therefore do not find any valid reason for any adjournment as in our considered opinion, there appears to be a semblance of an excuse to get the matter adjourned without complying with the direction of filing the order sheet."
NCDRC also referred to its order passed on 2 August 2024 in which it asked the counsel of SBI to apply for a copy of the proceedings before the district commission and file the entire order sheet in the next hearing. "No effort seems to have been made nor the order sheet has been filed by SBI nor is there any explanation about the same being not procured and filed as directed. Thus, there is a non-compliance of our order."
"We are therefore of the opinion that this transfer application deserves to be disposed of without giving any further liberty or unwarranted opportunity to SBI to either publicise or attempt to take any undue advantage by attempting to bring in the media for influencing the proceedings before the district consumer commission in any way. The right to free information or freedom of expression should not be exercised in a way which is aimed to paint a malicious canvas for reducing or impinging upon the reputation of somebody like a sitting high court judge to an extent so as to gain advantage or cause disadvantage in an impending litigation," the bench says.
NCDRC also referred to a counter affidavit filed on behalf of justice Nisha Banu. The complaint was registered before the district commission on 24 June 2024 and notices were issued fixing the hearing on 15 July 2024.
The bench noted that the transfer application was prepared with an affidavit of J Stanley Jones, chief manager of SBI's Tallakulam branch in Madurai, dated 24 July 2024. "This application seems to have been dated 25 July 2024 but appears to have been re-dated as 30 July 2024 and registered on 31 July 2024. It is thus evident that the transfer application was prepared hardly within 10 days of the date on which SBI appeared before the district commission on 15 July 2024."
"It is not understood as to what facts were before the district commission or in the proceedings before it within a brief gap of just 10 days so as to raise any apprehension in the mind of the SBI or prompt it to file this application so hastily when it appears from the order sheet that on 29 July 2024, New India Assurance Co Ltd, opposite party no2, in the complaint had already filed the written version and the written version of justice Nisha Banu therein was yet to be filed. Thus, the filing of the transfer application with such rapid speed within a short span of filing of the complaint indicates that the Bank, without even verifying or any material to support the alleged apprehensions, hurriedly filed this transfer application to block the proceedings before the district commission," NCDRC says.
Further, the bench says, the transfer application has turned out to be an example of the same nature where the allegations have been culled out in a way for virtually scandalising the proceedings and attempting to blow it out of proportions which tends to lower the esteem of the pristine office held by a high court judge. "The application is even otherwise neither maintainable and is a premature attempt to impede a judicial process for all the reasons hereinbefore and hereinafter."
(Transfer Application No13 of 2024 Date: 23 September 2024)
