VINAY KAPANY Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the widow of an air force officer, late Wing commander M. S. (sic) Kapany. She seeks transfer of Civil Suit No. 2 (T) of 1999 titled Bank of Baroda v. Vijay Kapany from the Court of Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong to the Court of the Sub-Judge, Delhi. The money suit was filed on 12-3-1999 by the respondent Bank of Baroda. The suit is for recovery of an amount of Rs 44,521 allegedly owed by her deceased husband Wing Commander Vijay Kapany on account of availing of credit card facilities of Bank of Baroda. Mainly it is the plea of the petitioner that being a widow who has to take care of two young children, it is not possible for her, both financially and physically, to defend the suit at shillong, more than 2000 km away from Delhi while the transfer of the suit to Delhi would not cause any hardship to the respondent who has its offices and branches in Delhi also. Counter-affidavit has been filed and the transfer petition is resisted.

(2.) The petitioner is a widow with two children, a son and a daughter dependent on her. She has since settled in NOIDA, U. P. far away from shillong. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice, it appears appropriate to us to grant this application because the respondent can easily prosecute the suit even at Delhi, where it has its branches and offices whereas it would cause great hardship to the petitioner to defend herself at Shillong. This application is, accordingly, allowed. The subject civil suit is withdrawn from the file of the trial court at Shillong and transferred to the file of the District Judge, Delhi, who may assign the same to the Court of any Sub-Judge at Delhi for disposal in accordance with law. The trial court at Shillong shall send the record of the case to the learned district Judge, Delhi without any delay. The transfer petition is allowed. No costs.

(3.) Before parting with this petition, we would like to record a fair offer made on behalf of the petitioner, without prejudice to her rights to contest the suit both on questions of law and facts. It is stated that she had informed the plaintiff Bank about the death of the deceased herself after the death of her husband on 18-1-1996 and that though the suit itself is time-barred and not based on correct facts, she was willing to settle the dispute by paying the amount of Rs 20,114.16 which was said to be outstanding against the deceased, inclusive of interest, as per the plaint, on 31-3-1995, in the books of account of the Bank but that she was not in a position to pay the exorbitant, unreasonable and oppressive interest of more than 24 thousand rupees. It is further stated on her behalf that she would pay the amount of rs 20,114.16 in two equal monthly instalments from the date of the order to bring the litigation to an end. The offer made by her appears to us to be fair and reasonable, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. We have conveyed to the respondent Bank to consider the offer noticed above in its proper perspective with a view to give a quietus to the litigation. The learned transferee court may consider the above offer made by the petitioner while disposing of the suit.