Consolidation of related proceedings was left to local courts, with direct transfer relief refused by the Supreme Court.

Transfer petitions seeking consolidation of related proceedings pending in different courts and forums within the same State were not granted as direct transfers by the Supreme Court. Instead, the parties were directed to approach the respective High Courts, forums, or courts within the concerned States for appropriate orders so related matters could be placed before one court and hardship, expense, and delay reduced. The relief was therefore left to the competent local judicial forum, with liberty to seek consolidation or transfer there.

---

---

Issues: Whether the transfer petitions for consolidation of multiple proceedings pending in different courts and forums within the same State should be allowed by the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The relief sought was not granted in the form of a direct transfer by the Supreme Court. Instead, the parties were directed to move the respective High Courts, forums, or courts within the concerned States for appropriate orders so that related matters could be placed before one court and hardship, expense, and delay could be minimised. The order proceeded on the practical suitability of local consolidation rather than a direct central transfer.

Conclusion: The transfer petitions were not allowed as prayed for and were disposed of with liberty to seek appropriate consolidation or transfer before the competent local judicial forum.

---