Appeal not transferred despite request citing public notices, appellant chooses to continue at current Bench.

The appeal was not transferred to the South Zonal Bench in Bangalore as requested, despite arguments citing applicable public notices. The Tribunal decided against retransfer to avoid delays, considering the case's importance. The appellant's choice to continue the appeal at the current Bench was accepted, leading to the dismissal of the transfer application. The stay matter was scheduled for a specific date, emphasizing the Tribunal's focus on expeditious case resolution.

---

---

Issues: Transfer of appeal to South Zonal Bench, Bangalore

Transfer of Appeal to South Zonal Bench, Bangalore:
The judgment revolves around the issue of transferring an appeal from the current Bench to the South Zonal Bench in Bangalore. The application sought the transfer based on Public Notice No. 1/2001, indicating the appeal should be heard by the South Zonal Bench. However, the case was transferred to the current Bench by the Bangalore Bench as per Public Notice No. 2/2005. The appellant argued that the current Bench also had jurisdiction to hear the appeal as per both public notices. The Tribunal considered the submissions and decided not to retransfer the case to the Bangalore Bench, as it would be improper in light of the previous transfer order. The matter was suggested to be referred to the Hon'ble President, but the appellant's counsel preferred to proceed with the appeal on the current Bench to avoid delays. Both parties highlighted the high stakes involved in the case. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the counsel's suggestion and dismissed the transfer application, with the stay matter scheduled for a specific date.

Conclusion:
The judgment ultimately concluded that the appeal would not be transferred to the South Zonal Bench in Bangalore, despite the initial application and arguments based on relevant public notices. The decision was influenced by the desire to avoid delays and the acknowledgment of the significant implications of the case. The Tribunal prioritized expediency in the disposal of the case and accepted the appellant's preference to proceed with the appeal on the current Bench.

---