Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar celebrates his 62nd birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar: Born on 16th June, 1963. Enrolled as an advocate on 11.02.1987 and practiced independently at Chikkaballapur, City Civil Court and High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore on Civil side. Directly appointed as District and Sessions Judge on 27th May, 2002 and served as Additional Districts and Sessions Judge at Tumkuru; and City Civil Court, Bangalore and Principal District and Sessions Judge at Bidar, Chitradurga, Bangalore Rural Districts. And also served as Director Karnataka Judicial Academy, Bengaluru. Appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 14.11.2016 and Permanent Judge on 03.11.2018.
Important judgments delivered by Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar.
Public Trust. Decision on application under section 92 CPC shall be taken by looking into only the plaint averments. Application can be opposed only with reference to plaint averments only. Karnataka High Court.
Civil Procedure Code. Order granting leave under section 92 in respect of public trust is a judicial order and can be questioned by revision petition under section 115.
Attachment before judgment in a suit for damages for defamation cannot be passed since the claim for damages is not an ascertained sum arising from a transaction between the parties. Karnataka High Court.
Attachment before judgment. The plaintiff must be able to demonstrate that on the day when the suit was filed, the defendant owed to him in a certain sum of money on account of a transaction between them. Karnataka High Court.
Caveat cannot curtail Court’s power to pass interim orders when party approaching court makes out an extraordinary circumstance in the presence of caveator. Karnataka High Court.
Filing of Caveat cannot curtail Court’s power to pass interim orders when party approaching court makes out an extraordinary circumstance in the presence of caveator. Karnataka High Court.
Executing Court can order arrest of the judgement debtor on oral application of the decree holder, without issuing arrest notice, only if the judgement debtor is within the precincts of the Court. Karnataka High Court.
Court cannot place accused exparte in cheque bounce cases and proceed with the trial. Court must secure presence of the accused if he does not appear despite service of summons. Karnataka High Court.
MVC Case. Split multiplier. Higher multiplier for the salary component and lower multiplier for the pension component is justified when the person had no future prospect of re-employment. Karnataka High Court explains.
Dowry death. Failure to explain reasons within the knowledge of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C, renders the defence of the accused unreliable. Karnataka High Court.
When temporary injunction sought in an appeal preferred against decree, the appellate court can look into the evidence and findings of the trial court to form an opinion regarding the nature or status of the property. Karnataka High Court.
Cheque issued towards refund of failed marriage expenses constitutes enforceable debt under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the same is not hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act. Karnataka High Court.
Default imprisonment for non-payment of fine is a penalty and not a sentence. The default sentence cannot be for a period more than one fourth of maximum imprisonment period that can be imposed as sentence. Karnataka High Court.
Cheque bounce case. Single complaint in respect of several cheques issued from Company account as well as personal account is maintainable if the transaction is same. Karnataka High Court.
Cheque bounce case. Unless accused introduces a specific defence questioning financial capacity of complainant, Court cannot go into this question on its own and give a finding. Karnataka High Court.
Every seasoned advocate trains the witnesses before they are examined in the court. Such training cannot be branded as ‘tutoring the witness’. Karnataka High Court.
SARFAESI Act. Whether action can be taken in relation to security interest created in an agricultural property can also be dealt with by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Writ petition cannot be entertained on this ground alone. Karnataka High Court.(DB)
If search and seizure effected pursuant to a FIR disclose a different distinct offence, there is no bar for registration of a second FIR even though the first FIR is quashed by the Court. Karnataka High Court.
If trial court declines to frame or reframe issue despite request made by a party during pendency of suit, the same can be agitated in appeal against the final judgment. Karnataka High Court.
Omission to put question to accused under section 313 Cr.P.C, cannot be a good ground to upset conviction unless it has resulted in miscarriage of justice or prejudiced the interest of the accused substantially. Karnataka High Court.
There is no bar for the informant police officer to undertake investigation so long as the investigation is free of bias and prejudice. Karnataka High Court.
First of its kind; Karnataka High Court grants ‘John Doe’ injunction order against unknown defendant/respondent.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Amended Section 19 is retrospective in operation and previous sanction for prosecution of retired public servant necessary even prior to the amendment. Karnataka High Court.
Registered sale deed or release deed do not require attestation and it is not necessary to examine attesting witnesses unless the execution of the document is specifically denied by its executor. Karnataka High Court.
Election petition. Defeated candidate securing zero vote in a booth does not give rise to assumption of bogus voting. Suspicion does not take the place of evidence. Karnataka High Court.
Match fixing does not amount to cheating under Section 420 Indian Penal Code though it may indicate dishonesty, indiscipline and mental corruption of a player. Karnataka High Court.
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Obtaining false caste certificate by non SC/ST person can not be construed as an offence under the Act. Karnataka High Court.
”Article 25 of the Constitution cannot be understood as affording protection to those who indulge in conversion under the camouflage of propagation of his or her religion”. Karnataka High Court while quashing criminal proceedings against police officers.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Section 8. Non-signatory defendants cannot be exposed to arbitral proceedings especially when the cause of action against all the defendants is same and cannot be bifurcated. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Succession Act. Section 14. Life interest created to wife under Will beyond her share in a notional partition is not a pre-existing right. Bequeath is only life interest. Wife will not get absolute right. Karnataka High Court.
Limitation Act. Article 65-b. Recovery of possession when mortgagee sells the property mortgaged. The Article does NOT apply when the property is sold under a statute. Karnataka High Court.
Transfer of Property Act. Section 43. Feeding the grant by estoppel does NOT apply if the transferee knows that the transferor did not possess the title at the time of transfer. Karnataka High Court.
Prosecution for dishonour of cheque issued towards time barred debt is permissible when cheque was issued under a subsequent written agreement between the parties. Karnataka High Court.
Inclusion of properties already partitioned in a suit for partition amounts to vexatious and scandalous litigation. Court can order deleting the properties from the plaint under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC. Karnataka High Court.
Partition Act. Party who applies for sale of the property under Section 2 cannot opt for purchase of the share of the other parties under Section 3. Karnataka High Court.
Cr.P.C. Complaint backed by affidavit. Does not apply where it is by public authority or under a statute. Karnataka High Court.
If the plaintiff who has secured an exparte order of temporary injunction fails to comply with the requirement of Order 39 Rule 3 (a) & (b) CPC, the court is bound to vacate the injunction order. Karnataka High Court.
Land Acquisition Act. Beneficiary is not a necessary party when the landowner seeks reference to Court under section 18(1) or 18(3)(b) of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Decree granted in a time barred suit can be executed. Such a decree though illegal, is certainly not without jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
Certificate to appeal under Articles 132 and 134A of the Constitution of India cannot be sought on the grounds which were not urged in the proceeding before the High Court.
Whenever a defendant takes up a specific contention in his written statement, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to meet it by filing a rejoinder. Karnataka High Court.
Mere usage of the words ‘Khayam’ or ‘Nirantara’ in a collateral document does not make lease of immovable property a ‘permanent lease’. Karnataka High Court.
Relief of declaration in a title suit to property benefits even those who are not impleaded as plaintiffs. Karnataka High Court.
Specific performance of sale agreement cannot be refused simply because khata of the property is not transferred in the name of the owner. Karnataka High Court.
Agreement of sale in favour of mortgagee in possession. Once the suit for specific performance fails, the suit for redemption filed by the vendor ought to be decreed. Karnataka High Court.
Sub-Registrar cannot insist on production of khata in the name of the vendor for admitting sale deed for registration. Karnataka High Court.
Supari killing of Sulya KVG Medical College administrator. Karnataka High Court convicts six accused including the Director of the college.
Suit for specific performance by purchaser against seller – question of ownership over the property does not assume importance. Purchaser can purchase the property from a person with defective title at his risk. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. When vendor himself does not adhere to time limit under the agreement of sale, he cannot take the plea of time being essence of the contract. Karnataka High Court.
When the appellate Court receives additional evidence such as expert opinion which requires to be analysed by the trial Court, the matter can be remanded to the trial Court. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Suit for injunction based on possession is not barred by Section 133(1)(i) of the Act. Bar applies only to suits involving tenancy. Karnataka High Court.
Not every application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC requires detailed enquiry. Courts must reject frivolous application at the threshold to enable the decree holder to reap the benefits of the decree. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Succession Act. Failure on the part of daughters to claim share in house property in a family partition does not amount to abandonment of claim under the unamended Section 23. Karnataka High Court.
When a person who is not a party to a compromise decree seeks to avoid the decree based on his independent right or title over the property in question, he can maintain a separate suit. Karnataka High Court.
“When the murder is in broad daylight, evidence of the eyewitnesses cannot be brushed aside.” Karnataka High Court reverses acquittal of four persons and convicts them for murder.
Civil suit seeking declaration of a property as Wakf property is not maintainable. Plaint in such a suit is liable to be rejected. Karnataka High Court.
Though earlier suit for injunction does not operate as resjudicata, specific issues framed in the earlier suit and the decision rendered therein would certainly operate as resjudicata. Karnataka High Court.
Plaintiff is bound by law of limitation when he files a fresh suit under Order 23 Rule (1) CPC. If liberty is granted at the appellate stage, the cause action for fresh suit must be different than the earlier one. Karnataka High Court.
’Article 21 cannot be stretched too long to afford protection to persons who have least concern for the rule of law and pose threat to sovereignty and integrity of the nation.’ Karnataka High Court while rejecting bail plea of terror accused.
Section 33 of the Evidence Act. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated. Absolute reliance cannot be placed on the previous evidence given by such witness. Karnataka High Court.
Non-registration of sale agreement under which possession is delivered does not come in the way of grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiff if there is a threat of alienation of the property. Karnataka High Court.
Suit by minor challenging sale of property by his father/mother should be filed within three years from the date of attaining majority and not from the date of knowledge of the sale transaction. Karnataka High Court.
Concept of ”reasonable doubt” in criminal cases. Authoritative judgment of the Karnataka High Court.
Application for extension of time to file chargesheet takes priority over an application for default bail when both the applications are filed on the same day. Karnataka High Court.
When a person has been in possession of immovable property for a long time with revenue entries continuously in his name, there is no impediment to declare his title though he is not in a position to produce any document of title. Karnataka High Court.
Family settlement/arrangement need not be among the joint family members having a right of succession but can include an outsider provided such a settlement/arrangement is fair and bona fide. Karnataka High Court.
POCSO Act. Document relating to date of birth of a student issued by School on the basis of entry of the date of birth made in the admission register can be relied for the purpose of age determination. Karnataka High Court.
“Coparcenary system continues even after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.” Karnataka High Court explains the principles behind succession and survivorship.
Wife and children of the plaintiff, who contested against the plaintiff in the suit, cannot come on record as his legal representatives in the suit/appeal due to conflict of interest. Karnataka High Court.
Legitimacy. A person recognized as a daughter in official records is presumed to be a biological child unless disproven by strong contrary evidence. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Law. Limited right of widow prior to 1956 in the form of ‘life estate’ becomes absolute right after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. Karnataka High Court.
Proceedings under the State Financial Corporations Act must be initiated within three years from the date of demand notice. Mere invocation of a guarantee deed does not extend the limitation period unless there is an acknowledgment of debt. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal Law. Separate trials for distinct offenses are not inherently illegal. However, if offenses could’ve been tried jointly and separation prejudices the accused, a joint trial is warranted. The key factor is whether the separate trial compromised the accused’s rights or led to a miscarriage of justice. Karnataka High Court.
Transfer of Property Act. Section 43. Feeding the grant by estoppel does NOT apply if the transferee knows that the transferor did not possess the title at the time of transfer. Karnataka High Court.
Once land is acquired and possession is taken, especially when used for public purposes, title vests with the State/Authority. Even constitutional protection under Article 300-A does not extend to claims that are stale, especially where there have been public developments, site allotments, and third-party rights. A Civil Suit filed beyond the limitation period suffers from incurable delay and is not entitled to the relief sought. Karnataka High Court.
Test. Under the UAPA, an individual is deemed a “terrorist” based on their involvement in acts defined by Section 15, regardless of scheduled status; bail under Section 43D(5) is denied if there are prima facie reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are true, without requiring a mini-trial. Karnataka High Court.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. An individual is deemed a ‘terrorist’ based on their involvement in acts defined by Section 15, regardless of scheduled status. Bail under Section 43D(5) is denied if there are prima facie reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are true, without requiring a mini-trial. Karnataka High Court.
Daksha Legal 