Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijaykumar A Patil celebrates his 50th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijaykumar Adagouda Patil: Born on 14.10.1975. Native of Shedbal, Kagawad Tq, Belgaum District. Completed primary & secondary education at native place. Obtained B.A. degree from Shivananda College, Kagawad. Graduated in Law from University Law College, Dharwad. Completed LL.M. from Post Graduate Department of Studies in Law, Karnataka University, Dharwad & secured 2nd rank. Enrolled as Advocate on 16.07.1999 and practiced at Bengaluru, joined the chambers of Hon’ble Shri Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri. Practiced in various branches of Law. Worked as High Court Government Pleader & Addl. Government Advocate for a period of 11 years. During the practice, represented as Standing Councel for KIADB, Karnataka Slum Development Board, Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Corporation & Mysore Urban Development Authority. Worked as Honorary Lecturer at Sheshadripuram Law College and KLE Society’s Law College, Bengaluru.
Sworn-in as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 09.02.2023.
Important judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijaykumar A Patil.
When the State takes over private land of a person who has undisputed title over it, the owner cannot be asked to approach the civil court for compensation. Refusal to pay compensation violates constitutional mandate. Karnataka High Court.
Divorce. When the allegations of cruelty are consistent and specific which are not refuted by making available for cross-examination and in the absence of any contrary evidence on record, the court shall dissolve the marriage. Karnataka High Court.
Land grabbing. If the possession over land is traceable to a registered sale deed, the Special Court has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint. Karnataka High Court.
Prior purchasers are necessary parties in a suit for specific performance by the subsequent agreement holder. Karnataka High Court.
Interpretation of statutes. Where a discretion is conferred on a authority coupled with an obligation the word ‘may’ which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command. Karnataka High Court.
“Political rallies have some elements of dissemination of knowledge & information to the public at large and they generate lot of political awareness in the voting masses”. Karnataka High Court on PM Modi’s Road Show.
‘Consider Datta Peetha issue without reference to High Power Committee report’. Karnataka High Court upholds single Judge’s order.
Karnataka High Court upholds NEET of National Medical Commissioner and counselling process seat matrix stipulating quotas for admission in private Homeopathic Medical Colleges.
Child custody. Principle of Comity of Courts cannot override the consideration of best interest and welfare of the child. Karnataka High Court.
Wife wilfully abandoning husband cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. especially when husband has not refused or neglected to maintain her. Karnataka High Court.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Special Court has jurisdiction to deal with the order of extension of remand as well as the applications seeking default bail. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Initiation of proceedings 7 years after the sale that too after receiving the entire sale consideration is hit by doctrine of unreasonable delay. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Marriage Act. Mere inability of the wife to obey decree for restitution of conjugal rights is not a ground to dismiss her petition for divorce. Karnataka High Court.
Obtaining approval or sanction from the Government is not mandatory while issuing Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of lands in favour of the Karnataka Housing Board. Karnataka High Court.
When the State takes over private land of a person who has undisputed title over it, the owner cannot be asked to approach the civil court for compensation. Refusal to pay compensation violates constitutional mandate. Karnataka High Court.
Divorce. When the allegations of cruelty are consistent and specific which are not refuted by making available for cross-examination and in the absence of any contrary evidence on record, the court shall dissolve the marriage. Karnataka High Court.
Employees Compensation Act. Commissioner is bound to consider the aspect of penalty in accordance with statutory provision when there is delay in payment of even the partial liability. 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.
In a proceeding under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation. 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.
Lokayukta being watch dog of public administration has locus standi to question the order of service Tribunal when there is inaction on the part of Government/Competent Authority. Karnataka High Court.
A religious Mutt has a fundamental right to own and manage its property. Unless there is determination of excess land holding by appropriate authority, property of Mutt cannot be appropriated. Karnataka High Court.
Compassionate appointment. Court has no power to expand the definition of ‘family’ to include daughter-in-law. Doctrine of reading down may be invoked and applied only when the statute is silent, ambiguous or admits more than one interpretation. Karnataka High Court.
Muslim Law. Property given to wife under mutual divorce mubara’at will be her absolute property. Karnataka High Court
‘’Corruption undermines democracy and the rule of law; courts, as the last bastion of justice, must ensure accountability prevails over impunity.’’ An acquittal in a criminal case does not nullify departmental findings, as standards of proof differ; a Tribunal cannot reappraise evidence or replace the disciplinary authority’s conclusions. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules. An order discharging a probationer for unsuitability is a discharge simpliciter, not a termination for misconduct. A formal inquiry is not required even if the preamble cites alleged misconduct or pending criminal cases. Karnataka High Court.
When an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is filed seeking rejection of a plaint, the court must decide it at the threshold before commencing the trial. Since the object of this provision is to weed out untenable suits at the outset, conducting a trial without first deciding the application would serve no purpose if the plaint is ultimately rejected. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Stamp Act. Court cannot delegate its power to assess stamp duty and penalty to the District Registrar. It must itself examine the document, determine sufficiency of stamp duty, and, if deficient, compute the duty and penalty before directing payment. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules. An order discharging a probationer for unsuitability is a discharge simpliciter, not a termination for misconduct. A formal inquiry is not required even if the preamble cites alleged misconduct or pending criminal cases. Karnataka High Court.
A court is obligated to impound a document the moment it appears to be deficiently stamped. An agreement of sale that explicitly states delivery of possession is liable to be impounded for deficient stamp duty. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice. A party to the suit is entitled to receive a certified copy of a document that has been produced along with the plaint, regardless of whether the document has been formally admitted into evidence. Karnataka High Court.
Payment of stamp duty and penalty on an instrument, even when ordered by a court under the Karnataka Stamp Act, does not override the four-month time limit for presenting a document for registration as specified in Section 23 of the Registration Act. Court cannot direct a Sub-Registrar to register a document that was not presented for registration within four months of its execution. Karnataka High Court.
Sale of property effected after obtaining an ex-parte partition decree but before the filing of a petition for restoration of the suit raises a triable issue as to whether it is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The purchaser is a necessary party to the suit. Karnataka High Court.
An amendment to a plaint, such as adding a prayer for possession in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, should be liberally allowed, even if filed belatedly, provided it is sought at a pre-trial stage and does not fundamentally alter the nature of the suit or cause irreparable prejudice to the opposing party. Karnataka High Court.
In a suit for specific performance concerning immovable property, when the relief sought pertains to the entire property, court fee must be computed on the market value of the whole property and not merely on the consideration mentioned in the agreement. Karnataka High Court.
Specific Relief Act. A plaintiff’s failure to comply with a conditional decree for specific performance by not paying the balance consideration within the stipulated time, and not seeking a time extension from the court that issued the decree, constitutes willful non-compliance. In such cases, the contract can be rescinded by the court under Section 28(1). Karnataka High Court.
In a partition suit, the defendant is entitled to include properties that have not been mentioned in the plaint. Such inclusion can be made through the written statement and does not amount to filing a counter-claim. Karnataka High Court.
Though plaintiff can seek to summon defendant as his witness under Order XVI Rule 21 CPC, such a request cannot be granted as a matter of right. Trial Court must consider the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned and thereafter, consider the application by assigning proper reasons. Karnataka High Court.
A trial court has the inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC to grant police protection to enforce a temporary injunction when there is a demonstrated pattern of consistent violations, as denying such aid would allow defiance of the court’s order. This power should be exercised in exceptional circumstances, and the police should be directed to provide assistance when specific instances of interference are reported, with the protection remaining in force as long as the temporary injunction is operative. The availability of an alternative remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC does not preclude the court from granting police protection. Karnataka High Court.
A counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6A of the CPC cannot be permitted after the framing of issues. Courts must not allow belated counterclaims if it would cause prejudice, unduly delay the process, or defeat the purpose of the amendment. Karnataka High Court.
No mandamus can be issued to direct banks to accept payments after the OTS scheme’s deadline, as it would be equivalent to rewriting the contract. Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are generally not maintainable if there is an effective alternative remedy available, especially in cases involving recovery of dues by banks and financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act. Karnataka High Court.
When an alternate site is allotted due to the fault of the BDA, interest on differential sital value is chargeable only from the date of legal challenge, not from the original allotment. Karnataka High Court.
Though a Hindu Will is not required to be probated, there is no bar as to applying for or obtaining a probate of such a Will. Karnataka High Court.
Indian Succession Act. Sole legatee, by necessary implication can act as an executor of a Will and can apply for grant probate of Will. Karnataka High Court.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. If an award is not passed within two years under Section 11A, the acquisition lapses. Pendency of litigation does not extend the period unless a stay order is in effect. A lapsed acquisition creates a fresh cause of action for legal challenge. Karnataka High Court.
When a party secures a favorable order by providing an undertaking to the court but subsequently fails to comply with it, the court has the power under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC to review and recall its order, as non-compliance constitutes a sufficient reason for invoking the review jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
Intra-court writ appeals are maintainable when challenging administrative or statutory orders, even if the party invokes Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power exercised in such cases falls under Article 226. Karnataka High Court.
Indian Telegraph Act. Mere laying of high-tension power transmission lines over private land does not amount to land acquisition but constitutes a statutory right of user. Disputes over sufficiency of compensation must be adjudicated under Section 16(3) by the District Judge, not through writ jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
In a suit for injunction, if the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s title, the court must permit an amendment to the plaint to include a prayer for declaration of title. Karnataka High Court.
Land acquisition. When large extent of land is acquired and gigantic financial implications are involved, hearing all the stake holders/beneficiaries regarding enhancement/reduction of compensation would infuse a sense of justice in them. Karnataka High Court.
Land acquisition. Income Tax exemption provided under Section 96 of 2013 Act does not apply to acquisition of land under any other statutes such as the Karnataka Highways Act. Karnataka High Court.
In the absence of statutory mandate for issuance of final notification within the particular time, delay in issuing the final notification cannot be a ground to quash the acquisition proceeding or to declare that the acquisition has been abandoned. Karnataka High Court.
Land acquisition. When large extent of land is acquired and gigantic financial implications are involved, hearing all the stake holders/beneficiaries regarding enhancement/reduction of compensation would infuse a sense of justice in them. 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.
In a proceeding under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation. Karnataka High Court.
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.
‘’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.
Daksha Legal 