“Know Your Judge”. Anant Ramanath Hegde. Karnataka High Court.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde celebrates his 55th birthday today.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde: Born on 7th March 1971 at Sirsi in North Kanara District of Karnataka State. Completed the degree in law in June 1994 from the University College of Law, Dharwad Commenced practice in Sirsi courts in July 1994 under the guidance of grandfather Sri. A. M. Hegde and father Sri. R. A. Hegde. After the establishment of the High Court Bench in Dharwad, in 2008, started practice in High Court Bench at Dharwad. Sworn in as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 08.11.2021 and as Permanent Judge on 21.09.2023.

Important Judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde.

Motor Vehicles Act. Power of the Tribunal or the High Court to award just and fair compensation to the victim is not taken away because of prayer for a lesser amount. Karnataka High Court.

Education. ”On account of the pandemic, one cannot give up maintaining standards of education”. Karnataka High Court while rejecting plea of law students to dispense with exams.

Caste Certificate and Creamy Layer Certificate cannot be treated alike. Caste Certificate status is permanent whereas Creamy Layer Certificate status varies from time to time depending on income. Karnataka High Court.

Service law. Principle that ‘Rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has begun’ does not apply if the change is not illegal or contrary to any provision of law. Karnataka High Court.

When the application under Section 11(6) of the Act is pending consideration before the High Court, Arbitrator cannot be appointed by the authority named in the arbitration agreement. Karnataka High Court.

Appointment of Court Commissioner under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Karnataka High Court lays down authoritative guidelines.

Hindu Succession Act. Amended Section 6. Person who alienates properties in violation of injunction order of the court cannot take advantage of the alienation by taking shelter under the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

“The concept of ‘justice at the doorstep’ flowing from Articles 14 and 21 can’t be an empty formality”. Karnataka High Court suggests increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts to avoid flooding of the First Appeals in the High Court.

Hindu Succession Act. Partition of properties inherited under Section 8 will not change the nature of the properties to coparcenary. Karnataka High Court.

Revenue entries coupled with possession can be relied on in support of the plea of earlier oral/unregistered family arrangement. Karnataka High Court.

Arbitration Act, 1940. Arbitrator cannot award damages for an alleged breach of the contract when the contract does not provide for such damages in the event of such breach. Karnataka High Court.

Proportionality of punishment for Contempt of Court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A, CPC. Order directing civil imprisonment should not be passed as a matter of course. Karnataka High Court.

Contempt of Court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A, CPC. Even persons who are not parties to suit can be punished for contempt of court. Karnataka High Court.

Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. When the requirements under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure are met, the Civil Court ought to grant permission to sue. Karnataka High Court.

Agreement to sell recording delivery of possession of property before expiry of 15 years contemplated under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is void and unenforceable. Karnataka High Court.

Photostat copy which is compared with its original is admissible as secondary evidence if other conditions required for production of secondary evidence are met. Karnataka High Court.

Widow of coparcener cannot be disqualified from inheriting her husband’s share in the joint family properties on the ground of she leading an unchaste and immoral life. Karnataka High Court.

Land Acquisition. Time to file cross objections by the landowner starts from the date of receipt of notice of the appeal filed by the beneficiary and not from the date of the award. Karnataka High Court.

Land acquisition. Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution have the power to shift/ alter/ fix the date for reckoning the market value under certain circumstances. Karnataka High Court.

 Karnataka Excise Act. Induction of wife of the deceased partner cannot be construed as creating new partnership or new entity for the purpose of issuance of licence. Karnataka High Court.

‘Special provision in favour of women should also pass the test of equality.’ Karnataka High Court strikes down Indian Military Nursing Services Ordinance, 1943 in so far as providing hundred percent reservation for women in the cadre of nursing officers.

Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Authorities cannot recover stamp duty ‘not levied or short levied’ beyond the period of five years unless there is fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression etc. Karnataka High Court.

Mere irregularity in preparation of voters list in election to local body does not confer right on the members to assert as eligible voters and for counting their votes as valid votes. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to deal with question relating to approval of regulations applicable to members of Common Cadre Committee. Karnataka High Court.

Nominee or legal representative of deceased member of a Co–operative Society, admitted as a member cannot vote and contest in the election if he does not fulfil the eligibility criteria. Karnataka High Court.

Membership in a Co-operative Society is the basic eligibility to contest in an election. In addition, the member has to fulfil additional eligibility criteria if any fixed under the Statute and Bye-law applicable. Karnataka High Court.

Disqualification of membership in a Co-operative Society on being appointed as paid employee in the same Society. The membership will not automatically revive upon resignation to the employment. Karnataka High Court.

Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide shares of joint family members in the properties in respect of which occupancy rights are granted by the Land Tribunal. Karnataka High Court.

Principle that respondent can question adverse finding in judgment without filing an appeal does not apply to an adverse decree against him. Karnataka High Court.

’Legislation should be drafted in simple, concise language, supported by illustrative examples’. Karnataka High Court emphasizes the need for regular amendments and clarifications to ensure that laws align with constitutional court judgments.

Insurance Act. Amended Section 39 does not override the law relating to succession. Beneficial nominees get the benefits only when the testamentary and non-testamentary heirs do not claim the benefits flowing from the insurance policy. Karnataka High Court.

https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/7653059797a917e90a223762
Does a daughter ‘born after the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956’, inherit a share by birth in the coparcenary property that was allotted to her father’s share in the partition that took place before the amendment? Karnataka High Court points out the anomaly.

An agreement for sale executed within 15 years of a non-alienation clause under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms 1961 Act is illegal. Consequently, a party relying on such an agreement is not entitled to seek specific performance. Karnataka High Court.

Civil Court cannot entertain suit challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalath on a compromise, if such suit is filed by the parties to such award or any of the parties claiming through the parties to the said award. Karnataka High Court.

Notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not necessary to file a suit for eviction in case the tenure of the lease has come to an end by efflux of time. Karnataka High Court.

Will. Karnataka High Court recommends making a legal provision to enable recording of statements of testator and attesting witnesses during their lifetime, either before the Sub-Registrar or the Court, to avoid prolonged litigation.

Joint family among Mohammedans. When managing member of family acquires property, other family members can benefit from the acquisition if they can prove their contribution. Karnataka High Court.

Although Mohammedan law does not recognize joint family concept, it is still possible for individuals from the Mohammedan community to live together as a joint family unit or co-own properties. Karnataka High Court.

Suit for partition cannot be rejected for not providing the boundaries of the immovable properties over which the partition is claimed. Identity can be verified by the Court. Karnataka High Court.

Partition. Purchaser of an undivided share cannot claim exclusive share in the joint family properties, seeking allotment of a particular property, without the consent of the other joint family members. Karnataka High Court.

An order refusing or granting ex-parte interim measure on an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act falling under ‘Commercial Arbitration Dispute’ is appealable order under Section 37 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

“Power of review is a creature of Statute’’. Deputy Commissioner has no power to review the order under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Karnataka High Court.

Objection relating to the inherent jurisdiction of the trial Court can be raised even for the first time before the appellate Court. Karnataka High Court.

Limitation to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Cause of action arises only after the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

Temporary injunction in Trademark cases. Even if two conflicting views are plausible, the Court has to lean in favour of the registered trademark to hold that the trade mark is prima facie valid. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no power to wind up a Co-operative Society without the participation of the Federal co-operative, Union Cooperative, Creditors and other stakeholders. Karnataka High Court.

‘’Mubarat’’ is a form of divorce by mutual consent recognized by Muslim Personal Law. Family courts are duty-bound to accept the Mubarat agreement between the parties to dissolve the marriage. Karnataka High Court.

Employer is bound to deduct agreed amount from the salary of member of co-operative society when there is agreement to this effect with prior concurrence with the employer. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Challenge to sale deed executed by member of a co-operative society in favour of a non-member cannot be subject matter of dispute under section 70. Karnataka High Court.

”Wardi transfer” or ”Mutation entry transfer” is not a recognised mode of transfer of property under the Transfer of Property Act. Karnataka High Court.

Hindu Succession Act. Children of predeceased son or daughter of a woman dying intestate are also entitled to share along with children of the woman as Class-I heirs. Karnataka High Court.

In a suit based on a promissory note, the agreed rate of interest must be honored under Section 79 of the Negotiable Instruments Act until the suit’s filing. Courts lack discretion to alter pre-suit interest rates. Karnataka High Court.

Property owners are entitled to just compensation for structures affected by high tension power lines, even if the structures were built after the power lines were installed, as long as such construction was not legally prohibited. Karnataka High Court.

An appeal against a divorce decree does not abate upon the death of the decree-holder spouse, as it impacts the surviving spouse’s legal status and proprietary rights. Karnataka High Court.

Mere supply of electricity without its actual consumption does not constitute a sale. In such cases, only a tariff can be levied, not a tax. The State lacks legislative competence to impose a tax on electricity charges, including minimum tariffs for electricity that is supplied but not consumed. Karnataka High Court.

A writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of a statutory provision does not become infructuous merely because the provision is amended or repealed during the pendency of the proceedings, if the petitioners have suffered consequences under the unamended law that are capable of being redressed by the Court. Karnataka High Court.

Hindu Succession Act. Where property is granted to a wife under a consent decree for the maintenance of herself and her children, such property vests with her absolutely under Section 14(1), even after the children attain majority, unless the decree contains an express restrictive condition limiting her interest. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Rent Act. Civil Court has jurisdiction over eviction suits for commercial premises if the ‘plinth area’ exceeds 14 square metres. For this purpose, the space acquired by the wall must be included. Karnataka High Court.

In cases of unconstitutional tax levies, a person seeking restitution must demonstrate actual loss or damage by proving that the tax burden was borne by them and not passed on to the consumers. Karnataka High Court.

Industrial Disputes Act. Enquiry under Section 33 (2) (b) as to whether domestic enquiry was fair and proper rendered after recording evidence operates as Res judicata between the same parties in a subsequent proceeding challenging the penalty imposed. Karnataka High Court.

High Court can exceptionally exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct a statutory corporation to comply with an industrial award that has attained finality, including payment of withheld back wages. Compelling the workman to resort to the statutory remedy would be unfair given the specific circumstances and the imminent superannuation of the workman. Karnataka High Court.

When a suit for declaration based on title and also by adverse possession fails, the court can pass a decree for possession in favour of the defendant. Such right is traceable to inherent power of the Court saved in Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Karnataka High Court.

Purchaser of an undivided share is entitled to initiate a final decree proceeding to obtain partition and separate possession of the share purchased from the vendors instead of filing separate suit for partition. Karnataka High Court.

Industrial Disputes Act. A second conciliation proceeding is permissible if both parties jointly request it, even after an initial failure report has been submitted. Karnataka High Court.

Industrial Disputes Act. When a dispute challenges a settlement made under Section 12(3), the government must exercise a ‘higher degree of scrutiny’ and record its reasons for being satisfied that a case for adjudication exists before referring it. Karnataka High Court.

Easements Act. Conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural use does not extinguish a right of way granted under a sale deed. However, the dominant owner must exercise this right in the least onerous manner, causing minimum inconvenience to the servient owner. Karnataka High Court.

When an employee is insured under the Employees State Insurance Act, he or his dependents cannot make a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in respect of an employment injury sustained. Karnataka High Court.

Suit for partition. Trial Courts should proceed suo motu to draw the final decree after the preliminary decree to prevent undue delay. Karnataka High Court calls for informed discussions among stakeholders to evolve an effective procedure supported by an appropriate legislative framework.

An application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC for removal of obstruction cannot be entertained to resolve dispute between the decree holder and a person claiming title through the decree holder – an alleged purchaser. The applicant has liberty to file a separate suit to establish his claim. Karnataka High Court.

Evidence Act. A registered, 30 year old adoption deed carries a presumption of due execution which, when coupled with proof of the customary ‘giving and taking’ ceremony, is sufficient to establish the adoption, provided the challenging party fails to rebut the presumption. Karnataka High Court.

Hindu Succession Act. Property acquired through a Will from a collateral (such as brother or uncle) is separate property, not coparcenary property. Succession opens under Section 8 leading to equal shares for all Class I heirs. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Authorities cannot recover stamp duty ‘not levied or short levied’ beyond the period of five years unless there is fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement or suppression etc. Karnataka High Court.

Civil Procedure Code. Plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) simply because it is filed before a non-Commercial Court when it ought to have been filed before a Commercial Court. The proper course of action is to return the plaint for presentation before the correct jurisdictional court. Karnataka High Court.

The trial courts may, during the trial and in the interest of effective administration of justice, indicate the nature of evidence it expects from both parties. Such guidance cannot be construed as the Court siding with either party. Courts are vested with the authority to insist upon better and more satisfactory proof where necessary. Karnataka High Court.

Where the plaintiff establishes a clear legal title but has suppressed the dismissal of the earlier suit for injunction, the court should not deny the relief of declaration and consequential possession, as this would unjustly divest the title. The court should instead grant title and possession and impose a penalty, such as modifying the decree, to address the misconduct and resolve the dispute. Karnataka High Court.

Widow of coparcener cannot be disqualified from inheriting her husband’s share in the joint family properties on the ground of she leading an unchaste and immoral life. Karnataka High Court. 

Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Karnataka High Court urges review of provisions allowing revenue authorities to conduct parallel adjudication of disputes which are again subject to the final determination by a competent Civil Court. Recommends empowering Civil Courts to stay orders under the Act.

A decree for an injunction granted by a Civil Court serves as conclusive proof of lawful possession in land reform proceedings. The Land Tribunal cannot grant occupancy rights over a specific portion of land to a claimant if a rival claimant’s possession of that same portion is protected by a valid civil court decree, unless there is clear evidence of a subsequent surrender of tenancy or a change in possession through legal means. Karnataka High Court.

A plea of constructive res judicata under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage, unless the necessary factual foundation, specifically the nature of the cause of action in the earlier suit was pleaded in the written statement. Karnataka High Court.

The repeal of the Industrial Disputes Act and the commencement of the Industrial Relations Code does not create an adjudicatory vacuum. The existing Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals retain the jurisdiction to entertain and decide references until the new Tribunals under the Code are fully operational by virtue of Section 104 (1A) of the Code and the principles enshrined in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Karnataka High Court.

ಸಿವಿಲ್ ವ್ಯಾಜ್ಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನೂರಾ ಇಪ್ಪತ್ತು ದಿನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಖಡ್ಡಾಯವಾಗಿ ಉತ್ತರ ಪತ್ರ. ಸಿವಿಲ್ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಾ ಸಂಹಿತೆ (ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ) ಕಾಯಿದೆ ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ರಿಟ್ ಅರ್ಜಿ.

ಸಿವಿಲ್ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಾ ಸಂಹಿತೆ (ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ) ಕಾಯಿದೆ, 2024 ರ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 4 ರ ಸಂವಿಧಾನಿಕ ಮಾನ್ಯತೆಯನ್ನು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.
ರಿಟ್ ಅರ್ಜಿ …. / 2026

ಹಿರಿಯ ವಕೀಲರು ಹಾಗೂ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ ಸದಸ್ಯರೂ ಆದ ಬಸವರಾಜ್ ಎಸ್ ಅವರು, ತಮ್ಮ ವಕೀಲರಾದ ಉದಯ ಶಂಕರ್ ಅವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಈ ವಿವಾದಿತ ನಿಯಮವನ್ನು ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಿ ರಿಟ್ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ವಿವಾದಿತ ಪ್ರಾವಧಾನವು ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 4 ಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ ಪ್ರೊವೈಸೊ ಆಗಿದ್ದು, ಅದು ಹೀಗಿದೆ:

“ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯು ಸಮನ್ಸ್ ಸೇವೆಯಾದ ದಿನದಿಂದ ಮೂವತ್ತು ದಿನಗಳೊಳಗೆ ಬರವಣಿಗೆಯ ಉತ್ತರವನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲು ವಿಫಲವಾದಲ್ಲಿ, ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು ದಾಖಲಾದ ಕಾರಣಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಸೂಕ್ತವೆಂದು ತಿಳಿದ ವೆಚ್ಚವನ್ನು ವಿಧಿಸಿ, ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ದಿನದಲ್ಲಿ ಬರವಣಿಗೆಯ ಉತ್ತರವನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲು ಅವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ, ಆ ದಿನಾಂಕವು ಸಮನ್ಸ್ ಸೇವೆಯಾದ ದಿನದಿಂದ ನೂರು ಇಪ್ಪತ್ತು ದಿನಗಳನ್ನು ಮೀರುವಂತಿರಬಾರದು. ಸಮನ್ಸ್ ಸೇವೆಯಾದ ದಿನದಿಂದ ನೂರು ಇಪ್ಪತ್ತು ದಿನಗಳು ಕಳೆದ ನಂತರ, ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯು ಬರವಣಿಗೆಯ ಉತ್ತರ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸುವ ಹಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಕಳೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಾನೆ.”

ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ, ಈ ವಿವಾದಿತ ಪ್ರೊವೈಸೊವು ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾದ ಅನ್ಯಾಯಕರ ಮತ್ತು ಅಸಂಗತ ಸ್ವಭಾವ ಹೊಂದಿದ್ದು, ನ್ಯಾಯ ವಿತರಣೆಯ ಮೂಲತತ್ತ್ವಗಳನ್ನೇ ಹಾಳು ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ.

ರಿಟ್ ಅರ್ಜಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಂದಿರಿಸಲಾದ ಆಧಾರಗಳು ಕೆಳಕಂಡಂತಿವೆ:

ಈ ವಿವಾದಿತ ಪ್ರಾವಧಾನವು ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾಗಿ ಅಸಂಗತ ಮತ್ತು ಅತಾರ್ಕಿಕವಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಇದರಿಂದ ಭಾರತ ಸಂವಿಧಾನದ ಅನುಛ್ಚೇದ 14 ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆಯಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ 120 ದಿನಗಳ ನಂತರ ಬರವಣಿಗೆಯ ಉತ್ತರ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲು ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಮತ್ತು ಅಚಲವಾದ ನಿರ್ಬಂಧವನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದರೆ ನೈಜ ಜೀವನದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾದಿಗಳು ಎದುರಿಸುವ ಅನೇಕ ಪ್ರಾಯೋಗಿಕ ಅಡಚಣೆಗಳನ್ನು ಇದು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗೆ: ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಕಚೇರಿಗಳಿಂದ ಆದಾಯ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯುವುದು, ಕುಟುಂಬ ವಂಶಾವಳಿ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸುವುದು, ಹಿಂದಿನ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಗಳ ಪ್ರಮಾಣಿತ ಪ್ರತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯುವುದು, ವಿವಿಧ ಇಲಾಖೆಗಳ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸುವುದು — ಇವೆಲ್ಲವು ವಿಶೇಷವಾಗಿ ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅತ್ಯಾವಶ್ಯಕವಾಗಿವೆ.

ವಾಣಿಜ್ಯ ವಿವಾದಗಳಿಗಿಂತ ಭಿನ್ನವಾಗಿ, ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಿವಿಲ್ ವಿವಾದಗಳಿಗೆ ಮುಂಚಿತವಾಗಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಕಾನೂನು ನೋಟಿಸ್ ಅಥವಾ ಅಧಿಕೃತ ಸಂವಹನ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಮೂಲ ದಾವೆಗಳು ಬಹುಸಾರಿಗಳು ಗಡಿ ವಿವಾದಗಳು, ಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯ ಹಸ್ತಕ್ಷೇಪದ ಆರೋಪಗಳು, ಅಥವಾ ಅಕ್ರಮ ಕಬಳಿಕೆ ಆರೋಪಗಳ ನಂತರ ತಕ್ಷಣವೇ ಹುಟ್ಟುತ್ತವೆ. ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಇಲಾಖೆಗಳೇ ಈ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಲು ಹಲವು ತಿಂಗಳುಗಳನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತವೆ. ರಾಜ್ಯದ ಆಡಳಿತಾತ್ಮಕ ಅಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ಷಮತೆಯಿಂದ ಉಂಟಾಗುವ ವಿಳಂಬಕ್ಕೆ ವಾದಿಗಳನ್ನು ಶಿಕ್ಷಿಸುವುದು ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾದ ಅಸಂಗತ ಕ್ರಮವಾಗಿದೆ.

ವಿರೋಧಾತ್ಮಕ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾನೂನು ಪರಿಹಾರ ಪಡೆಯುವ ಹಕ್ಕು ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಗೂ ಸಮಾನವಾಗಿ ಅನ್ವಯಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಇತ್ತೀಚೆಗೆ ನೀಡಿದ ತೀರ್ಪಿನಲ್ಲಿ, ಉಲ್ಲಂಘಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟ ಹಕ್ಕಿಗೆ ಪರಿಣಾಮಕಾರಿ ಕಾನೂನು ಪರಿಹಾರವನ್ನು ಹುಡುಕುವ ಹಕ್ಕು ಜೀವಿತ ಹಕ್ಕಿನ ಒಂದು ಭಾಗವಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಪುನರುಚ್ಚರಿಸಿದೆ. ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಆ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಹಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಪ್ರಾಯೋಗಿಕವಾಗಿ ಕಸಿದುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತದೆ.

ಅತಾರ್ಕಿಕ ಅಥವಾ ಅಸಮತೋಲನಯುಕ್ತ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳು ಸಂವಿಧಾನ ವಿರೋಧಿಯಾಗುತ್ತವೆ. ಬರವಣಿಗೆಯ ಉತ್ತರ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸುವುದು ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಗೆ ತನ್ನ ರಕ್ಷಣೆಯನ್ನು ಮಂಡಿಸುವ ಪ್ರಮುಖ ಅವಕಾಶ. ಈ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಳೆದುಹೋದರೆ, ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯು ವಾಸ್ತವಾಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಲು, ಕಾನೂನು ಆಧಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಮುಂದಿಡಲು, ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮಂಡಿಸಲು ಅಥವಾ ವಾದಿಯ ದಾವೆಯನ್ನು ಎದುರಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಅನುಚ್ಚೇದ 21ನ್ನು ಉಲ್ಲಂಘಿಸುತ್ತದೆ, ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ಅದು ನ್ಯಾಯಸಮ್ಮತ, ಸಮಂಜಸ ಮತ್ತು ನ್ಯಾಯಯುತ ವಿಧಾನವನ್ನು ಖಚಿತಪಡಿಸಬೇಕು. ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಂದರ್ಭಗಳನ್ನೂ ಪರಿಗಣಿಸದೆ ರಕ್ಷಣೆಯ ಹಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಕಳೆದುಹಾಕುವುದು ಕಠಿಣ, ಅಸಮತೋಲನಯುಕ್ತ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಾತ್ಮಕವಾಗಿ ಅನ್ಯಾಯಕರವಾಗಿದೆ.

ನ್ಯಾಯ ಪಡೆಯುವುದು ಸಂವಿಧಾನಾತ್ಮಕ ಆಡಳಿತದ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಅಂಶವಾಗಿದೆ. ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ 120 ದಿನಗಳ ನಂತರ ರಕ್ಷಣೆಯ ಹಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಶಾಶ್ವತವಾಗಿ ನಾಶಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಗಂಭೀರ ಅನಾರೋಗ್ಯ, ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳ ಲಭ್ಯತೆಯಿಲ್ಲದಿಕೆ, ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಇಲಾಖೆಗಳ ವಿಳಂಬ ಮುಂತಾದ ವಿಶೇಷ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ವಿವೇಕಾಧೀನ ಅಧಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಬಳಸಲು ಅವಕಾಶ ನೀಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ವಿ.ಆರ್. ಕೃಷ್ಣ ಐಯರ್ ಅವರು ಹೇಳಿದಂತೆ, ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಾತ್ಮಕ ಕಾನೂನು ನ್ಯಾಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸೇವಕವಾಗಿರಬೇಕು. ಅದು ನ್ಯಾಯವನ್ನು ಮುನ್ನಡೆಸಲು ಉದ್ದೇಶಿತವಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಅದನ್ನು ತಡೆಯಲು ಅಲ್ಲ. ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ರಕ್ಷಣೆಯ ದಾರಿಯನ್ನು ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಮುಚ್ಚುವುದರಿಂದ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಾತ್ಮಕ ನಿಯಮವನ್ನು ವಾಸ್ತವಿಕ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆಯಾಗಿ ಪರಿವರ್ತಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.

ಸಿವಿಲ್ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಾ ಸಂಹಿತೆ, 1908 ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳಿಗೆ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಾತ್ಮಕ ವಿಷಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರ ಒದಗಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಸಮಯ ವಿಸ್ತರಣೆ, ವಿಳಂಬ ಕ್ಷಮೆ, ನಂತರ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸುವುದು ಮುಂತಾದ ಹಲವಾರು ವಿಧಿಗಳು CPC ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇವೆ. ಆದರೆ ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಆ ಅಧಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ತೆಗೆದುಹಾಕುತ್ತದೆ.

ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ವಾದಿಗಳಿಗಿಂತ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಗಳನ್ನು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಕಠಿಣವಾಗಿ ನಡೆಸುತ್ತದೆ. ವಾದಿಗಳು ಅಪೂರ್ಣ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಸಹ ದಾವೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಬಹುದು ಮತ್ತು ನಂತರ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಅನುಮತಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಗಳಿಗೆ 120 ದಿನಗಳ ನಂತರ ಬರವಣಿಗೆಯ ಉತ್ತರ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲು ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ನಿರ್ಬಂಧವಿದೆ. ಇದು ಅನುಚ್ಚೇದ 14 ಗೆ ವಿರುದ್ಧವಾದ ಅಸಮಾನತೆಯನ್ನು ಉಂಟುಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ.

ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ, ವಿಶೇಷವಾಗಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದಲ್ಲಿ, ನಡೆಯುವ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ವ್ಯವಹಾರಗಳ ನೆಲದ ವಾಸ್ತವಿಕತೆಯನ್ನು ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಪರಿಗಣಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಆಸ್ತಿ ವಿವಾದಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಗಳು ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ RTC, ಮ್ಯೂಟೇಶನ್ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು, ಪಹಣಿ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು, ವಂಶಾವಳಿ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು, ಆದಾಯ ನಕ್ಷೆಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಹಿಂದಿನ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳ ಪ್ರಮಾಣಿತ ಪ್ರತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯಲು ಹಲವು ತಿಂಗಳುಗಳು ಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.

ಬರವಣಿಗೆಯ ಉತ್ತರ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸುವ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಳೆದುಹೋದರೆ, ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯ ರಕ್ಷಣೆಯನ್ನು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸದೇ ಮುಂದುವರಿಯಬಹುದು. ಇದರಿಂದ ವಾದಿಯ ಅರ್ಜಿಯ ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆಯೇ ಡಿಕ್ರಿಗಳು ಹೊರಬರುವ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚುತ್ತದೆ, ಇದು ತಪ್ಪಾದ ಅಥವಾ ಅನ್ಯಾಯಕರ ತೀರ್ಪುಗಳಿಗೆ ಕಾರಣವಾಗಬಹುದು.

ಈ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳ ವಿವೇಕಾಧೀನ ಅಧಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ತೆಗೆದುಹಾಕುತ್ತದೆ, ಇದರಿಂದ ನಿಯಮವು ಅತಿಯಾಗಿ ಕಠಿಣವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಸಮರ್ಪಕವಾದ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯಾತ್ಮಕ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳು ಸಮಯ ಮಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ನಿಗದಿಪಡಿಸಬಹುದು, ಆದರೆ ವಿಶೇಷ ಸಂದರ್ಭಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳಿಗೆ ಸೀಮಿತ ವಿವೇಕಾಧೀನ ಅಧಿಕಾರವನ್ನೂ ಉಳಿಸಬೇಕು.

ಈ ರಿಟ್ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಮುಂದಿನ ವಾರ ಗೌರವಾನ್ವಿತ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಗೆ ಬರಬಹುದೆಂದು ನಿರೀಕ್ಷಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

“Know Your Judge”. N.S. Sanjay Gowda. Gujarat High Court.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda celebrates his 59th birthday today.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Neranahalli Srinivasan Sanjay Gowda: Born on 15.02.1967. Enrolled as an Advocate on 31.08.1989.

Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and taken oath on 11.11.2019 and Permanent Judge on 08.09.2021.

Appointed as Judge of Gujarat High Court.

Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice N S Sanjay Gowda.

Manufacture of Ethanol using sugarcane juice, sugar or sugar syrup is a sugar factory as defined under Clause 2(c) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. Karnataka High Court.

Service Law. Seniority. Persons promoted in excess of backlog vacancies shall be continued against supernumerary posts. Karnataka High Court. 

Karnataka Municipalities Act. Deputy Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 306 cannot act as an appellate authority and decide validity of the resolution passed by the Municipal Council. Karnataka High Court.

Equal Pay for Equal Work. Workers employed directly and through Contractor. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Intending purchaser already in possession prior to agreement of sale. Purchaser has to pay stamp duty as if possession delivered ‘under the agreement’. Stamp duty cannot be avoided by relying on prior possession.

Right to seek reference to arbitration is not lost if application under Section 8 is filed along with written statement. 

Karnataka Housing Board Act. Sanction of scheme by the State Government is mandatory before the Board takes up housing land development or labour development schemes. Karnataka High Court.

Land acquisition. 2013 Act. Lapse under Section 24 is only when acquisition was under 1894 Act. Section does not apply to acquisitions under State enactments. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. Power to remove encroachment cannot be used to unilaterally determine encroachment of Government land and call upon the alleged encroacher to vacate and deliver possession. Karnataka High Court.

Locus Standi. When a litigation is filed in private interest and not as PIL- fundamental principles pertaining to locus standi have to be complied with by demonstrating violation of petitioners rights and in what manner. Karnataka High Court.

Preventive detention. Though writ petition challenging detention order even before the actual arrest is maintainable, interim stay of such order and grant of bail to accused is unsafe and hazardous. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Constitution, abolition etc of smaller urban areas. Governor should form an opinion that objections to the proposed notification being insufficient or invalid. Non compliance renders notification invalid. Karnataka High Court.

Indian Succession Act, 1925. Wills. Latest judgment of the Karnataka High Court on ingredients, revocation, alteration, proof of Will and evidence of handwriting expert.

”Classic case where the political parties and the police tried to bury the truth”. Karnataka High Court upholds CBI investigation against former Minister Vinay Kulkarni and others in a murder case.

In-service employee appointed to new post in new department on direct basis submitting technical resignation to his post. He cannot be repatriated to original post if new employer discharges him from service. Karnataka High Court.

Right to Information Act, 2005. There is no bar to furnish ‘B’ Report under RTI Act once the investigation is completed. Bar for grant of information applies only during investigation. Karnataka High Court.

A document cannot be registered unless the executant personally appears and establishes his identity to the registering officer and admits execution of the document under Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act. Karnataka High Court.

Labour law. When model standing orders are amended to enhance retirement age, trade unions can seek modification of the certified standing orders to bring them in conformity with the model standing orders. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Order of the Tribunal without bringing all the legal representatives of the deceased landlord on record is a nullity in the eye of law. Karnataka High Court.

Forfeiture of occupancy under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for non-payment of land revenue. Owner can pay the arrears of land revenue any time before the property is sold and get the land restored. Karnataka High Court.

In respect of lands notified prior to 1 January 2014 under the KIAD Act, if awards were not passed as on that date, awards are required to be passed only under the 2013 Act. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Land Revenue Act. When grant of lands is held to be valid, embarking upon a fresh enquiry regarding the revenue entries is impermissible. Karnataka High Court.

MVC claim. ‘Pay and recovery’ principle applies even when owner of vehicle contests claim petition or has preferred appeal against award. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Land Grant Rules,1969. When temporary lease of land is confirmed upon expiry of the lease period and on payment of fixed price, the Deputy Commissioner cannot impose condition of non-alienation. Karnataka High Court.

Farmers cannot be deprived the benefit under the Minimum Support Price Scheme simply because they did not register under the Web-Portal set up by the Department. Karnataka High Court.

Mere stay of a judgment in appeal would not preclude the Court from following the dictum laid down in the judgement. Karnataka High Court.

In respect of lands notified prior to 1 January 2014 under the KIAD Act and in respect of which an award has not been passed as on that day the awards are required to be passed under Section 24 (1) (a) of the 2013 Act. Karnataka Court.

Sale of immovable property cannot be invalidated by a subsequent declaration notifying the property as Wakf property. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Municipalities Act. In case of incomplete or incorrect property tax return, the Municipality has a right to assess property only for a period of six years and not beyond it. Karnataka High Court.

Once an instrument is admitted in evidence, even by inadvertence, the admissibility of the document on the ground it was insufficiently stamped cannot be questioned thereafter. Karnataka High Court.

District Court has no jurisdiction to direct the Trial Court to examine the admissibility of a document on the ground of non/under stamping after it had been admitted in evidence. Karnataka High Court.

Anti Defection Law. In the absence of any steps taken to serve whip in the manner known to law i.e., RPAD and courier or by personal service, mere affixture of the whip on the door is not sufficient. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act. Karnataka High Court issues guidelines regulating service of whip.

National Highways Act. Disbursement of the compensation cannot be withheld or delayed merely on the ground that the award is sought to be challenged. Karnataka High Court.

Persons having tenancy rights can challenge acquisition proceedings initiated under the 2013 land acquisition Act. Karnataka High Court.

Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Rider of a borrowed vehicle can claim compensation under Section 163A for the death of pillion rider wife even though he steps into shoes of the owner and is responsible for the accident. Karnataka High Court.

Tax on electricity payable by consumer shall be on the basis of rate at which consumer purchases from Open Access Source and not at the rate at which the licensee sells to its consumers. Karnataka High Court.

Suit for partition. Plea of exclusive possession by the purchaser of coparcenery property is NOT a conclusive factor to determine court fee payable by the plaintiff. Karnataka High Court.

Revenue officers cannot go into the validity/correctness of the Order based on which the revenue entries are sought be made in the land records. Karnataka High Court.

Suit for partition. A person who is not a party to alienation of coparcenery property need NOT seek cancellation of sale deed or a declaration that he is not bound by the alienation. Karnataka High Court.

Suit for declaration in respect of non-agricultural lands. Court fee payable is NOT on the actual and prevailing market value of the land. Criteria is 15 times the profit or 30 times the revenue. Karnataka High Court.

Suit for permanent injunction in respect of immovable property can be continued by legal representatives after death of original plaintiff since right to enjoy possession is a transferable right. Karnataka High Court.

Second marriage solemnised before coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is valid. Children born from such marriage are legitimate children for the purpose of succession. Karnataka High Court.

Amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act applies even to woman who died before 2005. Legal representatives are entitled for share in the ancestral property. Karnataka High Court.

Motor Vehicles Act. In the event of an accident resulting in death or injury to employee, in the absence of a restrictive clause, liability of insurer cannot be limited to liability prescribed under the Employee’s Compensation Act. Karnataka High Court.

Motor Vehicles Act. Person who has a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle can also drive a transport vehicle which has an unladen weight less than 7500 kg. Insurance company is liable to pay compensation. Karnataka High Court.

Cause of action in a partition suit is a recurring action. Dismissal of earlier suit for non-prosecution will not be a bar for filing a second suit for partition. Karnataka High Court.

Both “A” and “B” Kharab lands belong to owner of the land. Landowner is entitled for compensation in case of acquisition of kharab land. Karnataka High Court.

Wakf Board has no power to issue a corrigendum to the list of wakfs published in the gazette under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act, 1954. Karnataka High Court.

Compensation for lands notified prior to 1:1:2014 under the KIAD Act, where award is not passed as on 1:1:2014, is to be paid under the 2013 land acquisition Act. Karnataka High Court.

Right of the defendant to file a separate suit for partition in respect of properties not included in the plaint is not barred merely because he did not make counter claim in respect of the omitted property. Karnataka High Court.

Suit regarding public trust. It is not necessary that the plaint with documents shall be filed only after the leave is granted. The Court can form an opinion to grant leave on going through the pleadings. Karnataka High Court.

 Prevention of Corruption Act. ‘’According approval to investigate’’ is different from ’Sanction to prosecute’’. It is mandatory to obtain two different and separate approvals for investigation and for prosecution. Karnataka High Court.

Prevention of Corruption Act. Material furnished by the Investigating Officer need not be subjected to a microscopic examination before according approval to investigate a public servant. Karnataka High Court.

Upon death of plaintiff, right to sue survives only on the legal representatives. Person claiming a contractual right from the deceased plaintiff cannot come on record as co-plaintiff. Karnataka High Court.

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Court is required to take into consideration the interest of the minor and safeguard the minors’ interest while granting permission to sell minor’s property. Karnataka High Court.

Unauthorized occupant of Government land has no right to invoke plea of adverse possession against the State. Karnataka High Court.

Grantee of land becomes owner of trees that were already existing on the land at the time of the grant if tree value did not exceed a particular amount prescribed under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules for their assessment. Karnataka High Court.

Deputy Commissioner cannot reject conversion of land after the expiry of four months stipulated under Section 95(5) of the KLR Act since conversion is deemed to have been granted due to inaction on the part of the Deputy Commissioner. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Conversion of land cannot be rejected only on the ground that there is no approach road to the land. Karnataka High Court.

Motor Vehicles Act. Term ‘Legal representative’ cannot be confined only to Class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act and is wider enough to include every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Lands over which kumki privilege existed can be granted to any person, if he is able to establish that he is in unauthorised occupation over the said land prior to 14th day of April 1990. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Land Grant Rules. Deputy Commissioner cannot impose condition of non-alienation while granting permanent ownership as per the terms of the grant after expiry of the initial lease period. Karnataka High Court.

Aided educational institution, to which an employee is transferred as a result of being surplus, is bound to accept the employee so long as it seeks grant in aid for the post in the institution. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka High Court directs name change process for children be facilitated through a simplified affidavit process in the Register of Births, incorporating safeguards to ensure authenticity and prevent potential misuse.

A compromise decree among some co-owners cannot unilaterally change joint property ownership records. Khata registration must include all legal owners unless a competent court resolves the ownership dispute. Karnataka High Court.

When the sale of granted land by SC/ST person is cancelled, without taking actual possession from the transferee as per the PTCL Rules, permission to alienate the land cannot be granted. Karnataka High Court.

A residential site that falls within the Mutation Corridor under the Zoning Regulations retains its residential use designation. Consequently, the BDA cannot deny allotment of an alternate site solely on this ground. Karnataka High Court.

The regularisation of an unauthorised occupation of a land, even in favour of a person belonging to a member of the SC/ST, does not come within the meaning of ‘granted land’ as defined under the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. A right to succeed to the property by the daughter of the grantee cannot be termed to be a transfer under the terms of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

Union of India has no legislative competence to frame Green Energy Open Access Rules. Karnataka High Court strikes down Electricity (Promoting Renewable Energy Through Green Energy Open Access) Rules 2022.

Prosecution of a public servant by Police Wing of the Lokayukta and departmental inquiry by Administrative and Inquiry wings of the Lokayukta results in ‘inevitable bias’. Karnataka High Court strikes down KEB Regulation as manifestly arbitrary.

Hindu Marriage Act. Consent divorce under Section 13B. Parties can be represented by their partners or siblings as GPA holders subject to the satisfaction of the court. Karnataka High Court.

Unless physical possession of property is taken, the Government would not get the benefit of the savings provision in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act. Karnataka High Court.

“Every child would achieve a greater degree of success than his parents and his earning a living wage would not be beyond the realm of possibility.” Comprehensive judgment of the Karnataka High Court on assessing minor’s income in accident cases.

Execution. Once the auction is held, it is the duty of the Court to ensure that the auction money is deposited within 15 days and upon the failure, to forfeit the deposit and resell the property. Court cannot extend time to deposit. Karnataka High Court.

Gift is between Donor and Donee. When donor who challenged gift deed withdraws the suit, his children cannot question the gift deed on the ground of fraud etc. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Adopted son who claims ownership by succession cannot claim tenancy under the deceased adopted father/mother. Karnataka High Court.

A person, whose claim for title is negatived, cannot maintain a suit for injunction. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Tenant has first option to purchase land held in tenancy. Karnataka High Court quashes permission granted by Tahsildar to sell the tenanted land to outsider.

Lokayukta has no power to make a recommendation to the Government that enquiry against a Government servant should be entrusted to Lokayukta only. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Even the land which is ‘capable of being used for agricultural purposes’ has to be construed as an agricultural land. Existence of houses assessed for property tax is irrelevant. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Land Tribunal on the passing of an order either rejecting or granting occupancy rights has no power to consider the claim on merits even if it is by consent of the tenant. Karnataka High Court.

Bank cannot lend loan without verifying title to property which actually belongs to third party owners. Karnataka High Court quashes illegal auction sale, cancels revenue entries and orders restoration of possession to the owners.

Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Lands over which kumki privilege existed can be granted to any person, if he is able to establish that he is in unauthorised occupation over the said land prior to 14th day of April 1990. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. Power to remove encroachment cannot be used to unilaterally determine encroachment of Government land and call upon the alleged encroacher to vacate and deliver possession. Karnataka High Court.

Unauthorized occupant of Government land has no right to invoke plea of adverse possession against the State. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Prior government permission to sell granted land is NOT required after the period of alienation is over. Landmark judgment of the Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Municipalities Act. Deputy Commissioner has no power under Section 304 or 322 to stop construction undertaken by a private person. The power is confined only to inspect and supervise the work done by the Council. Karnataka High Court.

When there is a conflict between BBMP building byelaws and the Zonal Regulations framed under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, the latter prevails. Karnataka High Court.

Municipal authorities should hold their officers accountable for failing to prevent unauthorized constructions and initiate penal action against them. Karnataka High Court lays down guidelines to deal with unauthorised constructions.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/73140bfe28f681d09ccbc26f

In a case where the husband has passed away and the daughter-in-law and grandchildren are residing separately, proceeding for maintenance against the father-in-law is untenable, especially when the father-in-law is aged. Karnataka High Court.

PTCL Act. When once the granted land has been resumed and restored to the grantee, second proceeding for resuming the same land sold after the resumption is illegal and without jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.

A municipality is obligated to honor its resolution with a private party, particularly when it has derived benefits from the resolution and when third-party rights have arisen in reliance upon it. Karnataka High Court.

Once land is converted under Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, it no longer falls within the purview of the PTCL Act, and no further permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act is required. Consequently, revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to initiate or continue resumption proceedings on such land. Karnataka High Court.

When Deputy Commissioner grants approval of land conversion without conditions requiring further subdivision approval, the Municipality cannot refuse a khata for the portion of land purchased by the applicant. Karnataka High Court.

“Know Your Judge”. K. Manmadha Rao. Karnataka High Court.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao celebrates his 59th birthday today.

Honble Dr. Justice K Manmadha Rao: His Lordship was born on 13.02.1967 (recorded date of birth is 13.06.1966) at Mypadu Village in Nellore District. His father Sri K.J.Rama Murthy was a retired Engineer in Irrigation Department and his mother Smt. K. Jhansi Lakshmi is a house wife. His Lordship did his schooling in Guntur, Prakasam and Nellore Districts on account of his father’s employment; Intermediate from Jawahar Bharathi College, Kavali of Nellore Dist; Graduation in Commerce from CSR Sarma College affiliated to Nagarjuna University; completed Law course from Nyaya Vidya Parishad Law College affiliated to Andhra University and was Students’ Union General Secretary of NVP Law College during 1989-90; PG Diploma in Cyber Laws from Hyderabad Central University; Master’s Degree from PG College of Law, Hyderabad, Osmania University and Ph.D. in Law from Andhra University. Enrolled as a Member of the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh on 25.06.1991 and commenced his practice by joining as a junior advocate to Sri Nagisetty Mohan Das, Advocate in the Sri Nagisetty Ranga Rao’s office at Ongole of Prakasam District and continued as such till May 1993, and thereafter, started independent practice in the Magistrate Courts, Subordinate Judge Court in Kandukur of Prakasam District till May, 1999 and also served as Secretary of the Bar Association, Kandukur. Thereafter, shifted practice to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and joined as a Golden member of the High Court Bar Association. His Lordship served as Counsel for various Central Government Undertakings i.e. BSNL, UTI , UTI TSL, Corporation Bank, State Bank of India, Andhra Bank, A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Bank and Life Insurance Corporation India, and Standing Counsel for HDFC-ERGO General Insurance Company handled hundreds of cases as their Counsel. Handled number of cases on behalf of poor & vulnerable persons while doing private practice and served as a counsel for Chit Fund Companies. His Lordship served as Senior Standing Counsel, Central Excise Board in the High Court from 2008 to 2016 and also served as Special Public Prosecutor/Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate for Hyderabad Zone, specially for PMLA cases, before the designated Courts and other Courts including Common High Court at Hyderabad for the period from 2016 to 2020 and also served as Special Public Prosecutor/Standing Counsel for Directorate Revenue Intelligence, specially for NDPS cases before the designated Courts and other Courts including High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati.

His Lordship was empanelled as a member of the Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India in the High Court of Telangana and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Lordship received Awards i.e., Ph.D (Doctorate in Law) from Andhra University and Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Gyan Vigyan Ratna Award -2014 presented by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Jasti Chalameswar, Judge, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi and organized by Resident Commissioner, Government of AP & AP Bhawan SC/ST /Employees’ Welfare Association, New Delhi on the eve of 123rd Birthday Ceremony celebrations of Dr. BR Ambedkar.

Lordship did academic Projects: Intellectual Property Rights and Dispute Settlement Mechanism- a Critical Study, Banking Transactions through Net services, Legal Changes on Net Banking Services, Computer Crimes and frauds in Banking Transactions, Disciplinary Proceedings and Domestic Enquiry in A.P.S.R.T.C, consumer privileges under the Consumer Protection Act or Consumer Justice. Lordship gave lectures on Central Excise laws in National Academy of Customs, Indirect Taxes and Narcotics (NACIN), Zonal Campus, Visakhapatnam on some occasions. His Lordship actively practised in Civil, Criminal, Services, Constitutional and almost all other branches of Law. Had developed his independent practice within a short span of time and extensively dealt with number of cases, covering all branches of Law.

Married to Ms. K.Suneeta and blessed with two Sons, namely, K.Kaushik and K.Subhash who are practicing as Advocates. His Lordship sworn in as a Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 08.12.2021 and His Lordship transferred to Karnataka High Court and assumed the office as the Judge of the Karnataka High Court on 02.06.2025.

Important Judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act. An order refusing an application under Section 8, is an appealable order under Section 37 of the Act. Review of the said order under the Code of Civil Procedure is not permissible. Karnataka High Court.

Hindu Succession Act. Any property possessed by a female Hindu regardless of whether it was acquired before or after the Act’s commencement is held by her as an absolute owner. Unless the property was acquired via an instrument, decree, or award that explicitly prescribes a restricted or limited estate under Section 14(2), the property remains her absolute property and is not liable for partition as joint family property. Karnataka High Court.

Motor Vehicles Act. Where a motor vehicle is operated in blatant violation of statutory requirements specifically lacking a valid permit and registration, such breaches constitute fundamental policy violations. In such instances, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner or satisfy the award. Karnataka High Court.

Land acquisition. Though a pragmatic approach may be adopted, courts cannot bypass the mandatory requirements of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. An inordinate, unexplained delay cannot be condoned on vague pleas of poverty or displacement, as it would revive settled rights, undermine finality, and erode legal certainty. Karnataka High Court.

Motor Vehicles Act. A person who borrows a motor vehicle and meets with an accident steps into the shoes of the owner and cannot be treated as a ‘third party’. A claim under Section 163-A of the Act by the borrower’s legal heirs against the insurer is not maintainable. The insurer’s liability is limited only to the Personal Accident cover under the insurance policy. Karnataka High Court.

Limitation Act. Administrative delay or laxity can never be treated as a sufficient cause for condoning delay. When the State chooses to litigate, it is bound by the same law of limitation as any other litigant. Delay cannot be condoned on vague or casual grounds unless the State clearly establishes bona fide conduct and due diligence. Karnataka High Court.

Motor Vehicles Act. Role of a women in a family and contribution in terms of service should not be under-estimated. Housewives have to be granted compensation on the basis of the multifarious service rendered by them for managing the entire family. Karnataka High Court.

Motor Vehicles Act. Insurer must specifically plead the contributory negligence in support of plea. Insurer cannot directly lead evidence without specific plea regarding contributory negligence. Karnataka High Court.

Civil Procedure Code. A judgment passed by the First Appellate Court must strictly adhere to the mandatory provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 and Order XX Rules 6 and 7. Failure to do so such as not drawing a decree corresponding to the findings, or failing to record independent reasons on each point after considering the evidence in detail renders the judgment incomplete and suffering from serious infirmity, warranting it to be set aside. Karnataka High Court.

Commercial Courts Act. Order XI Rule 5(1). Strict requirement for a plaintiff to establish a ‘reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint’ does not apply to an application for production of documents filed by any party during the pendency of the suit in direct response to issues or questions raised by the opposing party during the course of the evidence. Karnataka High Court.

Indian Evidence Act. Power conferred upon the court by Section 73 to direct a person present in court to write words or figures for comparison is limited to the court’s own necessity in determining the truth of a disputed writing. This provision cannot be used by a party to compel an opposing party or witness to provide sample writings for the advancement of the moving party’s case or defence, as such an action amounts to an unauthorized attempt to collect evidence. Karnataka High Court.

An application to amend the plaint, even if filed after the commencement of trial or conclusion of arguments, may be allowed when it merely adds an alternative prayer without altering the nature of the suit or the original cause of action, so as to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Karnataka High Court.

A party bearing the burden of proof cannot, as a general rule—and particularly after the closure of evidence—compel or summon the opposite party to testify as his own witness. Such a course is legally disfavoured and regarded as an abuse of process or a dilatory tactic. The appropriate remedy when the opposing party refrains from entering the witness box is to seek an adverse inference against him. Karnataka High Court.

When the court finds that sufficient oral and documentary evidence already exists for the adjudication of the issues, Court Commissioner cannot be appointed only to resolve any ambiguity or aid in the appreciation of existing material. Karnataka High Court.

In a suit for specific performance, a third party who demonstrates a direct interest in the suit property on the basis of a prior agreement of sale and an irrevocable power of attorney from the original owners is a necessary party, as their presence is essential for the complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. Karnataka High Court.

When a decree passed against dead respondent in the first appeal is declared as nullity by the High Court in the second appeal, the first Appellate Court retains jurisdiction to entertain applications for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record. Karnataka High Court.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act. When a suit involves a dispute governed by an arbitration clause in an agreement between the parties, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is ousted. The court must return the plaint even if the suit includes prayers like declaration and injunction or redemption of mortgage. Karnataka High Court.

An application for amendment of pleadings may be permitted even after the commencement of trial if facts have come to light during the trial and the amendment is necessary for effectively determining the real issues in controversy between the parties. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. Unless the plaintiff himself admits ouster, a suit for partition by a co-parcener must be valued under Section 35(2), based on the statutory presumption of joint possession regardless of any contrary claims or assertion of exclusive title/possession raised by the defendants in their written statement. Karnataka High Court.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Statutory bar against specific performance of a contract of personal service under Section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act is a substantive legal principle that equally binds Arbitral Tribunals, thereby precluding them from granting the relief of reinstatement. Karnataka High Court.

Hindu Law. Daughter’s right to an equal share in ancestral joint family property under the Hindu Succession Act is established by birth and is not conditional upon the father-coparcener being alive on the date of the amendment. Any prior judgment or preliminary decree restricting the daughter’s share based on the father’s death date must be modified to grant the daughter an equal share as a son. Karnataka High Court.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The non-joinder of a necessary party constitutes a fundamental error of law, striking at the root of the proceedings and rendering the adjudication and award legally unsustainable. Karnataka High Court.

Unregistered power of attorney is admissible as evidence if it explicitly states that no consideration was paid for it and is therefore not required to be registered. Court is not permitted to go beyond the recitals of the document to determine its admissibility. Karnataka High Court.

‘’Procedural enactment should not be construed in any manner, which would leave the Court helpless to meet extra-ordinary situations in the ends of justice’’. Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC providing for upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory not mandatory. Karnataka High Court.

A civil court, including a Commercial Court, lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the actions of a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act when the dispute falls within the exclusive domain of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Karnataka High Court.

In a partition suit involving a Christian family, succession must be determined under the Indian Succession Act, and the coparcenary principles under the Hindu Succession Act have no application. Where an intestate dies leaving only children, the property is to be divided equally among all surviving children. Karnataka High Court.

Indian Succession Act. A sole beneficiary of a Will can be considered an executor by necessary implication. His application for probate is maintainable even if he is not explicitly named as the executor in the Will. Karnataka High Court.

Preventive detention is advised to assert/afford protection to society. Courts cannot sit as an Appellate Court on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Karnataka High Court.

“Know Your Judge”. C.M. Joshi. Karnataka High Court.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.M. Joshi celebrates his 62nd birthday today.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandarashekar Mrutyunjaya Joshi: Born on 24.01.1964. Native of Hubballi. Enrolled as Advocate and practiced at Hubballi. Appointed as Munsiff on 08.02.1995. Appointed as District Judge on 06.07.2009. Served as Deputy Secretary, Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Central Project Co-ordinator (Computers), Registrar (Computers) at High Court of Karnataka and as Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Udupi, Belagavi & Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Sworn-in as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 16.08.2022.

Important judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C M Joshi.

Criminal law. Call records regarding conversation between accused and deceased are inadmissible in evidence unless the Certificate required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is produced. Karnataka High Court.

Motor Vehicle Act. When a claim petition is filed under Section 163A and the evidence on record shows the income is above Rs.40,000/- p.a, the claim petition is liable to be rejected, unless it is converted to one under Section 166. Karnataka High Court.

Disciplinary proceedings against daily wage employee can be initiated under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 only if his name is notified by the State Government as daily wage employee. Karnataka High Court.

An order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and hence the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order. Karnataka High Court.

Property allotted to a female in family partition between herself and her father is her absolute property and does not revert to heirs of her father under Section 15 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act. Karnataka High Court.

Service benefits do not form bequeathable estate of Government Servant. Family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and as such it cannot be disposed off during lifetime by testamentary disposition. Karnataka High Court.

Grant of Succession Certificate will not determine rights of parties since it merely identifies the hands in which death benefits be given and it does not entitle such person to appropriate such benefits to himself. Karnataka High Court.

Adopted son becomes a coparcener in the adoptor’s family and cannot claim right in his genitive family properties. Karnataka High Court.

In case of ‘Act Only Policy’ which does not cover pillion rider with extra premium, liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company. Even the principle of ‘pay and recover‘ does not apply in such cases. Karnataka High Court.

When ‘package/comprehensive’ policy is issued, it covers all including the occupant, driver, pillion rider and the owner. Premium paid is irrelevant. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Excise (General Conditions) Rules. Profit sharing ratio change in a partnership firm by 50% and above amounts to ‘’change of control and management of a firm’’ and attracts payment of transfer fee under the Rules. Karnataka High Court.

The limitation period for instituting probate proceedings for a Will is three years, as per the residuary provision of the Limitation Act, subject to specified exceptions. Karnataka High Court.

Service Law. Deemed suspension of an employee would continue even after his detention comes to an end by virtue of enlargement on bail or otherwise till after the competent authority issues a formal order revoking the suspension. Karnataka High Court.

Hindu Succession Act. Partition of ancestral properties prior to 2004 amendment does not affect rights of daughters in the ancestral property notionally allotted to the father. Karnataka High Court.

When brothers partition ancestral property, it continues as ancestral property. Son/daughter born after the partition will automatically acquire rights by birth. Karnataka High Court.

Service Law. ‘’It is the prerogative of the employer to deploy his staff suitable to the requirement of work/place unless the conditions of service otherwise provide’’. Employees cannot sit in self-judgment as to the validity of transfer order and disobey the same with impunity. Karnataka High Court.

Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watan Abolition Act. Watan property belongs to the entire family, with all family members having hereditary interests eligible for a share. Karnataka High Court.

Service Law. When a person is placed in independent charge of a post, albeit being eligible for promotion to that post, and later receives retrospective promotion, he is entitled to salary arrears corresponding to the pay scale of the said post. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Excise (General Conditions) Rules. Profit sharing ratio change in a partnership firm by 50% and above amounts to ‘’change of control and management of a firm’’ and attracts payment of transfer fee under the Rules. Karnataka High Court.

Urban Development Authority’s imposition of a penalty for non-construction on the allotted site by the allottee within the stipulated period cannot be held to be unreasonable. 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.

A person who acquires an interest in the suit property during the pendency of the suit can seek to be impleaded at the appeal stage by invoking Section 146 of the CPC which provision should be interpreted broadly and liberally to promote justice. Karnataka High Court.

Order on determination of question as to legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, under Order 22 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code, does not operate as resjudicata. Karnataka High Court.

Cause of action in a partition suit is recurring one. Dismissal of earlier suit for partition for default is not a bar for the second suit. Karnataka High Court.

Property allotted to a female in family partition between herself and her father is her absolute property and does not revert to heirs of her father under Section 15 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act. Karnataka High Court.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Disputes involving allegations of fraud can be referred to arbitration unless the allegations of fraud are so serious that they render the arbitration agreement itself void. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Stamp Act. The maximum stamp duty of Rs. 25 crores on amalgamation of companies specified in the Schedule does not include the additional duty. The duty chargeable under the Act would include not only the stamp duty as imposed under Section 3, but also the additional duty as levied under Section 3B of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Arbitral Tribunal is the final arbiter of the disputes and an Arbitrator’s interpretation of the contractual terms are not liable to be interfered with, unless the court finds that no reasonable person could possibly hold the said view. Karnataka High Court.

Commercial Courts Act. Disputes arising from the failure of a lessee to vacate premises used for commercial purposes, after the expiry of the lease term and despite service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, fall within the jurisdiction of the commercial courts. Karnataka High Court.

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act does not provide a fresh cause of action in respect of the acquisitions of land that stand vested with the State. Any person in possession of the land after the same is vested with the State, is required to be treated as a trespasser. Karnataka High Court.

An employer cannot initiate departmental proceedings for incidents that occurred beyond the prescribed limitation period. Once this period has lapsed, an employee’s retirement benefits cannot be withheld indefinitely on the pretext of contemplated disciplinary action. Karnataka High Court.

Income Tax Act. A completed or unabated assessment cannot be reopened under Section 153A unless incriminating material revealing undisclosed income is discovered during the search. The object of Section 153A is to tax such undisclosed income detected in the search, not to arbitrarily reassess concluded matters. Karnataka High Court.

Income Tax Act. Disallowance of deductions on enhanced income under the proviso to Section 92C (4) is not applicable when an assessee voluntarily declares a higher income based on an Advance Pricing Agreement. An Assessing Officer cannot deny a deduction under Section 10AA on such income. Karnataka High Court.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act. A civil suit for an injunction to restrain arbitration proceedings is barred under Section 5, as all issues concerning the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction—including the existence, validity, or limitation of the arbitration agreement—fall exclusively within the Tribunal’s competence under Section 16. Karnataka High Court.

General Clauses Act. When the last date for filing a quarry lease renewal application falls on a Sunday or any public holiday, the statutory period for submission automatically extends to the next working day. Rejection of an application filed on the next working day is unsustainable. Karnataka High Court.

A superior court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 can refuse a successive remand to a statutory tribunal that has repeatedly failed to discharge its basic adjudicatory duty, such as examining evidence, despite earlier directions. Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Revenue authorities are authorized to correct or alter mutation entries in the Record of Rights based on undisputed source-of-title documents even when a civil suit on title is pending. Karnataka High Court.

SARFAESI Act. The borrower’s right of redemption stands extinguished once the secured creditor publishes the auction notice. Any subsequent offer to pay dues or match the auction price after publication and confirmation of sale is invalid, as the SARFAESI Act overrides the general right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act. Karnataka High Court.

Wildlife (Protection) Act. Where land within a National Park’s notified limits is voluntarily surrendered under a Resettlement and Rehabilitation scheme, compensation must be determined under the land acquisition law in force when the scheme was framed, and not under the 2013 Act, even if the surrender occurred after the 2013 Act came into force. Karnataka High Court.

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. An Arbitral Tribunal’s award of interest higher than the rate expressly stipulated in the contract on contractual amounts constitutes a patent error and is liable to be set aside under Section 34/37 to the extent of the excess interest awarded. Karnataka High Court.

An oral gift (Hiba) under Mohammedan Law does not require compulsory registration or payment of stamp duty based on market value, and a written record of such a gift does not alter its fundamental nature or requirements. Karnataka High Court.

An interlocutory order which is a step in the procedure that leads to final decree, if had not been appealed against, can be a ground in the appeal arising out of the decree. Karnataka High Court.

Employees Compensation Act. Wages specified in the Central Government’s notification under Section 4(1B) must be mandatorily applied and a lesser amount cannot be considered. In cases arising from a vehicular accident where a motor vehicle package policy is involved, the Insurance Company is liable for the interest on the compensation amount. Karnataka High Court.

The compensation for injuries to minors in motor vehicle accidents should be calculated based on the minimum wages of a skilled workman and include future prospects, rather than relying on fixed notional income or disability percentages. Karnataka High Court.

http://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/6629c3c45d7cc0d6948fa28c

Courts should refrain from interfering with or halting an election process once it has commenced, even in the face of allegations of illegality or procedural non-compliance. The preparation of the electoral roll is merely an intermediate stage, and once the process is underway, it must be allowed to run its course without judicial interruption. Karnataka High Court.

Pre-emption under Mohammedan Law. A valid claim must be asserted through two mandatory demands—Talab-e-Muwathaba, made immediately upon sale, and Talab-e-Ishhad, declared before two witnesses and communicated to the seller or purchaser. Issuing a legal notice, even if attested, does not fulfill or replace this customary requirement. Karnataka High Court.

Town Planning. The validity of a building plan sanction is governed by the law in force on the date of its approval, not the date of application. Mere submission of an application does not confer any vested right or legitimate expectation for consideration under the earlier regulations, particularly when a later statutory amendment introduces restrictions in the public interest. Karnataka High Court.

Eviction suit by co-landlord is maintainable even if one co-landlord transfers his interest during the suit’s pendency. The failure to formally record the assignment under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC does not automatically render the suit non-maintainable, especially when the assignee continues to prosecute the case on behalf of the surviving co-landlord. Karnataka High Court.

Suit for specific performance. A court exercising its equitable discretion may impose a condition that the purchaser pay an enhanced sale consideration significantly higher than the agreed price to the vendor, in order to balance the equities arising from the escalation of property value due to the efflux of time during litigation. Karnataka High Court.

‘ಮಕ್ಕಳು ತಮ್ಮ ತOದೆ ತಾಯಿ ಆದಾಯ ಮೀರಿ ಗಳಿಸಿದ ಹಣ, ಆಸ್ತಿಗೆ ಫಲಾನುಭವಿಗಳಾಗಬಾರದು. ಅOತಹ ಹಣ ಆಸ್ತಿ ತ್ಯಜಿಸುವುದು ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಕ್ಕೆ ಮಹತ್ವದ ಸೇವೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದOತೆ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ.’ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಬಿ. ವಿ. ನಾಗರತ್ನ.

ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರ ನಿಗ್ರಹ ಕಾಯಿದೆ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 17ಎ ಅನ್ನು ಅಸ0ವಿದಾನಿಕೆ ಎ0ದು ಘೋಶಿಸಿದ ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಬಿ.ವಿ. ನಾಗರತ್ನ ಅವರು ಮತ್ತೋರ್ವ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಕೆ. ವಿ. ವಿಶ್ವನಾಥನ್ ಇವರ ತೀರ್ಪಿಗೆ ತಮ್ಮ ಭಿನ್ನಾಬಿಪ್ರಾಯ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಬಿ.ವಿ. ನಾಗರತ್ನ ಅವರು ಭಿನ್ನಾಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ (dissenting judgment) ವ್ಯಕ್ತಪಡಿಸಿ, ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರ ತಡೆ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ, 1988ರ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 17A ಸಂವಿಧಾನಬಾಹಿರವಾಗಿದ್ದು ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸಬೇಕೆಂದು ನಿರ್ಣಯಿಸಿದರು. ಅವರ ಮೂಲ ತರ್ಕ ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡಂತಿದೆ:

ಪೂರ್ವಾನುಮತಿ ಸಂವಿಧಾನಾತ್ಮಕವಾಗಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಸಮ್ಮತವಲ್ಲ

ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ನಾಗರತ್ನ ಅವರ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯದಲ್ಲಿ, ತನಿಖೆ, ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಅಥವಾ ತನಿಖಾ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆ ಆರಂಭಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕೂ ಮುನ್ನ ಪೂರ್ವಾನುಮತಿ ಪಡೆಯಬೇಕೆಂಬ ಅವಶ್ಯಕತೆಯೇ ನ್ಯಾಯೋಚಿತವಲ್ಲ. ಅನುಮತಿಯನ್ನು ಯಾರು ನೀಡಬೇಕು ಎಂಬುದಕ್ಕಿಂತಲೂ, ಅಂತಹ ಅನುಮತಿ ಇರಬೇಕೇ ಎಂಬುದೇ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ. ಅವರ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ, ಪೂರ್ವಾನುಮತಿ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ, ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ಅದು ತನಿಖಾ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಯನ್ನು ಆರಂಭದ ಹಂತದಲ್ಲೇ ಅಡ್ಡಿಪಡಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.

ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 17A ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ರದ್ದುಗೊಂಡ ವಿಧಾನಗಳನ್ನು ಪುನರುಜ್ಜೀವನಗೊಳಿಸುತ್ತದೆ

ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 17A ಮೂಲತಃ ಸಿಂಗಲ್ ಡೈರೆಕ್ಟಿವ್ ಹಾಗೂ ಡಿಎಸ್ಪಿಇ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 6A ಅನ್ನು ಮತ್ತೊಮ್ಮೆ ಜೀವಂತಗೊಳಿಸುವ ಶಾಸನಾತ್ಮಕ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನವಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಅವರು ಹೇಳಿದರು. ಈ ಎರಡು ವಿಧಾನಗಳನ್ನೂ ವಿನೀತ್ ನಾರಾಯಣ ಹಾಗೂ ಸುಬ್ರಮಣಿಯನ್ ಸ್ವಾಮಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸುಪ್ರೀಂ ಕೋರ್ಟ್ ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸಿದೆ. ಸುಪ್ರೀಂ ಕೋರ್ಟ್ ಸಂವಿಧಾನಬಾಹಿರವೆಂದು ಘೋಷಿಸಿದ ವಿಧಾನವನ್ನು ಸಂಸತ್ತು ಬೇರೆ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಮರುಪರಿಚಯಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ.

ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರ ತಡೆ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ಉದ್ದೇಶವನ್ನೇ ಈ ವಿಧಾನ ವಿಫಲಗೊಳಿಸುತ್ತದೆ

ಭಿನ್ನಾಭಿಪ್ರಾಯದ ಪ್ರಕಾರ, ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 17A ಪ್ರಾಮಾಣಿಕ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳನ್ನು ರಕ್ಷಿಸುವ ಬದಲು ಭ್ರಷ್ಟರನ್ನು ರಕ್ಷಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಪ್ರಾಮಾಣಿಕ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಇಂತಹ ಸಮಗ್ರ ರಕ್ಷಣೆಯ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಭ್ರಷ್ಟ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಇದರ ಪ್ರಯೋಜನ ಪಡೆದು, ಪ್ರಾಥಮಿಕ ತನಿಖೆಯನ್ನೂ ತಡೆಯುವ ಮೂಲಕ ತಪ್ಪು ನಡೆಗಳನ್ನು ಆರಂಭದಲ್ಲೇ ಮುಚ್ಚಿಹಾಕುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಇದರಿಂದ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರ ನಿರ್ಮೂಲನಾ ಉದ್ದೇಶವೇ ಹಾಳಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.

ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನದ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾನೂನು ಮರುಬರೆಯುವುದು ಅನುಮತಾರ್ಹವಲ್ಲ

ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 17Aಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವ “ಸರ್ಕಾರ” ಅಥವಾ “ಸಮರ್ಥ ಅಧಿಕಾರ” ಎಂಬ ಪದಗಳನ್ನು “ಲೋಕಪಾಲ್” ಅಥವಾ “ಲೋಕಾಯುಕ್ತ” ಎಂದು ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಿಸುವ ಬಹುಮತದ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಕೋಣವನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ನಾಗರತ್ನ ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾಗಿ ತಿರಸ್ಕರಿಸಿದರು. ವಿಧಾನದ ಸಂವಿಧಾನಿಕ ಮಾನ್ಯತೆಯೇ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವಾಗ, ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳು ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನದ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾನೂನನ್ನು ಮರುಬರೆಯಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಅವರು ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟಪಡಿಸಿದರು.

ಸಂರಚನಾತ್ಮಕ ಪಕ್ಷಪಾತ ಮತ್ತು ಹಿತಸಂಘರ್ಷದಿಂದ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 17A ಅಯುಕ್ತವಾಗಿದೆ

ಭಿನ್ನಾಭಿಪ್ರಾಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಯುಕ್ತತೆಯ ಹಲವು ಮೂಲಗಳನ್ನು ಅವರು ಗುರುತಿಸಿದರು:

  • ನೀತಿಪಕ್ಷಪಾತ: ಒಂದೇ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ತಮ್ಮ ಸಹೋದ್ಯೋಗಿಗಳ ನಿರ್ಧಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸುವ ಸ್ಥಿತಿ.
  • ಸಾಮೂಹಿಕ ನಿರ್ಧಾರ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆ: ಹಲವು ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಒಟ್ಟಾರೆ ನಿರ್ಧಾರವಾಗಿರುವ ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಒಬ್ಬ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಯನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ ಅನುಮತಿಗಾಗಿ ಅಥವಾ ನಿರಾಕರಣೆಗೆ ಗುರಿಪಡಿಸುವುದು ಕೃತಕ ಹಾಗೂ ಅನ್ಯಾಯಕರ.
  • ಹಿತಸಂಘರ್ಷ: ಅನುಮತಿ ನೀಡುವ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಯೇ ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನಿರ್ಧಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾಗಿಯಾಗಿರಬಹುದಾದ ಸ್ಥಿತಿ.
  • ಸಂಸ್ಥಾತ್ಮಕ, ಒಳವಿಭಾಗೀಯ ನಿರ್ಧಾರ: ಅನುಮತಿ ನಿರ್ಧಾರವು ತಟಸ್ಥತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರತೆಯನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿಲ್ಲ.

ಈ ಎಲ್ಲ ಅಂಶಗಳು ಸೇರಿ, ನೈಸರ್ಗಿಕ ನ್ಯಾಯ ಮತ್ತು ನ್ಯಾಯಸಮ್ಮತತೆಯ ತತ್ವಗಳನ್ನು ಉಲ್ಲಂಘಿಸುತ್ತವೆ.

ಸಂವಿಧಾನಾತ್ಮಕ ಭರವಸೆಗಳ ಉಲ್ಲಂಘನೆ

ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ನಾಗರತ್ನ ಅವರ ತೀರ್ಮಾನದಂತೆ, ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 17A ಅಯುಕ್ತ, ಅತಾರ್ಕಿಕವಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಸಂವಿಧಾನದ ಕಲಂಗಳು 14 ಮತ್ತು 21ಕ್ಕೆ ವಿರುದ್ಧವಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದು ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಆಡಳಿತವನ್ನು ಅಡ್ಡಿಪಡಿಸಿ, ಸಂಸ್ಥಾತ್ಮಕ ಹೊಣೆಗಾರಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ದುರ್ಬಲಗೊಳಿಸಿ, ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರ ವಿರೋಧಿ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಗಳ ಮೇಲಿನ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ನಂಬಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಕುಂದಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.

ಸಮಾಪನ (ಭಿನ್ನಾಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ)

ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ನಾಗರತ್ನ ಅವರು, ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 17A ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಹೋರಾಡುವ ಸಂವಿಧಾನಾತ್ಮಕ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯವನ್ನು ದುರ್ಬಲಗೊಳಿಸುತ್ತದೆ, ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಅಮಾನ್ಯಗೊಂಡ ರಕ್ಷಣೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮರುಜೀವಂತಗೊಳಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಮತ್ತು ತನಿಖಾ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳ ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರತೆಯನ್ನು ಅನ್ಯಾಯವಾಗಿ ಕಡಿತಗೊಳಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ನಿರ್ಣಯಿಸಿದರು. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ, ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 17Aಯನ್ನು ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಅವರು ತೀರ್ಮಾನಿಸಿದರು.


ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿತ ಭಾಗ (ಶೋಭಾ ಸುರೇಶ್ ಜುಮಾನಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣ)

ಶೋಭಾ ಸುರೇಶ್ ಜುಮಾನಿ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಅಪೀಲಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಮಂಡಳಿ, ವಶಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡ ಆಸ್ತಿ, (2001) 5 SCC 755 ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ, ಸಮಾಜದಲ್ಲಿ ರಾತ್ರೋರಾತ್ರಿ ಶ್ರೀಮಂತರಾಗುವ ಪೈಪೋಟಿ, ಅತಿರೇಕದ ಹಾಗೂ ಅಶ್ಲೀಲ ಐಶ್ವರ್ಯ ಪ್ರದರ್ಶನ, ಮತ್ತು ಭೌತಿಕತೆಯ ಮನೋಭಾವದ ಸ್ವೀಕಾರದಿಂದಾಗಿ ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರವು ಕ್ಯಾನ್ಸರ್‌ನಂತೆ ಬೆಳೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದು, ಜನರ ನೈತಿಕ ಮೌಲ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಹಾಗೂ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಆಡಳಿತಾತ್ಮಕ ರೂಪಗಳನ್ನು ಹಾನಿಗೊಳಪಡಿಸಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡಿತು.

    ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರವು ಲಾಲಸೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅಸೂಯೆಯ ಫಲಿತಾಂಶವಾಗಿದೆ. ಇವು ತಿಳಿದ ಆದಾಯ ಮೂಲಗಳನ್ನು ಮೀರಿದ ಭೌತಿಕ ಸಂಪತ್ತನ್ನು ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸುವ ಅಸ್ವಸ್ಥ ಸ್ಪರ್ಧೆಗೆ ಕಾರಣವಾಗುತ್ತವೆ. ಒಬ್ಬನು ಮತ್ತೊಬ್ಬನಿಗಿಂತ ಭೌತಿಕ ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠತೆಯನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸುವಾಗ, ಅಕ್ರಮವಾಗಿ ಸಂಪತ್ತು ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸುವ ಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಉಂಟಾಗಬಹುದು. ಲಾಲಸೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅಸೂಯೆಯ ಮನೋಭಾವವನ್ನು ನಿಯಂತ್ರಿಸಿ ಮನಸ್ಸಿನಿಂದ ಅಳಿಸಿಹಾಕದಿದ್ದರೆ, ತಿಳಿದ ಆದಾಯ ಮೂಲಗಳನ್ನು ಮೀರಿದ ಸಂಪತ್ತಿನ ಸಂಗ್ರಹದಿಂದ ಉಂಟಾಗುವ ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಲಂಚವನ್ನು ಕಡಿಮೆ ಮಾಡಲಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಅಥವಾ ನಿರ್ಮೂಲಿಸಲಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಇಂತಹ ಪ್ರವೃತ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನು ತಡೆಗಟ್ಟುವ ಒಂದು ಮಾರ್ಗವೆಂದರೆ, ಭೌತಿಕ ಆಸಕ್ತಿಯಿಂದ ದೂರವಿರುವ ಆತ್ಮೀಯ/ಆಧ್ಯಾತ್ಮಿಕ ಮನೋಭಾವವನ್ನು ಬೆಳೆಸಿ, ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಸೇವೆಯತ್ತ ಗಮನ ಹರಿಸುವುದಾಗಿದೆ.

    ಈ ದೇಶದ ಯುವಕರು ಮತ್ತು ಮಕ್ಕಳು ತಮ್ಮ ಪೋಷಕರು ಅಥವಾ ಸಂರಕ್ಷಕರು ತಿಳಿದ ಆದಾಯ ಮೂಲಗಳನ್ನು ಮೀರಿಸಿ ಗಳಿಸಿದ ಯಾವುದನ್ನಾದರೂ ಅದರ ಫಲಾನುಭವಿಗಳಾಗುವ ಬದಲು, ಅದನ್ನು ತ್ಯಜಿಸಬೇಕು. ಇದರಿಂದ ಅವರು ಉತ್ತಮ ಆಡಳಿತಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾತ್ರವಲ್ಲ, ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಕ್ಕೂ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಮಹತ್ವದ ಸೇವೆಯನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದವರಾಗುತ್ತಾರೆ.

    “Know Your Judge”. Jayant Banerji. Karnataka High Court.

    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jayant Banerji celebrates his 61st birthday today.

    • Justice Jayant Banerji was born on 17/01/1965.
    • Appointed as Additional Judge on Sep 22, 2017.
    • Took oath as Permanent Judge on Sep 06, 2019.
    • His Lordship was transferred as a Judge of Karnataka High Court and assumed office on 19.07.2025.

    Important Judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jayanth Banerji in Karnataka High Court.

    A court cannot grant police protection to enforce a status quo order without first making a judicial determination of its violation. When facts and evidence are unclear, the Court should not delegate its responsibility to an external investigating or law enforcement agency, as this would confer upon such authority a jurisdiction it does not lawfully hold. Karnataka High Court.

    Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Government has the authority to refer a departmental inquiry to the Upa-Lokayukta, even if a separate disciplinary inquiry has already been initiated and the same is at an advanced stage. Karnataka High Court.

    Group of Companies Doctrine in Indian arbitration law. Where a non-signatory holding company plays major role at the stage of agreement between the parties, offers irrevocable guarantee and promotes the project, the company can be impleaded in the arbitration proceedings. Karnataka High Court.

    “Know Your Judge”. Umesh M. Adiga. Karnataka High Court.

    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh M. Adiga celebrates his 62nd birthday today.

    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh Manjunath Bhat Adiga: Born on 09.01.1964. Native of Gadag. Enrolled as Advocate and practiced at Gadag. Appointed as Munsiff on 08.02.1995. Appointed as District Judge on 06.07.2009. Served as Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of Karnataka, Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, Dharwad and as Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. Sworn-in as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 16.08.2022.

    Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh M Adiga.

    Service Law. Person ineligible for the post cannot question the appointment of another person to the post since Public Interest Litigation is impermissible in Service matters. Karnataka High Court. 

    When proceedings are initiated under the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, the authorities are bound to examine whether the grant comes within the purview of the Act. Karnataka High Court.  

    Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Competent authority has discretion to reduce the percentage of damages under Section 14B and the same is justiciable. Karnataka High Court.

    Mere payment of premium amount before occurrence of accident will not cover liability if the insurance policy is issued with effect from the time after the accident. Karnataka High Court.  

    Mere existence of Arbitration Clause does not bar jurisdiction of the Civil Court unless the party exercises his right under Section 8 of the A & C Act. Karnataka High Court.

    Where driver of vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence, the insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the same from owner of the vehicle. Karnataka High Court reiterates. 

    MVC Act. Amputation of leg need not always result in 100% disability for the purpose of awarding compensation when the claimant can do the work which is not strenuous in nature. Karnataka High Court.

    Borrower of motor vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and hence the borrower of the vehicle or his legal heirs are not entitled for compensation. 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.

    Income Tax Act. Exemption from restriction on cash transaction can be claimed only for special exigencies the burden of proving is on the assessee. Karnataka High Court.

    Hindu Succession Act. When a person with a living daughter is adopted into another family, the daughter remains a part of her natural family and retains her right to inherit a share of her natural family’s ancestral property. Karnataka High Court.

    Motor Vehicles Act. Assessment of the notional income for a minor must be based on the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. Burden of furnishing the applicable minimum wage data rests on the insurance company if the claimant fails to produce it. Karnataka High Court.

    Labour Law. When a reinstatement award is passed in favor of a workman, and the implementation of that award is subsequently stayed by an appellate court upon the employer’s challenge, the principle of ‘no work no pay’ will not apply for the period the stay order was in operation, as the workman was prevented from working due to the employer’s legal challenge. Karnataka High Court.

    Mohammedan Law. The mere registration of a gift deed does not, by itself, establish compliance with all legal requirements. A valid gift must be supported by three essential elements: a clear declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and contemporaneous as well as continuous delivery of possession to the donee. Unless these elements are proved, the donor remains entitled to subsequently alienate the property, and the donee cannot rely on an earlier, unproven gift to challenge the validity of later transactions. Karnataka High Court.

    Motor Vehicles Act (unamended). The Insurer is liable to indemnify the owner for an accident that occurs within the 30 days grace period after expiry of the license period as the driver is deemed to possess a valid licence. Absence of a driving licence does not per se establish contributory negligence unless a direct link is proved between the lack of the licence and the occurrence of the accident. Karnataka High Court.

    “Know Your Judge”. B.M. Shyam Prasad. Karnataka High Court.

    Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad celebrates his 55th birthday today.

    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhotanhosur Mallikarjuna Shyam Prasad: Born on 8th January 1971. Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and took oath on 14.02.2018 and Permanent Judge on 07.01.2020.

    Important Judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad. 

    Property inherited by a female from her parents reverts back to heirs of her father on she dying intestate and without issues. Suit for declaration by husband claiming such property ought to be rejected under Order 7 rule 11. Karnataka High Court.

    Once parties acknowledge existence of arbitration clause, Court can appoint arbitrator even if stamp duty is insufficiently paid. Karnataka High Court.

    When the prosecution fails to prove major offence, the minor and related offence falls into insignificance and the accused will be entitled to acquittal. Karnataka High Court. 

    Arbitration and Conciliation Act. When arbitrator withdraws from the office, substitute arbitrator can be appointed only under Section 11 read with Section 15 and under Section 29A(4) thereof. Karnataka High Court.

    Appeal court should not allow amendment unless there is an error in the decree of the trial court and when the amendment relieves the party who lost the case from the consequences of a decision rendered on merits. Karnataka High Court.

    Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Suit for cancellation of sale deed in respect of agricultural land. Valuation is based on the land revenue and not on the amount shown in the sale deed. Karnataka High Court.

    Property inherited by a female from her parents reverts back to heirs of her father on she dying intestate and without issues. Suit for declaration by husband claiming such property ought to be rejected under Order 7 rule 11. Karnataka High Court.

    Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Questions of facts that impact title cannot be decided in proceedings under Chapter XI. Karnataka High Court.

    Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watan Abolition Act. Watan property belongs to the entire family, with all family members having hereditary interests eligible for a share. Karnataka High Court.

    Karnataka Stamp Act. Civil court cannot delegate its power to the District Registrar of Stamps to decide on the nature of the document and to determine the deficit duty. Karnataka High Court.

    Petition for Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. Karnataka High Court.

    Wife with good educational qualification who quit salaried employment without any reason cannot demand maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court.

    BBMP Act. Improvement expenses can be collected in instalments for transfer of khata. Non-payment of instalment cannot be a reason to deny benefit of revenue entry since the amount can be recovered in accordance with law. Karnataka High Court.

    Inter-State transmission of electricity under Section 11 of the Electricity Act 2003 can be regulated only by the Central Government. Karnataka High Court nullifies order of the State Government.

    Pious obligation under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act arises only if the plaintiff is able to demonstrate that the defendant has inherited some asset or estate from the deceased debtor. Karnataka High Court.

    Once a property is brought under BBMP limits, the Karnataka Land Revenue Act ceases to apply. Denial of a consolidated Khatha on the ground of non-conversion of the land is not sustainable. Karnataka High Court.

    Writ jurisdiction. The State is not exempt from the application of the doctrine of delay and laches, as an unexplained delay is fatal and prevents the re-opening of a finality attained by an order of the Tribunal. Karnataka High Court.

    Hindu Marriage Act. The right of a spouse to receive permanent alimony under Section 25 is not only available at the time of passing of a decree but any time subsequent thereto on an application. Karnataka High Court.

    Family Courts should liberally allow an amendment to include a prayer for permanent alimony in a matrimonial petition, even at a later stage, as permanent alimony is a relief incidental to the main prayer for dissolution of marriage. Karnataka High Court.

    Payment of Gratuity Act. The Controlling Authority has the discretion to decide whether to levy compound interest on delayed gratuity payments under Section 8, after providing the employer a reasonable opportunity to present its case. Karnataka High Court.

    Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act. If a Grama Panchayat does not communicate its decision on an application for a building license or trade license within 60 days, the licenses are deemed to have been granted by operation of law. The authority cannot later invalidate the deemed approval. Karnataka High Court.

    When a development has been approved under a prevailing Interim Master Plan, the subsequent notification of a final Master Plan that alters the land use designation does not revoke the prior development approval. The validity of the prior approval persists, especially where the developer has acted in accordance with it and third-party rights have been created. Karnataka High Court.

    Karnataka Rent Act. Carpet area and the area covered by the walls of the premises, constitutes ‘plinth area’, which is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of application of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

    “Know Your Judge”. Ashok S. Kinagi. Karnataka High Court.

    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok S. Kinagi celebrates his 56th birthday today.

    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok S. Kinagi: Born on 01.01.1970. Enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1995. Practiced in High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench from 2008 to till date.

    Practiced in the field of Civil, Land Acquisition and Service Matters etc,.

    Panel Advocate – Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society, Gulbarga, Khaja Banda Nawaj Education Society, Gulbarga, Alstom Project India Limited, Shahabad, ACC, Wadi, Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Karnataka State Industrial and Development Board, Ganesh Co-Operative Bank, Gulbarga, Punjab National Bank, Gulbarga, Hutti Goldmines, Hutti, Dist. Raichur, The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited.

    Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and taken oath on 23.09.2019 and Permanent Judge on 01.03.2021.

    Important judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok S. Kinagi.

    Resumption under the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act cannot be ordered when grantee obtained conversion of land for non-agricultural purposes before the alienation. Karnataka High Court.

    Stay of suit under Section 10 CPC is permissible only if the whole subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical and not incidentally or collaterally in issue. Karnataka High Court.

    Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. When earlier suo-motu proceedings were dropped by the Assistant Commissioner, fresh proceedings cannot be initiated by the grantee without challenging the said order. Karnataka High Court.

    Karnataka Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. The Civil Court must record a clear finding about land grabbing in order to transfer the case to Special Court. Karnataka High Court.

    Land restored under SC/ST (PTCL) Act to original grantees cannot be construed as Government land to invoke the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act. Karnataka High Court.

    Constitution of India. Article 226. In a writ petition challenging the interim order passed by a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, refusal to interfere is a rule and interference is an exception. Karnataka High Court. 

    Intra-court appeal under the Karnataka High Court Act is not maintainable against an order passed by the Single Judge assailing an award passed by the Labour Court. Karnataka High Court. 

    Even an earlier registered sale deed does not confer right over property declared subsequently as Wakf property as long as the declaration is not set aside. Karnataka High Court.

    Application for amendment of pleadings cannot be entertained after the commencement of trial, unless the party could not raise the issue before commencement of trial. Karnataka High Court.

    Corporation cannot demand tax in respect of an industrial plot unless the industrial area is included within the Corporation limits. Karnataka High Court.

    Khata of property cannot be changed when civil suit in respect of the property is pending adjudication before the Court. Karnataka High Court.

    KMMC Rules. When the order of Competent Authority is approved by the Controlling Authority, who is also the Revision authority, Revision can only be filed before the State Government. Karnataka High Court. 

    Committees under Article 194(3) of the Constitution are not vested with adjudicatory jurisdiction which belongs to judicature under the constitutional scheme. Karnataka High Court. 

    Allotment of industrial plot cannot be cancelled on the ground of delay in implementing the project when the delay is attributable to reasons beyond the capacity of the allottee. Karnataka High Court. 

    Transfer of Property Act. Upon valid transfer of property, attornment of tenancy takes place and the tenant cannot question such derivative title. Karnataka High Court.

    Property of first wife dying intestate goes even to the legally married second wife after the death of her husband. Karnataka High Court.

    Unless the factum of Benami transaction is established, property purchased in the name of female becomes her absolute property. Karnataka High Court.

    Suit for specific performance. When the defendant neither pleads nor leads evidence on hardship, Court shall decree the suit especially when the plaintiff proves readiness & willingness. Karnataka High Court. 

    Resumption under the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act cannot be ordered when grantee obtained conversion of land for non-agricultural purposes before the alienation. Karnataka High Court.

    Mohammedan law. Though a written document recording a gift (Hiba) is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the validity of such a gift is contingent upon the donor’s clear intention to divest title and the actual delivery of possession. Karnataka High Court.

    Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. When Inam lands are re-granted by the government to the senior-most male member of the family, such re-grant is presumed to enure to the benefit of all the members of the joint family. Karnataka High Court.

    A registered partition deed, where a minor’s father has accepted cash in lieu of share, cannot be reopened as unequal or unjust unless the minor, on attaining majority, proves it was prejudicial to their interests. The burden lies on the plaintiff, and mere oral claims are insufficient to set aside a legally executed partition. Karnataka High Court.

    Even an earlier registered sale deed does not confer right over property declared subsequently as Wakf property as long as the declaration is not set aside. Karnataka High Court.

    A Second Appeal under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable to challenge a part of a trial court’s decree if that part was not contested by way of an appeal or a cross-objection before the first appellate court. Karnataka High Court.

    A suit for declaration of a right, including a challenge to a registered Will, is barred by limitation if it is not filed within three years from the date when the plaintiffs had knowledge of the document. Karnataka High Court.

    Civil court has no jurisdiction to determine the validity of an order passed by the Land Tribunal due to the bar under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Any order by a Civil Court setting aside a Land Tribunal’s decision would be void and without legal effect. Karnataka High Court.

    “Status of husband and wife for the purpose of Section 24 has been achieved by the spouses by the solemnization” In proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, it is the legal duty of the husband to maintain the wife, especially when the wife has no independent source of income. Karnataka High Court.

    An amendment to pleadings should generally be allowed before the commencement of trial if it is necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute and does not alter the nature of the suit. Mere delay in seeking an amendment is not a valid ground for rejection, and any prejudice to the opposing party can be compensated with costs. Karnataka High Court.

    Hindu Succession Act. When a person with a living daughter is adopted into another family, the daughter remains a part of her natural family and retains her right to inherit a share of her natural family’s ancestral property. Karnataka High Court.

    Hindu Law. Alienation of an undivided share in joint family property by a coparcener is valid only to the extent of his share and is not binding on the shares of the non-alienating coparceners. The purchaser must seek to have the alienated property allotted to the vendor’s share during the final decree proceedings of the partition suit. Karnataka High Court.

    A suit for partition based on the continued existence of joint family property is liable to be dismissed when the evidence demonstrates that the family’s joint status was severed by prior partial partitions and by the subsequent division of the remaining properties under a Will executed by the propositus. Karnataka High Court.

    A claim for adverse possession fails when party making the claim asserts title through a sale agreement and, in the written statement, denies the title of the true owner. Such stand prevents the establishment of a hostile possession required for a claim of adverse possession. Karnataka High Court.

    Property of first wife dying intestate goes even to the legally married second wife after the death of her husband. Karnataka High Court.

    Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Tahsildar has no power to invite applications from landless persons unless a prior order has been passed by the Land Tribunal under Section 67 of the Act which determines that the land is in excess of the ceiling area and is to be surrendered to the State Government. Karnataka High Court.

    Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide an ejectment suit when a claim for occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act has been rejected by the Land Tribunal, and that order has achieved finality. Karnataka High Court.

    A suit for perpetual injunction is not maintainable when the plaintiff admits the defendant’s possession. Withdrawal of a prior suit with liberty to file a fresh one does not automatically validate a subsequent suit. Karnataka High Court.

    Civil suit against Forest Officers who act under the color of duty to preserve forest land is not maintainable without sanction of the State Government under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Forest Act. Karnataka High Court.

    Issue regarding valuation and Court fees cannot be tried as a preliminary issue in a suit and shall be tried along with other issues. Karnataka High Court.

    Specific performance. Agreement executed within the prohibited period under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act cannot be specifically enforced. Karnataka High Court.

    Violation of condition in land grant order will not result in automatic cancellation of the grant unless the Government initiates proceedings for resumption of the land. Karnataka High Court.

    Court Fee. When agricultural land falls within the Corporation limit, the market value has to be taken into consideration even though the land continues to be shown as agricultural in the revenue records. Karnataka High Court.

    When Court dismisses suit for declaration of title over the property, it cannot grant consequential relief of injunction. Karnataka High Court.

    “Dependency on daughter does not end with her marriage”. Parents can seek compensation for the death of their daughter in a motor vehicle accident. Karnataka High Court.

    Power of attorney executed in favour of blood relatives as mentioned in the Karnataka Stamp Act need not be stamped as a document of conveyance. Karnataka High Court.

    Sale of ancestral property. Recitals in the sale deed of legal necessity do not by themselves prove the legal necessity though they are admissible in evidence. Karnataka High Court.

    Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Land converted for non-agricultural purposes no longer remains ‘granted land’ and hence there is no requirement of prior permission to sell such land. Karnataka High Court.

    Persons who purchased suit schedule property during the pendency of suit for specific performance can be added as additional defendant. Karnataka High Court.

    Delay in completion of the project on the industrial site allotted by the KIADB. Allotment cannot be straightaway cancelled by the authority without giving opportunity to the allottee. Karnataka High Court.

    In a suit for declaration, the plaintiff is expected to prove his title to a high degree of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. Karnataka High Court.