Justice M I Arun celebrates his 53rd birthday today.

Justice M.I. Arun was born on 24.04.1970 at Mysore. His father Shri. M. J. Indrakumar served as Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta till his retirement in the year 1999.

Justice M.I.Arun did his early education in Dharwad, Arasikere, Bhardravathi, Bangalore and Mysroe. He studied SSLC from MES High School, Jayanagar, Bengaluru; PUC from Mari Mallappa Junior College, Mysore; Graduated from the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru in the year 1993.

Justice M.I. Arun enrolled as an Advocate on 09.06.1993; practiced under Shri A.N. Jayaram, Former Advocate General of Karnataka and Shri B.N. Dayanand. He started independent practice as an Advocate from the year 1996 and represented several Universities and various State Government Undertakings. He was a Central Government Senior Panel Counsel and also Additional Government Advocate for a brief period.

Justice M.I. Arun was elevated as an Additional Judge in High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru on 07.01.2020 and assumed charge as a Permanent Judge on 25.09.2021.

Some of the important judgments delivered by Justice M.I. Arun

1. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be a ground to deny the status of a protected workman unless the workman is also involved in criminal cases. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/UwrlgHg4qePUUhxDQJYPzIlDR

2. Confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the CGST Act must be preceded by an opportunity of being heard and not mere opportunity of filing objections to the action contemplated. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/SU2MQ5DjlSWfnLGkqH1LBb36g

3. Suit cannot be dismissed simply because Specified Value as contemplated under the Commercial Courts Act is not mentioned in the plaint. Court can order valuation and return the plaint if the valuation is more than Rs. three lakhs.  https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/oSCA1wLEvaz5Wv5tmTpKvSP7v

4. Wife cannot be held liable under the N.I Act for dishonour of the cheque issued by her husband though the loan transaction is joint.  https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/NXZQdnu9usb20xbkfvcWDDBrP

5. National Calamity Contingent Duty is a surcharge which can be levied independently of the excise duty. NCCD can be levied even in the absence of levy of excise duty.  https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aeJfaSq1x3KpxzUwGyTCLfRnX

6. Existence of a competing co-operative society in the area is only a guiding factor and not a restriction to permit new co-operative society under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Y43XaBvVfRiisuhcLhrmcKyBy

7. Administrator under Section 27A of the Societies Registration Act cannot be appointed on vague allegations of irregularities in conducting election. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/9zaOmZw9ankAXXtA0x90LYmcE

8. Evidence of hostile witness — Entire evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected ipso facto — Unreliable testimony may be rejected, reliable testimony may be accepted — 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3309 : ILR 2020 Kar 2586 : (2020) 210 AIC 638 : (2020) 5 Kant LJ 360 (DB) : (2020) 3 AIR Kant R 244 : (2020) 5 KCCR 588

9. Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990 (Karnataka Act No. 23 of 1994 w.e.f. 30.07.1994) — Section 6-a — Equal rights to daughter in co-parccnarv property — Partition took place by virtue of two partition deeds dated 06.02.2003 — Sale took place on 22.11.2004 — By virtue of Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, maintainability of suit filed by a daughter seeking rights in the co-parcenary property. Discussed. 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3385 : ILR 2021 Kar 613

Held: (a) In the instant case, the partitions took place by virtue of two partition deeds dated 06.02.2003. The sale took place on 22.11.2004. If respondent No. 1 had no right over the properties in question by virtue of Karnataka Amendment which came into effect on 30.07.1994, then, on the ground that partition and sale took place prior to 09.09.2005, she would not get any right over the properties. But, if she had a right over the properties due to Karnataka Amendment which introduced Section 6-A to Hindu Succession Act, which was in force till it was eclipsed by the Central Amendment, in that event, she can maintain a suit for partition.

(b) The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to by the petitioners considered those transactions in which the daughters had no right over the property prior to the amendment made by the Parliament came into force. By virtue of the said decisions, the daughters cannot prefer a suit for partition, in the event if they had no right over the property prior to the amendment coming into force and the property was alienated prior to amendment coming into force. The above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court do not bar the daughters from instituting a suit for partition, if as per prevailing law, prior to amendment she had a right over the property.

10. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Earned leave — Earned leave is not a consequential benefit — If a workman does not work, he is not entitled to Earned Leave — Earned leave is not a consequential benefit and workman has to render active service and thereby earn privilege leave to his credit — Earned leave cannot have been earned as a matter of right, but by actual working Earned leave unless the relevant regulations expressly specifies otherwise cannot be considered as part of consequential benefits.–Earned leave is a privilege, a workman would be entitled to only by actual working and it cannot be earned as a matter of right even if he did not work. Even if he were to be in employment, he becomes entitled to it only if he works and earns it, otherwise not. It is similar to night shift or traveling allowance which accrue only if the person decides to work. If he does not work, in that event, he is not entitled to it. VIjaya Bank v. H.C. Jayaprakash, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 642 : ILR 2020 Kar 1783 : (2020) 2 KCCR 1087 : 2020 LLR 414 : (2020) 2 CLR 135 : (2020) 3 Kant LJ 636 : (2020) 3 AIR Kant R 743

Justice Padmaraj Nemachandra Desai retires on 21 May 2023 during the summer vacation. He is being given hearty farewell today.

Justice P.N. Desai was born on 21:5:1961 at Navalgund, Dharwad District. He did Bachelor of Science (B.sc) Degree from P.C. Jabin Science College, Hubli and LL.B. (Spl) from University College of Law, Dharwad.

Justice P.N. Desai enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1984 and joined the Chambers of his father – Late Sri. N.J.Desai, Advocate. He practiced both on Civil and Criminal Side at Navalgund and Dharwad District Courts.

He Joined Judiciary on 25:7:1992 as a Munsiff & JMFC (Presently Civil Judge) and stood first in the merit list of the batch. He worked as Munsiff and JMFC at Turuvekere Taluk, Tumkur District and Sedam Taluk, Kalaburagi District.

He was promoted as Senior Civil Judge in the year 2002. He worked as an Assistant Draftsmen & Ex-officio Deputy Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Department of Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru.

He served as Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) at Hassan and Registrar, City Civil Court, Bengaluru.
In the year 2009, through a limited Departmental competitive examination conducted by the High Court of Karnataka, he was promoted as District Judge and worked as Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, Presiding Officer of Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, Judge, Family Court, Mangaluru and Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mangaluru.

He worked as an Assistant Director, Deputy Director and a Senior faculty member at Karnataka Judicial Academy, Bengaluru. He is a trained mediator from Bengaluru Mediation Centre, Bengaluru.
He served in the High Court of Karnataka as Secretary to Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Additional Registrar General at High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench, Registrar (Judicial) and Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.

Justice P.N. Desai worked as Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru District and Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.

Justice P.N. Desai was appointed as an Additional Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru on 04:05:2020 and as permanent Judge on 25:09:2021.

Justice P N Desai retires on 21 May 2023 after serving the institution of judiciary for more than 30 years. Many junior and senior lawyers have expressed heartfelt appreciation for his service and his lawyer friendly nature throughout.

“When he was posted in Turuvekere, he had to get the judgments from his senior’s office via fax. He would wait in the nearby telephone booth till late night. He would deliver the judgements taking note of the correct legal position. He recollected with ease the names of the lawyers who appeared before him 30 years ago.” recollects Mr. M N Mdusudan, Member, Karnataka State Bar Council.

“Justice P N Desai’s dedication to the law has been an inspiration to me and so many others, and his warmth and kindness have made the courtroom a better place for all who enter it” says junior advocate Mr. A. R. Goutham.

“Justice P N Desai’s fairness, intelligence, and compassion have made a lasting impact on the legal profession, and his legacy will be felt for years to come. I have learned so much from his lordship and I am grateful for the wisdom and compassion” – Advocate Yashas.

“As you move on to the next chapter of your life, please know that you will be deeply missed. You have touched the lives of so many people, and I know that your contributions to the legal community will never be forgotten.” Mr. S.P. Shankar, Senior Advocate

Some of the latest/important judgments delivered by Justice P N Desai.

1. Company need not be arrayed as an accused for initiating criminal proceedings under the Factories Act 1948. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/d0Zo5Wk8hS6I8H2nHnINyMPsO

2. Payment of interim compensation applies only in respect of offences committed after Section 143(A) of N.I.Act came into force in the statutory book. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/7e7dwYqBTENTpmAt4bFbc66IA

3. Cheque bounce case. Complainant is not expected to appear on every date of hearing and the Court cannot dismiss the complaint for default on that ground. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/KGqfPftJkB8oyevEyMmAlhDr4

4. NDPS Act. Owner of logistic company cannot be prosecuted if he was not aware of transportation of contraband in his vehicle. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/UZ9NoJpaTHwvIIKfgnnQTyWBw

Please open the PDF and click on the link to access the Judgement.

S. Basavaraj, Senior Advocate, Bengaluru.

Recently the Chief Justice of India asked a pertinent question “Why there are less women in Higher Judiciary?”

I wrote this on 8 March 2016. Unfortunately there is little improvement since then.

Another Women’s’ Day is here.

From the legal perspective, it is highly disappointing.

The woman lawyers are completely ignored in the matter of elevation as High Court judges or other Constitutional offices. We’ve never heard of a single woman Advocate General in the country (correct me if I am wrong).

Even the on-going selection of High Court Judges in the Karnataka High Court does not have a single women candidate.

Many woman lawyers, whose consent was obtained, felt it embarrassing to meet the collegium judges to pursue their appointment.

A woman lawyer, whose name was recommended, told me how embarrassing it was to meet the Judges in their chambers or at home to know about the status or to pursue the elevation. She was asked to meet the collegium judges of the Supreme Court and she simply did not want to do this.

Flip side of the coin is, even the Hon’ble Judges are stuck in a catch 22 situation. If a particular judge takes extra-interest to suggest, recommend or push through the name of a woman lawyer, it would be looked with suspicion.

The resultant position is, the women lawyers are deprived of the high constitutional positions.

Moreover, out of more than 100 Senior Advocates in the Karnataka High Court, there few woman Senior Advocates.

The procedure provides for inviting the lawyers to be designated as the senior advocates. It is surprising to know that not a single woman lawyer has ever been invited by the High Court to be designated in last several years.

Many women lawyers say they have to run to the chambers of judges to get recognised. No self-respecting women would do it.

However, unfortunately this is not done in any High Courts.

The woman judges should take up their cause. They should recognise the young talented woman lawyers and promote them for high Constitutional offices.

S. Basavaraj, Senior Advocate, Bengaluru

ಲಗತ್ತಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ

Please download the PDF and click on the links to access the posts.

Senior Advocate S Basavaraj has urged the Supreme Court collegium to adopt the system of “objective assessment of relative merit” of the candidates for elevation as High Court Judges.

The letter reads;

The procedure of circulating the judgments of the High Court Judges prospective candidates and making an objective assessment of their relative merit and scrutinising the judgments authored by High Court judges who are under consideration for elevation to the Supreme Court was introduced recently.

I am given to understand that the collegiums of various High Courts including the Karnataka High Court have sent names of learned Advocates for being elevated as Judges of the High Courts.

In this regard I respectfully request the Collegium of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to adopt similar criteria for appointment of High Court judges from the Bar. This suggestion/comment is prompted by the fact that many candidates have not appeared or argued any case let alone being part of reported Judgments.

While considering the proposal for Senior Advocate designation, the Committee thoroughly scrutinises relative merit of the learned Advocates.

This includes scrutinising the cases argued by them, reported judgements, articles and probono work.

Hence, I request your goodself to kindly adopt an objective assessment of the relative merit of the Advocates. The best way to assess is to call for details which are required for designation of a Senior Advocate.

Please open the PDF and click on the links to access the Judgements.

During the interactive session with office bearers of various Bar Associations on 26th November 2022 at Tumkur, we had a pleasant surprise. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar of the Karnataka High Court revealed/informed that all his judgments, except the one dictated in the open court, are hand-written by him. This gives complete command over the facts of the case and clarity of thought he added.

Very few judges have/had this ability of writing judgements by hand. I think Shri. Mahadevappa, Dist Judge would type his judgements on his old typewriter. Justice Padmaraj of the Karnataka High Court would prepare elaborate notes at home/chamber and dictate the judgments in the open court.

Many Advocates draft their pleadings by hand.

“Writing elaborate judgments by hand is a tedious job. But delivering handwritten, landmark and authoritative judgement brings utmost satisfaction. Handwriting of letters is gone with the advent of sms & whatsapp. I am really happy that his lordship preserves the art of hand-writing” – says another Judge.

S.Basavaraj, Senior Advocate, Bengaluru.

Please open the PDF and clink on the required link.