Ganganna vs The State of Karnataka & others. Writ Petition 46279/2013 decided on 9 November 2020.

Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348937/1/WP46279-13-09-10-2020.pdf

Relevant paragraphs: … Facts. The Assistant Commissioner again initiated proceedings under the Karnataka SC/ST (Prohibition of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and passed an order holding that Act was not applicable as both the petitioner and the fourth respondent were grantees of land which they are respectively holding and there was no violation of the provisions of the said Act. The fourth respondent did not choose to challenge the same before the Assistant Commissioner, but approached the  Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission for restoration of land in his favour without making the petitioner a party to the proceedings. The Commission ordered resumption of land in favour of the fourth respondent. 

14. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, appeal is maintainable under Section 5A of the 1978 Act. Section 11 gives overriding effect to 1978 Act. Hence, no other quasi-judicial forum is empowered to entertain an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed in terms of the said Act.

16 &17. Commission is created under the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002. The commission is enjoined with functions to investigate and examine the working of various safeguards provided under Constitution of India or any other law intended for the welfare and protection of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and to enquire into specific complaints with respect to deprivation of their rights and safeguards under the Constitution.

18. The provisions of the Act do not clothe the Commission with such powers to entertain the petition that is filed by a grantee seeking restoration of land and investigate into the matter.

19. Commission has jurisdiction to entertain petitions seeking restoration of land. Therefore, the very act of Commission entertaining the petition filed by the fourth respondent, assuming jurisdiction to itself as an appellate authority over the order of the Assistant Commissioner is blatantly contrary to the provisions of the said Act, without jurisdiction and is non est in the eye of law.

Writ Petition allowed. Order of the Commission quashed.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.

ದಕ್ಷ ಲೀಗಲ್

ಕನ್ನಡದ ತೀರ್ಪಿನ ಲಿ0ಕ್: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt_vernacular/2019/17707/17707_2019_5_1501_19793_Judgement_22-Jan-2020_KAN.pdf

ದಕ್ಷ ಲೀಗಲ್

ಕನ್ನಡದ ತೀರ್ಪಿನ ಲಿ0ಕ್: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt_vernacular/2017/70/70_2017_12_1501_19306_Judgement_07-Jan-2020_KAN.pdf

ದಕ್ಷ ಲೀಗಲ್

ಕನ್ನಡದ ತೀರ್ಪಿನ ಲಿ0ಕ್: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt_vernacular/2019/18450/18450_2019_5_1503_21162_Judgement_03-Mar-2020_KAN.pdf

United States Federal Trade Commission vs NIl. Writ Petition 13264/2020 decided on 23 November 2020.

Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/349397/1/WP13264-20-23-11-2020.pdf

Relevant Paragraphs: 3(A) & (B) The basic law relating to accomplishment of “commissions issued by the foreign courts” is found in the provisions of Sec.78 r/w Rules 19 to 22 of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The aforementioned provisions of the Code which were originally enacted by Act 10 of 1932 have been re-framed in the 1976 amendment, for giving effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Article 51 of the  Constitution of India. The text of the aforesaid provisions of the Code are presumably enacted for giving effect inter alia to the intent of The Hague Convention to which both India and United States of America are parties; the Apex Court in SAFAI KARMACHARI ANDOLAN vs. UNION OF INDIA, (2014) 4 SCALE 165 has ruled that the International Covenants which have been ratified by India are binding to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the domestic law.

3(D). This Court does not see any repugnancy between the provisions of the said Convention and those of domestic law; conversely, they are complementary to each other; the Indian law read with the provisions of the said Convention empowers this Court  to  appoint  a Commission to collect evidence from witnesses on the formal request of a Foreign Court before whom a proceeding of civil nature is pending. The structure of the petition prima facie shows that: (a) the subject District Court wishes to obtain evidence of witnesses whose names are mentioned in the Letter of Request, (b) the proceedings pending before the said Court are of a civil nature, and (c) the witnesses mentioned in this Petition and in the Letter  of Request are within the jurisdictional limits & power of this Court.

Petition allowed.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal

Mahesh M.S. and others vs State of Karnataka. Criminal Petition 6901/2020 decided on 23 November 2020.

Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/349400/1/CRLP6901-20-23-11-2020.pdf

Held: Page 6. On close reading of Section 14A, it starts with a non-obstante clause and it says that an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order of a Special Court. If that interpretation is taken into consideration, then  under  such circumstances, wider meaning  has to be given to  the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As could be seen from the provisions of Sections 438 and  439 of Cr.P.C., the concurrent jurisdiction has been given to both High Court as well as to the Sessions Court for releasing the accused on anticipatory bail or regular bail. Though an order has been passed by the Special Court under Section 438 or Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the parties are not going to challenge the order which has been passed by the trial Court under the said Act. It is an independent right which has been given to the parties to approach this Court ignoring the order passed by the trial Court under Section 438 or Section 439 of Cr.P.C. No where in Code of Criminal Procedure it says that as against the order of the bail, an appeal lies and even as could be seen from the provisions of Section 378 of Cr.P.C., it is made clear that as and when an order of acquittal or the other orders are passed, then an appeal lies.

Page 8. Taking into consideration the provisions of Section 14A of the Act, it makes very clear that against any order passed by the Special Court, which has reached its finality, then under such circumstances, an appeal lies under Section 14A of the Act. But the bail application is not considered to be a final order, it is only an interim order/interlocutory order to release or not to release  the  accused on bail.  Even the said Section says ‘not being an interlocutory order’, that itself goes to show that the bail application is only   an interlocutory order and against such order, no appeal lies. No enactment can take away the power vested with this Court under Section 438 or 439 of Cr.P.C. unless it is specifically excluded.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.

S.Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.

Karnataka High Court has disposed more than 15,000 cases during Covid-19 period via Video Conferencing. Though physical appearance is allowed in few court halls, majority of the cases have been heard via video conferencing.

Covid related lock-down was imposed on 26 March 2020. Immediately thereafter, the Hon’ble Chief justice bench started hearing matters including PILs seeking directions to Government to effectively fight the situation. The Benches hearing matters view video link were increased gradually and as of now even the old matters like Regular First Appeals are being heard and disposed by the Hon’ble Judges.

Perhaps the biggest ever hearing on video conferencing was Securities Exchange Board of India vs Franklin Templeton Trustees Services Pvt Ltd & others decided on 24 October 2020. The batch of Writ Appeal/Petitions were heard where nine Senior Advocates including Solicitor General of India and Additional Solicitor General of India and more than 25 instructing counsel participated– all logged in from different parts of the country and one from abroad. 5000 pages of documentation and marathon hearing for 25 working days including two Court holidays, totally 61 hours of hearing made this case unique.

The website shows that on 24 November, the Principal bench at Bangalore there are 67 video conferences with several judges combination hearing almost all types of cases. In Dharward and Kalburgi benches, totally 13 Hon’ble Judges are hearing the matters via video conference.

As on today, the total strength of the Judges is 46. Though the pendency has increased considerably for want of judges earlier, the disposal of cases is likely to reach its optimum level from next year.

S.Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal. Member, Karnataka State Bar Council

Chetan Kumari L.M. vs The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another. Miscellaneous First Appeal 948/2015 decided on 11 November 2020.

Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/330682/1/MFA948-15-11-03-2020.pdf

Relevant paragraphs: 5. The Tribunal, noting that the offending Maruti Car did not possess a fitness certificate as on the date of the accident, though it had a fitness certificate on the date of issuance of the insurance policy, held that the owner of the offending car i.e., insured has violated the terms of the policy and therefore, imposed the penalty on the owner of the car and discharged the Insurance Company from its liability.

11. Having perused the documents and the judgment, it is seen that as on the date of the issuance of the insurance policy, there was a fitness certificate and vehicle was being plied on the road. At the time of issuance of insurance policy, the insurer has not limited its liability till the date of validity of the fitness certificate. The insurer had issued a policy beyond the validity of the fitness certificate. Therefore, the insurer cannot now contend that the policy would be valid only until the date of the validity of the fitness certificate more so when the insurer has collected the premium for the entire period without any limitation. Needless to say that at the time of issuance of the insurance policy, the insurer has to verify the validity of the required document including the existence of a valid fitness certificate Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that when the insurer knowing fully well that the fitness certificate was valid only till 23.07.2013 having issued a policy to cover the period beyond the said date, insurer would be liable to make payment of compensation for the entire period during which the insurance policy is in operation subject to recovering the same from the insured on account of  violation  committed  by  the  insured  in  not renewing the fitness certificate as agreed by the insured in terms of the policy.

Appeal allowed.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs S. Ramya and others. Miscellaneous First Appeal 6789/2010 decided on 9 November 2020.

Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348449/1/MFA6789-10-09-11-2020.pdf

Relevant paragraphs: 6. The Tribunal while considering  the  question  of liability, held that the JCB in question was a  construction vehicle and that construction equipment would not fall within the Class of non  transport  vehicle and that the driver of the JCB not only  possessed  a  driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle but also a light  motor  vehicle  cab.  Thus,  the  Tribunal  held  that the driver of the offending JCB was  authorized  to  drive the JCB in question, since it fell within the meaning of a ‘light transport vehicle’. The Tribunal therefore, fastened the liability to pay the compensation upon the insurer of the offending vehicle – JCB.

7. Learned counsel for the insurer in this  appeal contended that the JCB is not a vehicle which is classified anywhere in the Motor Vehicles Act as either a ‘transport vehicle’ or as a ‘construction vehicle’.

10. It is not in dispute that the Central  Government in  terms  of  its  notification  dated  19.06.1992 had clearly  delineated  ‘construction equipment vehicles’ as  ‘non transport vehicles’.  In  view of the fact that the driver of the  JCB  in  question  possessed a licence to drive a light motor vehicle and in view of what was held by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd.  2017(14)SCC663, the driver of the JCB was indeed authorized to drive a JCB in question and therefore, the Tribunal was right in fixing the liability to pay the compensation upon the insurer.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj & Sumana Chamarty, Daksha Legal.

The Karnataka High Court has issued a notification regarding webhosting of Court-hall-wise Video Conferencing Links with passcodes from 23 November 2020. This is subject to caution. The notice in this regard reads as follows:

The Links are shared on the Official website of the High Court and the same can be accessed by clicking the following link: https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/chvclinks.php