Tag: #KarnatakaHC

-Report by Karan Gautam

The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No.6456 of 1993 filed an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA No.1966 of 2007. During the pendency of the captioned appeal, the second appellant died and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional appellants 2.1 to 2.4. The original first appellant and the impleaded legal heirs of the deceased second appellant are collectively described as ‘appellants’. The plaintiff prayed for a judgment for decree of permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendants from interfering in the plaintiffs right, title and interest over and in the suit schedule property.

FACTS:

The appellants filed a written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable, that there is no prayer for possession, that the suit was not valued correctly, and that the real owners of the suit property were not arraigned as parties. Subsequently, they amended the plaint by adding schedules A, B and ‘C’ and prayers qua them. The prayers in the amended plaint read as under: a judgment and decree of perpetual injunction directing the defendants to restore the possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff and not to interfere in the plaintiffs’ lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

The plaintiff/respondent adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of his claims, but the defendant did not lead any evidence. The Trial Court partially decreed the suit as per judgment dated 04.07.2007, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of suit ‘B’ schedule property from the defendants and directed the defendants
to vacate and deliver it to the plaintiff within two months. The surviving defendants challenged the judgment and decree before the High Court in RFA No.1966 of 2007. They did not adduce any evidence before the trial court. The plaintiff objected to the maintainability of the appeal as the original suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The High Court dispelled the objection and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. Leave was granted and the Civil Appeal was disposed of as per judgment dated 03.09.2009. The trial Court was directed to record the evidence and submit a report to the High Court to dispose of the appeal within the time stipulated. The

Court to which the case is remanded has to comply with the order of remand and acting contrary to it is contrary to law. In this case, the High Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal and directed the trial Court to record the evidence as directed by the High Court and forward it along with report to enable the High Court to dispose of the appeal taking into account the additionally recorded evidence of the defendants.

RESPONDANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants and confirmed the judgement and decree of the Trial Court. The appellants had raised multiple grounds to assail the judgment, including that the plaintiff/the respondent had failed to establish his possession over plaint ‘B’ schedule property. The High Court failed to consider the contention that the subject suit was abated due to the failure of the respondent to bring on record the legal representatives of Sri Hanumaiah, the third respondent, and Sri Rama @ Ramamurthy, the deceased second defendant, who had purchased the suit property from Sriman Madhwa Sangha and Sri Vittal Rao as per sale deed executed on 05.10.2000.

JUDGEMENT:

The High Court held that the defendants did not disclose their defence in their written statement and did not even contend that they are in possession of the suit property, which is based on the maxim ‘Possessio contra omnes valet praeter eur cui ius sit possessionis‘. The High Court is also correct in holding the question of maintainability of the suit in the affirmative and in favour of the respondent. The appellants argued that the suit ought to have been held as abated against all the defendants due to non-substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 3 upon his death, but the courts below have held that the original defendants failed to raise sufficient and appropriate pleadings in the written statement that they have better right for possession. The appeal is dismissed and there will be no order as to costs.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40u8WAU

The Bench of justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari on 4 August 2021 observed that a condition of depositing a fine amount to hear a criminal revision under section 397 and 401 C.R.P.C cannot be imposed on a convict. The Bench was hearing an appeal against an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka under criminal revision.

The Trial court convicted the appellant under section 138 of the N.I act and imposed a fine of Rs. 6,00,000 on the accused and imposed a condition that in case of non-payment of dues, she would have to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial court, she approached the High Court via an appeal. The High Court vide its order passed on 12 June 2020 dismissed the appeal. The accused-appellant approached the High Court via criminal revision petition no 515 0f 2020. The Single bench of the High court took note of the order passed by the trial court, particularly regarding that of fine, and observed that “Unless the fine amount is deposited by the petitioner herein, the petitioner is not entitled to press into service the hearing of this petition filed under section 397 and 401 C.R.P.C.

The bench observed that taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law in the picture, The High Court could not have deposited a fine amount as a condition precedent to hear the criminal revision. The Court finally set aside the order and passed by the High court on 15 January 2021 and granted the liberty to the parties to pursue the matter before the High Court.

-Report by GURPREET SINGH

Justice was served in the form of a Karnataka High Court order on the maintainability of Twitter employee Manish Maheshwari’s appeal against the Uttar Pradesh Police’s notice, even though it took a long time.

Justice G Narendra had reserved the verdict on July 9 after hearings in the case. It was supposed to be announced on July 13, but it was postponed after the judge stated that he wanted to go over the cited precedents again to ensure that the verdict was free of errors. The length of time it took to pronounce the order reflected this meticulousness. The order on the maintainability of the plea took more than five hours to issue, spread out over two days.

The Court sifted through various issues in the case, including the extent of Twitter India’s control over the content on the social media platform, whether Maheshwari was a Managing Director of the company and the use of criminal law provisions by the UP Police. Finally, the Court determined that the conditions for invoking Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with notice to appear before a police officer, were not met.

The Court went so far as to say that the notice was used fraudulently, noting that “The provisions of the statute must not be ever used as a tool for the harassment.” The respondent (UP Police) has not produced a shred of evidence to show even prima facie that the petitioner (Maheshwari) was involved.”

The order on Manish Maheshwari’s plea’s maintainability took over five hours to issue, spread out over two days. Since the case consumed a significant amount of Justice Narendra’s time over the last two days, he was seen adjourning other matters to a later date.

At one point during the hearing, it appeared that the judge was aware of how long the decision was taken. “I will need a rest for my vocal cords tomorrow,” he said before adjourning the pronouncement into the second day. Following the announcement of the verdict, Maheshwari’s lawyer, Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, thanked the judge for his time and patience. Nagesh also expressed regret for taking up so much of the Court’s time.

Honorable Justice Narendra responded, “We’re just doing our job.”

-Report by ESHAN SHARMA

The Karnataka High Court ruling has drawn attention to companies that may pass on profits or losses from “non-business income” or from non-essential activities. The latest ruling stated that if a company classifies a certain amount as “other business income” when paying taxes or preparing financial statements, that amount can be used to carry over profits or losses.

According to accounting regulations, companies can in most cases record profits and losses in their annual financial statements for up to eight years. This accounting treatment has an impact on the company’s profitability, as well as its tax expense.

In the Karnataka High Court case, a steel company compared its transferred business loss to capital gains from the transfer of a business asset – land. The tax office had contradicted this treatment. The court ruled that any loss of business carried forward can be set off against profits or gains, if any, from any business conducted in a company. Tax laws use the phrase “income or profits, if any, from a business” and do not refer to the director of the income and earnings of the business or profession, the court found.

“According to the ruling, the appraiser (taxpayer) has the right to offset the expected loss with income that has the characteristics of business income, although this may be assessed under the heading other than business income,” said Yashash Ashar, partner at Bhuta Tax Consultancy Bhuta Shah and Co. According to the court ruling, many companies can now withdraw profits or losses from non-essential operations, including property sales or capital market gains, tax experts say. “This decision can be of great help to companies in obtaining compensation for income that could be treated as business income but is not taxed as primary and business income,” said Ashar.

-Report by MANASWA SHARMA

A petition was filed by Amazon India and Flipkart owned by Walmart in the High Court of Karnataka which sought to overturn the Competitive Commission India (CCI)’s inspection order to investigate the business affairs of these two corporations.

The high court rejected the petition paving the way for antitrust regulators to execute the inspection against both of the companies business affairs and to investigate the commercial operations of e-commerce businesses. It is the responsibility of the CCI to eliminate operations and practices of business that harm competition in Indian markets and to protect the interests of consumers to ensure free trade practices in the Indian market.

The Court also rejected Flipkart’s petition seeking to extend the suspension of the investigation for few weeks but the court could not be satisfied by the reasons put forth. in addition, they have 30 days to appeal to the court. The commission had ordered a probe against Flipkart and Amazon India in January 2021 to initiate an inspection and inquiry under article 26 (1) because it has preliminary evidence against the two corporations allegedly these corporations also offer substantial discounts to predatory consumers all these allegations made it necessary to begin the inspection against the corporations.

-Report by Muskan Chanda

Karnataka High Court, on 31st July 2019 quoted that, It is the obligation of the municipal corporation to maintain roads’ In a landmark verdict court gave a tremendous relief to the citizens suffering from the bad roads in India’s IT Capital Bengaluru as well as the other parts of the State, the Karnataka High court asserted that the right to have reasonably good footpaths and roads is a fundamental right of the citizens under Article 21.
The court also asserted, “citizens can knock the doors of High Court to seek compensation from a civic authority for the loss or damages that caused by bad footpaths and roads. A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Mohammad Nawaz passed interim order while hearing of a PIL petition which was filed in 2015 by Vijayan Menon and three other persons belonging to Koramangala in Bengaluru, They complained regarding the absolute failure of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to ensure proper condition of roads.
It is mentioned in section 58 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 that it is the statutory obligation of the municipal corporation to construct, repair, construct and maintain footpaths to ensure the good condition of roads, the Bench mentioned it gives a corresponding right to citizens to discharge the obligation on the part of city corporations.
The bench also cited Supreme Court judgments, that expanded the scope of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty of citizens, the Bench said if citizens incur injuries or any loss of life due to deteriorated condition of footpaths or roads, it leads to infringement of their fundamental right, court Declared the right to have good roads and footpath is a necessity to lead a dignified and meaningful life under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
The Bombay high court ruled on Thursday that citizens have a fundamental right to enjoy good roads and footpaths. A division bench consisting of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Riyaz Chagla quoted the government’s plans for smart cities and mentioned this would be possible only when good streets are made available. Bombay High Court also gave rulings over the same issue on 12th April 2018. The court was hearing a suo motu PILsubmitted in July 2013 letter by Justice Gautam Patel. The bench observed that they are aware of the government’s endeavor or effort to make each city smart.
However, no city can be smart until or unless it has proper roads and footpaths in reasonably good condition. HC stressed that it was the state and civic bodies’ obligation to provide these necessities to citizens. It is the fundamental right of a citizen, to have roads and footpaths in reasonably good condition. All necessary steps should be taken to ensure that the citizens are not getting deprived of their rights. Bombay High Court also mentioned that it is also the authorities’ responsibility to ensure the grievances of violation of this right were redressed promptly within a specified period and communicated to citizens. Court also directed the Maharashtra government to establish a centralized grievance redressal mechanism and frame policies to ensure that the quality of road constructed is good.
The court made the authorities remember that if citizens do suffer harm due to any failure of authorities in maintaining roads in appropriate condition, then they can seek compensation. The judges gave reference to the death of Dr. Deepak Amrapurkar occurred in September 2017 after he falls into an open manhole. They further added that all the necessary precautions must be taken to make sure that such an unfortunate incident of a citizen falling into an open manhole should not recur.
The municipal corporation must take all the possible steps to ensure that no open manhole is unattended. If it is left open, then necessary precaution and warning signs shall be implanted near it, and judges also stated that If a citizen suffers the consequences of the failure of the state machinery to maintain roads, apart from liability under the regular law of torts, the person can take recourse to public law remedy.He/she can initiate action under public law to seek compensation from the authorities.

Reported By- Anjali