Latest news with #M.Nagaprasanna
The Hindu
a day ago
- Automotive
- The Hindu
Make appropriate changes in MV Act to avoid mismatch of vehicles during toll collection: Karnataka HC advises MoRTH
The High Court of Karnataka has advised the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to review the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and make appropriate changes to address the issue of mismatch of vehicle type that crops up during collection of toll due to variance in vehicular classifications, particularly buses, under the MV Act, and the rules framed under the National Highways Act, 1956. Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by Karavali Bus Owners' Association, Udupi, and several individual owners of private buses. The petitioners had questioned deduction of extra toll amount later in addition to the amount deducted from FASTag account instantly when their buses pass through two plazas between Mangaluru and Kundapur due to mismatch in vehicle type. The Court noted that the variance in classification of vehicles in the MV Act and the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 framed under the NH Act is the cause for this litigation and hence the MV Act requires statutory refinement. Background of case The petitioners had registered information of their vehicles in FASTag system as 'minibus' even though the registration certificate of the vehicles issued by the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) classified their vehicles as 'bus' with seating capacity of 38. The argument of the petitioner was that the provision of the MV Act states that vehicles with unladen weight of less than 12,000 kgs are classified as Light Motor Commercial Vehicles (LMCVs), which include 'minibus'. However, toll collecting authorities were collecting extra amount, which applicable for 'bus/truck' later as FASTag was deducting lower toll applicable to LMCVs at toll plazas. The toll collecting had relied on the RTO data of the vehicles belonging to the petitioners as the norms framed under the fee collection rules of 2008 describes a light motor commercial passenger vehicle with seating capacity up to 32 as a 'minibus' and as 'bus/truck' if the seating capacity is more than 32 and/or unladen weight of the vehicle is above 12,000 kg. The court pointed out that MV Act describes a vehicle with unladen weight up to 7,500 kg as a light motor vehicle and beyond 12,000 kg as a heavy passenger motor vehicle but there is 'vacuum' in the Act with respect to classification of vehicles between 7,500 kg and 12,000 kg. Registering as minibus The bus owners were registering their vehicle under the category of 'minibus' in FASTag by taking advantage of the MV Act as many of their buses were under 12,000 kg even though the seating capacity exceeded 32, the court noted while pointing out that base rate of toll for LMVCs/minibus is ₹1.05 per km and for bus/truck is ₹2.2 per km. Though the MV Act defines a medium passenger vehicle, the weight of such vehicles is left undefined, and the definition of a 'bus' is nowhere found in the MV Act, the court said. Also, the court noted a clarification given by the RTO to the petitioner-association that irrespective of the unladen weight of the vehicles, all stage carriage vehicles are mentioned as 'bus' in the registration certificates. Since the toll collection is governed by the NH Act and the fee collection rules, and not under the MV Act, the court upheld the action of the authorities in recovering differential toll amount from the FASTag accounts.
The Hindu
16-05-2025
- The Hindu
Karnataka High Court terms as illegal a ‘novel' idea adopted by police to avoid taking permission to investigate corruption case
The High Court of Karnataka has termed as illegal a 'novel' idea adopted by the police in not invoking any provision of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act to avoid taking prior permission to investigate an alleged misappropriation case against the then chairman of D. Devaraj Urs Truck Terminals Ltd., but adding an offence under the Act in the chargesheet by obtaining only prior sanction for prosecution after completion of the investigation. 'No camouflage proceedings can be permitted to get over the rigour of Section 17A of the PC Act,' which makes it mandatory for the police to take prior permission from the competent authority to conduct any investigation or inquiry against a public servant, the court said. Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while quashing the criminal case registered against D.S. Veeraiah, the then chairman of the DDUTTL and former MLC., while allowing his petition. What FIR said The police had registered the first information report (FIR) against 'unknown persons' by invoking only Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant), 420 (cheating), 405 (criminal breach of trust) and related offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on September 23, 2023, on a complaint lodged by the incumbent MD, who had alleged that ₹47.1 crore of the public sector company was misappropriated. The court pointed out that the police came up with a 'novel' idea of registering the FIR against 'unknown persons' while they were fully aware of the fact of the matter and who were responsible for the alleged misappropriation as the complaint specifically refers to acts of Mr. Veeraiah and the then MD S. Shankarappa, by quoting the decisions taken by them in the board meeting of the DDUTTL to award contracts in piece works to repair the truck terminals. 'This [registering FIR against unknown person] is the deliberate act on the part of the police/prosecution to get away with the rigour of Section 17A of the PC Act,' the court said while also pointing out that no provision of the Act was mentioned in the FIR, which contains only offences under the IPC. Twin reflections However, the court ruled that 'Section 409 of the IPC and Section 13(1)(a) of the PC Act are twin reflections of the same essence — criminal misappropriation by a public servant. Thus, the soul of Section 405 and Section 13 are the same.' Also, the court noted that the police, during the investigation, sought permission under Section 17A of the PC Act to conduct the investigation, and the permission was granted only in respect of the former MD and not against the petitioner. Interestingly, the police initially filed the chargesheet against the former MD under the provisions of both the IPC and the PC Act, but the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner only for the offences under the IPC. Later, the court pointed out, the police secured sanction for the petitioner's prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act and then filed the chargesheet even under Section 13 of the PC Act even though they had not secured permission under Section 17A to investigate the offence under the PC Act. 'Therefore, the police had devised a method of projecting only offences under Section 409 and 420 of the IPC, which are clearly identical to Section 13 of the PC Act, to get away with the rigour of prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act,' the court said while declaring the entire procedure adopted by the police as illegal for not obtaining prior permission for the probe under Section 17A of PC Act.
The Hindu
13-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Karnataka High Court dismisses plea of PhonePe against making disclosure to police for probe
Observing that 'the duty to protect data must yield, where public interest and criminal investigation intersect,' the High Court of Karnataka has said that digital payment intermediaries such as PhonePe has no complete immunity under the law from disclosing confidential information about transaction details/account credentials of registered users to the police for investigation in a criminal case. 'The protection of consumer privacy cannot eclipse the lawful imperative of investigating officers to secure evidence and take the investigation to its logical conclusion. Confidentiality must coexist with accountability,' the court observed. Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while dismissing a petition filed by PhonePe Pvt. Ltd. Summons questioned The company had questioned the summons issued by CEN police station, Bengaluru Rural district, asking the company to give certain information about transactions on a complaint lodged by a person alleging that he had lost money in 2022 while using several digital payment gateways while transferring various amounts to online cricket betting apps. It was contended by PhonePe that digital payment intermediaries had immunity from disclosing information to anyone, including the police, except the courts, under the provisions of the Payment and Settlement Systems (PSS) Act, 2007 and the Bankers Books Evidence (BBE) Act, 1891 which is made applicable to the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. Statutory authority 'Section 22 of the PSS 2007 Act, no doubt, permits a payment gateway to keep the documents involved in payment system confidential. Exceptions are carved out in the statute itself. The provision itself carves out that except where such disclosure would be required in obedience to the orders passed by the court of competent jurisdiction or a statutory authority in exercise of power conferred under the statute,' the court noted. Hence, the court said that the investigating officer was a statutory authority, who was acting in terms of the powers conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure while conducting investigation, and therefore the contention that details could not be divulged could not be accepted. Even the provisions of the BBE Act, 1891 itself made provision for disclosure of information, the court pointed out.
The Hindu
05-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
‘Benefits of scheme for revival of NPA account is not permissible when MSME is closed or wound up'
The High Court of Karnataka has said that benefits of the scheme for restructuring or revival/rehabilitation of a bank account, which has become a non-performing asset (NPA), of a micro, small and medium enterprise (MSME) is permissible under the law only if the MSME is functioning. Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while rejecting a petition filed by M/s Metro Steel Section, which has questioned the proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India to recover about ₹18.5 crore loan due to the bank from the petitioner-firm. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the benefit of rectification and restructuring of loan amount as has been provided in the notification, issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 2015 under Section 19 of the MSME Development Act, 2006, ought to have been considered prior to resorting to recovering proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. However, the High Court said that the benefit of the RBI's notification and its interpretation by the apex court in the case of Pro Knits vs. Board of Directors of Canara Bank would not be available to the petitioner-firm as it was already closed when the bank resorted to recovery proceedings as stipulated in the 2015 notification of the RBI. The court also pointed out that during the pendency of its petition, the petitioner-firm communicated to the bank indicating that it had wound up the business and closed the operation two years ago. 'If the firm has wound up the business and closed the operations two years ago, it cannot take the benefit of the firm being a MSME and the notifications issued under the MSMED Act or even the judgement of the apex court in Pro Knits case,' the court said.
Hans India
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
National threat: K'taka HC issues orders for Centre to block Switzerland-based Proton Mail in India
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to initiate steps to block the operation of Switzerland-based Proton Mail in India. The Bench headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna issued the order to the Centre on a petition in this regard filed by M. Moser Design Associates of India Private Limited. The company had filed the petition following circulation of obscene e-mail messages about its employees and clients using Proton Mail. The petitioner expressed concern over the high degree of anonymity Proton Mail provides to users and its continued operation in the country. The prayer was made before the court to regulate and block Proton Mail's operations in India. The petition also claimed that Proton Mail was refusing to provide details about the sender of the objectionable mails, to the police department. The counsel also submitted to the court that the police probe is going to remain ineffective in this background. The counsel further submitted that Proton Mail has removed its servers from India and bomb threats to schools were sent from Proton Mail accounts in the recent past. The counsel has underlined that it is a national threat. The counsel further stated before the Bench that Proton Mail gives instructions to users on how to escape the monitoring of Indian agencies and it takes only 30 seconds to create a Proton E-Mail ID and it's done without any kind of verifications. The court has issued directions to the central government agencies to initiate action to block Proton Mail under Section 69A read with Rule 10 of the Information Technology Act. The counsels representing the Centre and other agencies had earlier stated that the Union government may have a limited role in fulfilling the demands of the petitioner. The trial court has to initiate the process of seeking assistance from Swiss authorities. Proton Mail claims that it is a free and secure email service that's 'powered by our community, not surveillance capitalism.' It also says that 'Proton is incorporated and headquartered in Switzerland, meaning your data is protected by some of the world's strictest privacy laws.'
