Latest news with #SurajGovindaraj
Time of India
4 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Price of sold land can't be reduced as per later revision in allotment cost: Karnataka high court
Bengaluru: A person who was allotted land at a higher rate cannot seek a reduced rate in the wake of a change in the allotment cost, the high court has said. Justice Suraj Govindaraj made this observation while dismissing a petition filed by Hadee Forging Private Limited, Bengaluru. The company was allotted 2 acres of land by the KIADB at Jakkasandra Industrial Area, Malur taluk of Kolar district, at a price of Rs 1.4 crore per acre. This was based on the meeting held on March 30, 2016. The company established the industry. Thereafter, they came to know that two other industries in the same area were allotted land at Rs 88 lakh per acre, based on the decision taken at the board meeting of KIADB on April 5, 2016. They then approached KIADB, seeking a reduction in their allotment price, contending that they deserved equal treatment and citing losses. As the request was rejected, the company moved the high court. Justice Suraj Govindaraj pointed out that the other two companies were involved in business logistics and hence stood on a different footing. Suffering losses cannot be a ground for reduction in the allotment rate. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo The allotment rate was the same for all allottees, the judge noted. "The fixation of price is a policy decision to be taken by the state and its entities, regarding which this court cannot intervene. It is only the decision-making process of such price fixation that could be subject to judicial review and not the price fixed as such. In case the petitioner was allotted the land at Rs 88 lakh per acre and KIADB increased the price to Rs 1.9 crore a week thereafter, the board could not have asked the petitioner to pay the difference amount," the judge added.
Time of India
28-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
High Court clarifies cheque bounce law, overturns trial court ruling
Karnataka High Court Negotiable Instruments Act In a significant ruling, thehas clarified that while computing the 30-day limitation period for issuing a payment notice under Section 138(b) of the, the date on which the bank informs the payee about cheque dishonour must be excluded. Justice H P Sandesh delivered this judgment while allowing an appeal filed by B R Anand, who had challenged the acquittal of V R Gisha by a trial court in a cheque bounce case. The High Court observed that the trial court erred in counting the limitation period from the date of the bank's intimation, rather than excluding case pertains to a cheque issued by the respondent on August 2, 2017, which was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. The appellant received intimation of the dishonour on August 5, 2017, and issued a legal notice on September 4, 2017. While the trial court deemed this as beyond the statutory 30-day period, the High Court held that excluding August 5 made the notice to the Supreme Court's ruling in Econ Antri Limited v. Rom Industries Limited (2014), the High Court reiterated that the date on which the cause of action arises should not be included in the limitation computation. The judgment serves as a precedent to ensure clarity in calculating deadlines under the Negotiable Instruments High Court also examined allegations that the cheque was altered. The trial court had accepted this argument, contributing to the respondent's acquittal. However, Justice Sandesh rejected this reasoning, noting that the cheque bore valid counter-signatures, thereby dismissing the defence of details reveal that the complainant, a retired employee of BESCOM, had lent Rs 11.7 lakh to his colleague for personal purposes. A repayment agreement was made in 2014 for a two-year term. When repayment did not materialise, and the cheque issued in 2017 bounced, legal proceedings the trial court's verdict, the High Court directed the respondent to pay a total of Rs 12 lakh — Rs 11.7 lakh to the complainant and Rs 30,000 to the state. In a separate case, the High Court, led by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, directed police to register a case against a person who allegedly paid over Rs 1 crore to a woman and others for a fake job offer at ISRO. The bench instructed the police to investigate the complaint thoroughly and informed the Chairman of ISRO for further necessary Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (May 27) quashed an FIR against a 22-year-old man accused of selling IPL tickets at inflated prices. Justice Suraj Govindaraj, hearing the case during vacation, ruled in favour of Somarapu Vamashi, who was charged under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Vamashi was accused of selling ten tickets for the RCB vs KKR match for Rs 6,000 each, while their face value was Rs 1,200. His defence argued that ticket resale is not restricted. The court cited the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling in Mandeep Singh v. State of Chandigarh, concluding that continuing the case would be an abuse of legal process. The FIR was subsequently quashed.
The Hindu
21-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
A caste cannot be classified in different groups for providing reservation in education and employment: Karnataka High Court
A community/caste will have to be classified under the same group for providing reservation for both educational and employment purposes, and cannot classified in two different groups, said the High Court of Karnataka. The court also said that when a particular community is stated to be socially and educationally backward, it cannot be the case that such classes of citizens are adequately represented in the services under the State. 'Needless to say that for a person to be engaged in services under the State, such a person has to be educated and possess the requisite educational qualifications. If a class or community is socially and educationally backward for purposes of education, then the question of such socially and educationally backward classes being adequately represented in the services under the State would not arise,' the court made it clear. Justice Suraj Govindaraj made these observations while allowing a petition filed by V. Sumitra, a government primary school teacher in Mysuru, who belong to Balajiga/Banajiga community. What the petitioner said She had questioned cancellation of caste certificate issued to her in 1996 for the reason that she had declared that she belonged to Group-B of other backward classes (OBCs) though her community is listed under Group-D for public employment purpose. She had stated that she was not aware of classification of her caste under two different categories for educational and employment purposes. It is probably for the same reason that the framers of the Constitution firstly introduced Article 15(4), providing for reservation to be made for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens for admission to educational institution, and thereafter under Article 16(4) provided reservation for employment, the court said. Meanwhile, the court also said the classification of the Balajiga/Banajiga community for the purpose of employment being different from that for the purpose of education, is discriminatory and illegal and void ab initio and violative to Article 14 of the Constitution. Rectify classification While directing the government to reclassify Balajiga/Banajiga community under Article 16(4) under Group-B instead of Group-D, the court said that petitioner belonging to Balajiga/Banajiga community would be entitled to reservation for employment, under Group-B and as such her employment as a primary school teacher has to be continued.
