Monthly Archives: April 2013

343 Select-Judge-Accused-List [ To be Up-Dated] 21 Mar,2013

Note: Entry is under process. The Entries made till date  are here.
1] Upto  1000 [ Yet to Enter, may be 350 incl Court Officers].
2] 1001 to 2000: Under process. 3] 2001 to 3000 almost complete.
4] 3001 to 3280 Complete. 5] Associate Members . . as entered . . is mailed

Draft Employee-Judge List;

Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building C0-operation Society Limited,
(i) Karnataka High Court, Bangalore – 560 001.
(ii) …….. , Sheshdripuram, Bangalore – 560 0 .. . … Represented by

  1. Sri. K.Sippegowda,Employee Membership No. 0006, [Pg No.001],
  2. Sri. C. Shivalingaiah, Employee Membership No. 0002, [Pg No.001], former President of KSJD EHBCS, Registrar [Retd], High Court of Karnataka,
  3. Sri. C.M. Basavarya, Founder President of KSJD EHBCS, Employee
    Membership No. 0001, [Pg No.001], Registrar [Retd], High Court of Karnataka,
  4. Hon’ble Justice K.B. Navadagi, Employee Membership No. 0003, [Pg No.001],Judge, Retired,High Court of Karnataka.
  5. L. Byrappa, Employee Membership No. 0004, [Pg No.001],Assistant Registrar [retd]. Kar HC.
  6. D.B. Deogirikar. Employee Membership No.0005, [Pg No.001],High Court of Karnataka.
  7.  N. Shivanna, Employee Membership No. 0008, [Pg No.001].
  8.  N. Lingaiah, Membership No. 0009 , [Pg No.001] .
  9. Sri. Syed Rizathullaha,
    Son of Syed Rehamatulla,
    Employee Membership Number not known; but he or his relatives are suspected held or holding sites,
    “International Corruption Hunters Alliance, Washington, U.S.A.,; Volunteer” and Public Relation Officer Cum Deputy Commissioner,
    Office of the Karnataka Lokayukta,
    M.S. Building, Bangalore- 560 001
  10. Sri  Syed Rehamatulla, 
    Employee Membership No. 0516, F/O Sri. Syed Rizathullaha,
    “International Corruption Hunters Alliance, Washington, U.S.A.,; Volunteer” and Public Relation Officer Cum Deputy Commissioner,
    Office of the Karnataka Lokayukta,
    M.S. Building, Bangalore- 560 001
  11. Sri.  P.A. Kulkarni, Employee Membership No. 830 [Page.148 ],
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1407,  Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  12. Sri. S.R. Rajshekhar Murty, Employee Membership No.836 [Pg. No. 148]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 864, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  13. Sri. C.N. Ashwathnarayan Rao, Employee Membership No.623 [Pg. No.136 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1439, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  14. Sri. Kedambadi Jagannath Shetty, Employee Membership No. 821[Pg. No.147 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1395, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  15. Sri. K. Ramachandriaha, Employee Membership No.813 [Pg. No.147 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, No. 1296/8, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065
  16. Sri. A.K. Lakshmeshwar, Employee Membership No. 828[Pg. No148. ]
    in f/o Mrs. S.A. Lakshmeshwar
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, No. 1453, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  17. Sri. Mohammed Anwar, Employee Membership No.914 [Pg. No.152 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1480, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  18. Late Sri. G.N. Sabahit, Employee Membership No. 820 [Pg. No.147 ]
    L.R Mrs. Janaki Sabahit,
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, No. 1886, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  19. Sri. Rama Jois, Employee Membership No. 845 [Pg. No. 149],
    Former Chief Justice & Governor of Punjab,
    No. 1422, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  20. Sri. G. Patri Basavana Goud, Employee Membership No. 899 [Pg. No. 152]
    Former Up Lokayukta of Karnataka, No. 1342, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  21. Sri. N. Venkatachala, Employee  Membership No.0852 [Pg No.149]
    Former Lokayukta of Karnataka,
    No. 1381, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  22. Sri. S.B. Majage, Employee Membership No. 819 [Pg No.147]
    (i)No. 1337, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065
    (ii) Present Up Lokayukta of Karnataka,
    Office of the Karnataka Lokayukta, M.S. Building, Bangalore- 560 001.
  23. Sri. B. Jagannatha Hegde, Employee Membership No.897  [Page.152 ],
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1415,   Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  24. Sri. M.B. Viswanath, Employee Membership No. 598 [Page.135 ],
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1416,   Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  25. D. Krishnappa, Employee Membership No.755 [Page. ],,
    Former Prl Civil & CJM, Shimoga. Karnataka.
  26. Sri. K.V. Narasimhan, Employee Membership No. 0966 [Page.155 ],
    Retired judge, former Deputy Secretary to Depatment of Law, Karnataka Govt,
    Adress not known
  27. Sri. K.S. Puttaswamy, Employee Membership No.841 [Pg. No.148 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1404, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  28. Sri. V.S. Malimath, Employee Membership No. 844 [Pg. No.149 ]
    Former Chief Justice of Kerala High Court,
    No. 1418, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  29. Sri. M.S. Patil, Employee Membership No. 823 [Pg. No. 147 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1421, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  30. Sri. D.R. Vittal Rao, Employee Membership No.849 [Pg. No.149 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1408, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  31. Smt T.N. Usha, Employee Membership No.731[Page. ], Race Cource Road, Bangalore 560 001[0-1000: To Enter Hundreads of  High Court officers, Asst & Dy. Regrs, Court ]
  32. Sri. R. Chandrashekhar, Employee Membership No.1285 [Page.173 ],
    Registrar [Administration ] of  Karnataka High Court,,
    Karnataka High Court,
    BANGALORE 560 001.
  33. Sri. H.G. Balakrishna, Employee Membership No.1611 [Pg. No. 191]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1411,  Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  34. Sri. K.A. Swami, Employee Membership No. 1835 [Pg. No. 204]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No.1390, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  35. Sri. R.G. Desai, Employee Membership No. 1631[Pg. No. 192]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1403, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  36. Sri. M.P. Chinnappa, Employee Membership No. 1471[Pg. No.183 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1419, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  37. Sri. N.Y. Hanumathappa, Employee Membership No.1933 [Pg. No. 209]
    Former Chief Justice & Member of Parliament,
    No. 862, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  38. Sri. B.K Sanglad, Employee Membership No.1188 [Pg. No. 168 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1269, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  39. Sri. D.P. Hiremath, Employee Membership No. 1385 [Pg. No.179 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1384, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
    (ii) Retired Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    Bangalore- 560 001.
  40. Sri. M.M. Mirdhe, Employee Membership No.1518 [Pg. No.186 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1387, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  41. Sri. A.B. Murgod, Employee Membership No. 1172 [Pg. No.167 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1401, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  42. Sri. M.S. Rajendra Prasad, Employee Membership No.1652 [Pg. No.193 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1401, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  43. Sri. B.M. Mallikarjuniaha, Employee Membership No. 1088 [Pg. No. 162 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court & presently serving as special Judge
    in Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J.Jayalalita Dis proprtionate Asset Case,
    No. 1475, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  44. Sri. H.N. Narayan, Employee Membership No.1400 [Pg. No.179 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1476, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  45. Sri. K. Ramanna, Employee Membership No. 1924 [Pg. No.209 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 981/D, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  46. Sri. K. Bhaktavatsala, Employee Membership No. 1577 [Pg. No.189 ]
    (i) No. 1474, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
    (ii) Sitting Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    Bangalore- 560 001.
  47. Sri. V.G. Sabahit, Employee Membership No. 1578 [Pg. No.189 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1052, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  48. Sri. K. Jagannath Shetty, Employee Membership No. 1959 [Pg. No. 210]Former Supreme Court Judge,
    No. 1413, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  49. Sri. S. Mohan, Employee Membership No. 1833 [Pg. No. 203]Former Supreme Court Judge,
    No. 861, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  50. Mrs. Manjula Chellur, Employee Membership No.1579 [Pg. No.189](i) No. 1473, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
    (ii) Chief Justice, High Court of Kerala,
    Ernakulam, Kerala- 682 011
  51. Dr. S. Rajendra Babu, Employee Membership No.1918 [Pg. No.208]Former Chief Justice of India,
    (i) No. 1389, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
    (ii)  presently, The NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) Chair on Human Rights, Faculty National Law School of India University,Nagarbhavi,
    BANAGLORE 560 242
  52. Sri. Shivaraj Patil, Employee Membership No.1960 [Pg. No. 211]
    Former Lokayukta of Karnataka, Resigned in wake of “Owning  Site in Judicial Layout, developed by Accused No. 1 and also in Vyalikaval Hosing Society Layout”,
    No. 1399, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  53. Sri. G.P. Shivaprakash, Employee  Membership No.1878 [Pg No.206]
    Former Up Lokayukta of Karnataka,
    No.1420, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
    [1001-2000: To Enter Hundreads of  Jud Officers, Judges ]
  54. V.G. Sawadkar, Employee Membership No. 2017 [Page 214],
    Prl. Munsiff & JMFC, Raichur.
  55. H.M. Ramachandra, Employee Membership No. 2024 [Page 214],
    Suspected to Be District Judge, No.15/39, 18th Main Road, 17th Cross, Malleshwaram,Bangalore- 560 003
  56. C.R. Shivapuji, Employee Membership No. 2037 [Page 215],
    Addl. Munsiff & JMFC, GOKAK.
  57. Sri. S. Venkataraman, Employee Membership No. 2038 [Page. 215],
    (i)Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    (ii)No. 1471,  Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  58. M.S. Nagraj Sharma, Employee Membership No. 2059 [Page 216],
    Asst. Registrar, Small Cause Court, Bangalore- 560009.
  59. Sued Ibrahim, Employee Membership No. 2064 [Page 216],
    Suspected to be Judicial Officer, No. 164, Majid Street Cross, Neelasandra,
    Bangalore- 560047.
  60. M.C. Sachidananda Prasad, Employee Membership No. 2084 [Page 217],
    Munsiff & JMFC, 905/18B, 4th Main Road, Vidhyaranyapuram, Mysore.
  61. N.P. Vamadeva, Employee Membership No. 2092 [Page 218],
    Suspected to be Judicial Officer or Judge, No. 840, 5th Main Road, 5thCross, M.C. Layout, Vijaynagara, Bangalore-40
  62. J. Shamanna, Employee Membership No. 2095 [Page 218],
    No. 5, 7th Cross, Ist Main, Sampangiram Nagar, Bangalore-560027.
  63. S.A. Pandit, Employee Membership No. 2112 [Page 219],
    Munsiff  & JMFC, Tiptur, Tumkur District.
  64. B.V. Uma Naidu, Employee Membership No. 2135 [Page 220],
    Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, No. 133, 4th ‘A’ Main, ‘A’ Section,
    Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore-560064.
  65. T.N. Kanakraju, Employee Membership No. 2142 [Page 221],
    (i) Asst. Court Officer, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore 560 001.
    (ii) presently suspected to be working as “Dy. Registrar [Protocol],
    High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore 560 001”.
  66. R. Sujatha, Employee Membership No. 2144 [Page 221],
    Asst. Court Officer, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore 560 001.
  67. Ramrao Kulkarni, Employee Membership No. 2182 [Page 223],
    Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, 24/A, Raghvendra Nilaya, 4thCross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003.
  68. H. Rajshekharreddy, Employee Membership No. 2183 [Page 223],
    Sheristedar, Prl. Munsiff Court, Bellary.
  69. Syed Amil Ali, Employee Membership No. 2200 [Page 224],
    Civil Judge, Ramanagaram.
  70. Shika Amanulla, Employee Membership No. 2202 [Page 224],
    Sheristedar, City Civil Court, Bangalore- 560 009.
  71. K. Suryanarayan, Employee Membership No. 2204 [Page 224],
    Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, Door No. 51, Ward No. 15, Near Water Tank, Miller Pet, Bellary
  72. S.N. Vadnikop, Employee Membership No. 2208, [Page 224],
    1st Addl. Judge, Small Cause Court, Bangalore-560 009.
  73. Mallikarjuana Kinikeri, Employee Membership No. 2228 [Page 226],
    Munsiff & JMFC, Muddebihal.
  74. K. Srinivas, Employee Membership No. 2230 [Page 226],
    Chief Librarian, High Court, Bagalore-1.
  75. P.S. Hiremath, Employee Membership No. 2281 [Page 228],
    Asst. Registrar, Lokayukta, M.S. Building, Bagalore-1.
  76. Seelavathi, Employee Membership No. 2282 [Page 228],
    Munsiff & JMFC, Nelamangala,
  77. Yacoob Husain, Employee Membership No. 2288 [Page 229],
    Court Officer, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-560 001.
  78. N.H. Savalagi, Employee Membership No. 2290 [Page 229],
    III Addl. Civil Judge, Bijapur.
  79. A.C. Purad, Employee Membership No. 2291 [Page 229],
    Munsiff & JMFC, Koppal.
  80. Jayatheertha N. Havanoor, Employee Membership No. 2296 [Page 229],
    18th Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Bangalore-560 009.
  81. T.N. Manjula Devi, Employee Membership No. 2304 [Page 230],
    Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, No. 28, Khamadhenu, III Cross, Judicial Officers Layout, RMV-II Stage, Bangalore
  82. H.M. Bhajanti, Employee Membership No. 2305, [Page 230], Adress not mentioned in Members list.
  83. K.S. Kulkarni, Employee Membership No. 2307 [Page 230],
    Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative,No. 260/2, Venatpeth, Bagalkot.
  84. Javid Pasha, Employee Membership No. 2318 [Page 230],
    Prl. Munsiff, Madhugiri, Tumkur District.
  85. Basavantraya Patil, Employee Membership No. 2326 [Page 231],
    Xith Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore-560 009.
  86. P.S. Shivaprasad Naik, Employee Membership No. 2339 [Page 232],
    Munsiff & JMFC, Virajpeth, Dist: Coorg.
  87. Hon’ble Justice S.A. Hakeem, Employee Membership No. 2341 [Page 232],
    (i) Judge, High Court, Bangalore-560 001.
    (ii) No. 1388, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065..
  88. Sri. K. Shivashankar Bhat, Employee Membership No. 2342 [Pg. No.232 ],
    (i) Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore-560 001.
    (ii) No.1382, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  89. S.S. Nagrale, Employee Membership No. 2345 [Pg. No.232 ],
    Prl. Civil Judge & C.J.M., Bijapur.
  90. S. Renukaprasad, Employee Membership No. 2349 [Pg. No.232 ],
    Prl. Munsiff, Davangere.
  91. Sri. B.K. Somshekhar, Employee Membership No.2358 [Pg. No.233 ]
    (i) Former Judge of Karnataka High Court
    (ii) “Justice B.K.Somasekhara Commission of Inquiry on Attacks on Churches”,
    (iii) No. 859/A, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  92. Ananth H. Sathvik, Employee Membership No. 2364 [Pg. No.233 ],
    Munsiff & JMFC, Hassan.
  93. Divakar Rao, Employee Membership No. 2371 [Pg. No.233 ],
    Civil Judge, Udupi.
  94. B.S. Srinivas Rao, Employee Membership No. 2374 [Pg. No.234 ],
    (i) Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore-9.
    (ii) Former  Judge of Karnataka High Court.
    (iii) No. 2102, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  95. Somaraju, Employee Membership No. 2375 [Pg. No.234 ],
    Addl. Munsiff & JMFC, K.G.F., Kolar District
  96. K.H. Malleshappa, Employee Membership No. 2381 [Pg. No.234 ],
    Prl. Civil Judge, Hubli.
  97. B.V. Patil, Employee Membership No. 2388 [Pg. No.234 ],
    Munsiff & JMFC, Kustagi.
  98. Smt. Lingamma Patil, Employee Membership No. 2389 [Pg. No.234 ],
    Addl. Munsiff & JMFC III, Raichur.
  99. V.S. Dharwadkar, Employee Membership No. 2390 [Pg. No.234 ],
    Munsiff & JMFC, Sindnoor.
  100. V.C. Hatti, Employee Membership No. 2399 [Pg. No.235 ],
    C.J., OOD Dy. Secretary, Law Department, Vidhanasoudha, Bangalore-560001.
  101. A.T. Munolli, Employee Membership No. 2400 [Pg. No.235 ],
    III Addl. Civil Judge, Mysore
  102. Kulkarni Ramrao, Employee Membership No. 2402 [Pg. No.235 ],
    Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, Tiruvihal Post, Sindhnoor Taluk, Raichur District.
  103. Hon’ble Justice  C. Shivappa, Employee Membership No. 2404 [Pg. No.235 ]
    (i)Former Judge of Karnataka & Tamil Nadu High Courts,
    (ii) No. 1417, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  104. Hon’ble Justice L. Srinivas Reddy, Employee Membership No.2405, [Page 235],
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 1414,  Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  105. K.N.Naganagouda, Employee Membership No. 2406 [Pg. No.235],
    Munsiff & JMFC, Sedum, Gulbarga District.
  106. K.S. Shivarudrappa,Employee Membership No. 2408 [Pg. No.235 ],
    Sheristedar, Munsiff Court, Chamarajnagar.
  107. C.N. Raghvendra, Employee Membership No. 2409 [Pg. No.235 ],
    Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, 11/42, Devanga 1st Street, Behind Ganapati Temple, Chamarajnagar- 571313
  108. B.M. Ramappa, Employee Membership No. 2413 [Pg. No.236 ],
    Asst. Registrar, Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
  109. A.B. Wadeyar, Employee Membership No. 2418 [Pg. No.236 ],
    VI Addl. Judge, Small Cause Court, BANGALORE 560 009.
  110. M.A. Sindhoor, Employee Membership No. 2420 [Pg. No.236 ],
    Munsiff & JMFC, Raibagh.
  111. N.M. Sajjan, Employee Membership No. 2427 [Pg. No.236 ],
    CAO, District & Sessions Court, Bidar.
  112. B.M. Angadi, Employee Membership No. 2429 [Pg. No.237 ],
    VIII Addl. Judge, Small Cause Court, BANGALORE 560 009.
  113. A.M. Pattar, Employee Membership No. 2430 [Pg. No.237 ],
    Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, No. 39-62, 1st E Cross, 6th Main Road, Ramco Layout, Vijaynagar, BANGALORE 560 040.
  114. Shivanand N. Dhage, Employee Membership No. 2432 [Pg. No.237 ],
    Munsiff & JMFC IInd Court, Mysore
  115. B.S. Sheshachala, Employee Membership No. 2445 [Pg. No.237 ],
    Asst. Court Officer, Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
  116. S.K. Suresh, Employee Membership No. 2450 [Pg. No.238 ],
    Munsiff & JMFC, Anekal.
  117. A.K. Bhat, Employee Membership No. 2452 [Pg. No.238 ],
    Suspected Judge or Judge’s close relative, No. 1554, 36 ‘F’ Cross,
    4th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar, , BANGALORE 560 041.
  118. Sri. R.V. Vasant Kumar, Employee Membership No.2458 [Page. 238 ]
    (i)Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    (ii)No. 2094,  Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  119. Sri. B.N. Krishna, Employee Membership No.2466 [Pg. No. 239]
    (i) (i)Former Judge of Karnataka High Court, (ii) Chairman, Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC) ,
    (iii) No. 362/2, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  120. Shetkar Subhash, Employee Membership No. 2479 [Pg. .239 ],
    Addl. City civil & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE 560 009.
  121. S.R. Somashekhara, Employee Membership No. 24 84[Pg. 240 ],
    Civil Judge, Virajpet..
  122. Somashekhriaha, Employee Membership No. 2485 [Pg. No.240 ],
    Munsiff & JMFC, Channagiri, Shimoga District.
  123. K.R. Narasimhamurthy,Employee Membership No. 2488 [Pg. 240 ],
    Section Officer, Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
  124. Justice D.M. Chandrashekhar, Employee Membership No. 2494 [Pg. 240]
    (i) Retired Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court,
    (ii) No. 1392, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  125. Hon’ble Justice A.J. Sadashiva, Employee Membership No. 2495 [Pg. 240]
    (i) Judge,  High Court . Bangalore-560 001.
    (ii)  Chairman “ A.J. Sadashiva Commission”,
    (ii) No.1417, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  126. Hon’ble Justice R. Ramakrishna, Employee Membership No.2496, [Page 240 ], (i) Judge of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore-560 001.
    (ii) No. 1267,  Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  127. Hon’ble Justice R.V. Ravindran, Employee Membership No. 2497 ] [Pg. 240]
    (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-560 001.
    (ii)Former Supreme Court Judge,
    (iii) No. 1392, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  128. Hon’ble Justice V.P. Mohan Kumar, Employee Membership No. 2498 [Pg.240 ]
    (i) Judge,  High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii) Former Chief Justice of Kerala High Court
    (iii) No. 1268, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  129. Hon’ble Justice Kumara Rajaratnam, Employee Membership No.2499 [Pg. 240], (i) Judge,  High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii) Former Chief Justice of
    (iii) No. 1271, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  130. Hon’ble Justice P. Krishnamurty, Employee Membership No.2500 [Pg.No.241]
    (i) Judge,  High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii) No. 1270, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  131. Hon’ble Justice J. Eshwar Prasad, Employee Membership No. 2501[Pg. 241 ]
    (i) Judge, High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii) Former Chief Justice of
    (iii) No. 1272, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  132. Hon’ble Justice T.S. Thakur, Employee Membership No. 2502 [Pg. 241]
    (i) Judge, High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii)Sitting Judge, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi- 110 001
    (iii) No. 1273, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  133. Hon’ble Justice K.H.N. Khuranga, Employee Membership No. 2503 [Pg. 241 ]
    (i) Judge, High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii) Former Chief Justice of
    (iii) No.1410, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  134. Sri. G.C. Bharuka, Employee Membership No.2504 [Pg. No.241 ]
    [Date of Membership 23 Apl,1999 ]
    (i) Judge, High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii) “Chairman E-Committee for monitoring use of Information
    Technology and Administrative Reforms in the Indian Judiciary”
    appointed by the Hon ‘ble Chief Justice of India,
    (iii) No. 1266, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  135.  D. Basavraju, Employee Membership No. 2505 [Pg. No.241 ],
    District Judge, BANGALORE 560 001.
  136. Kempraj, Employee Membership No. 2506 [Pg. 241 ],
    Deputy Registrar, City Civil Court, BANGALORE 560 009.
  137. Justice R.P. Sethi, Employee Membership No. 2507 [Pg. 241 ],
    (i) Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii) Former Judge, Supreme Court of India.
    (iii) No.000, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  138. Justice Chandrashekhriaha, Employee Membership No. 2508 [Pg 241],
    (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii) Former Up Lokayukta of Karnataka. Removed by Karnataka High Court Order.
    (iii) No. 1296/11, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  139. S.K. Venkatareddy, Employee Membership No. 2509 [Pg. 241 ],
    District Judge, Bangalore
  140. Justice H. G. Ramesh, Employee Membership No. 2510 [Pg. 241 ],
    (i) Judge, High Court, Bangalore- 560 001
    (ii) No. 981/B, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  141. Justice H.L. Dattu, Employee Membership No.2511 [Pg. 241]
    (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii) Sitting Judge, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi- 110 001.
    (iii) No. 859/D & No. 2511,Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K.Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  142. Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, Employee Membership No. 2512 [Pg. 241]
    (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii)Former Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court,
    (iii)No. 1253, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  143. Justice V.K. Singhal, Employee Membership No. 2513 [Pg. 241]
    (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii) Former Chief Justice of
    (iii) No. 2118, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  144. Justice P. Vishwanath Shetty, Employee Membership No. 2514 [Pg. 241 ]
    (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii) No. 1394, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  145. K.M. Hadimani, Employee Membership No. 2515 [Pg. No.241 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr], MM Traffic 1st Court, Bangalore
  146. Justice K.R. Prasadrao, Employee Membership No. 2516 [Pg.241 ],
    (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii) Former Chief Justice of
    (iii) No. 0000, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.

[Till here Members were enrolled as on 23rd April, 1999 ]

  1. Justice N.S Veerabhdriaha, Employee Membership No. 2517 [Pg. No.242 ],
    (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii) . 0000, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  2. Justice S.R. Bannurmath, Employee Membership No.2518 [Pg. 242 ]
    (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (ii) Former Chief Justice of Kerala High Court,
    (ii) No. 2118/A, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  3. Justice  G.T. Nanavati, Employee Membership No. 2520 [Pg. No.242]
    (i) Judge, Supreme Court of India,
    (ii) “Nanavati Commission probing the 2002 riot cases in Gujarat”,
    (iii) No. 2070, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  4. Justice Abdulla Mohammed Farooq , Employee Membership No. 2519 [Page. 242],
    (i) Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-1
    (ii)  No.70,Judicial Layout-II,Talghattpura, Kanakpura Road, BANGALORE 560 0.
  5. Prakash B. Kathare, Employee Membership No. 2532 [Pg. No.243 ],
    District Judge, K.A.T., M.S. Building, BANGALORE 560 001.
  6. G.D. Narasimha Murty, Employee Membership No. 2533 [Pg. No.243 ],
    Civil Judge, Bangalore
  7. A.S. Bellunke, Employee Membership No. 2535 [Pg. No.243 ],
    Civil Judge, Bangalore-560009.
  8. Basavaraj B. Belavagi, Employee Membership No. 2537 [Pg. No.243 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], K.G.F
  9. Laxman Malavalli, Employee Membership No. 2539 [Pg. No.243 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], Malur.
  10. Ashok S. Gadag, Employee Membership No. 2541 [Pg. No.243 ],
    Civil Judge, Bangalore.
  11. S.B. Gunji Ghavi, Employee Membership No. 2549 [Pg. No.243 ],
    Civil Judge, Gulbarga.
  12. B.S. Naik, Employee Membership No. 2550 [Pg. No.244 ],
    Civil Judge, Gulbarga.
  13. Rajmohan Srivastava, Employee Membership No. 2551 [Pg. No.244 ],
    Prl. CJ, Gulbarga.
  14. Chandrashekhara Patil, Employee Membership No. 2562 [Pg. No.244 ],
    C.J., Bangalore
  15. Sanganna B. Patil, Employee Membership No. 2563 [Pg. No.244 ],
    C J, Bangalore.
  16. H.C. Parshi, Employee Membership No. 2565 [Pg. No.244 ],
    CJ [Sr. Divn], 1st ACMM, Bangalore
  17. Shingoti Abdul Rasheed, Employee Membership No. 2568 [Pg. No.245 ],
    Prl. Munsiff, Bagalkot.
  18. S.B. Angadi, Employee Membership No. 2572 [Pg. No.245 ],
    Civil Judge,Sr. Divn. District Court. BANGALORE 560 009.
  19. Basavraj S. sappannavar, Employee Membership No. 2574 [Pg. No.245 ],
    Civil Judge, Bhdravati.
  20. Gururaj Rao Devipur, Employee Membership No. 2576 [Pg. No.245 ],
    Asst. Registrar, CCC, Mayo Hall, BANGALORE 560 009.
  21. M.L. Raghunath,Employee Membership No. 2576 [Pg. No.245 ],
    Civil Judge, Hoskote
  22. Sudheer, Employee Membership No. 2569 [Pg. No.245 ],
    Civil Judge, Koppal.
  23. V. Jagannathan, Employee Membership No. 2583 [Pg. No.245 ],
    (i) Prl D J, Chikkamagalur.
    (ii) “Suspected to be” Judge,  Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
    (iii) No.221 ,  Judicial Layout-II,
    Talghattpura , Kanakpura Road, BANGALORE 560 0.
  24. Shankar, Employee Membership No. 2585 [Pg.245 ],
    Addl. C J [Jr. Divn.], Jamakhandi
  25. Sadanand Narayan Nayak, Employee Membership No. 2590 [Pg.246 ],
    Civil Judge, Kadur
  26. T Hariyappa Gowda, Employee Membership No. 2594 [Pg..246 ],
    Prl. C J, Bangalore
  27. N.S. Neginal, Employee Membership No. 2596 [Pg. 246 ],
    Civil Judge, [Sr. Divn], Bangalore.
  28. U Narayan Ganiga, Employee Membership No. 2600 [Pg. 246 ],
    C A O, Dist. Court, Gulbarga.
  29. S. Surgod, Employee Membership No. 2593 [Pg.246 ],
    Xth Addl. CMM, Bangalore
  30. Prakash Kumar, Employee Membership No. 2595 [Pg.246 ],
    Addl. CMM, Bangalore.
  31. Jeevan Rao R. Kulkarni, Employee Membership No. 2597 [Pg.246 ],
    Civil Judge, [Sr. Divn], Bangalore.
  32. G.V. Hegde, Employee Membership No. 2605 [Pg.247 ],
    1st Addl. D J, Kolar.
  33. Dundappa Samappa Muttur, Employee Membership No. 2607 [Pg.247 ],
    C J M, Bangalore.
  34. Sangappa Nagappa Gaddi, Employee Membership No. 2613 [Pg.247 ],
    C J, Kolar.
  35. S B N Prakash, Employee Membership No. 2614 [Pg.247 ],
    District Judge, Gulbarga.
  36. B. Umapathy, Employee Membership No. 2615 [Pg.247 ],
    Sheristedar, City Civil Court, Bangalore-560 009.
  37. Shrikant Shimpi, Employee Membership No. 2617 [Pg.247 ],
    Civil Judge, [Jr. Divn], Navalgund.
  38. P Narayan Acharya, Employee Membership No. 2619 [Pg.247 ],
    Prl. C J & JMFC, Tumkur.
  39. N. Lakshmanappa, Employee Membership No. 2623 [Pg.248 ],
    CMO CJS Court, Shimoga.
  40. A.N. Pattan, Employee Membership No. 2625 [Pg.248 ],
    C J, Basavkalyan.
  41. Manyali Premavathi, Employee Membership No. 2626[Pg.248 ],
    C J, Jr. Divn., Gulbarga.
  42. Shivanagouda, Employee Membership No. 2627 [Pg.248 ],
    1st Addl. C J, Gulbarga.
  43. K.N. Lakshminarayan, Employee Membership No. 2629 [Pg.248],
    Civil Judge, [Jr. Divn], Jewargi.
  44. V.N. Ravindra, Employee Membership No. 2630 [Pg.248 ],
    VIII Addl. C M M, Bangalore.
  45. K.P. Dinesh, Employee Membership No. 2632 [Pg.248 ],
    Addl. Civil Judge, [Jr. Divn], Anekal.
  46. Krishna Dutt Kalaskar, Employee Membership No. 2640 [Pg.249 ],
    C.J & JMFC, Channapatna.
  47. N. Prahladacharya, Employee Membership No. 2644 [Pg.249 ],
    District Judge, 43/13, Kamakya Extension, 4th Cross, 5th Block, B.S.K-III Stage,
    III Phase, BANGALORE 560 085.
  48. B.N. Poojary, Employee Membership No. 2649 [Pg.249 ],
    Civil Judge & CJM, Koppal.
  49. N.C. Srinivas, Employee Membership No. 2652 [Pg.249 ],
    C J, [Jr. Divn], Channarayapatna.
  50. K. Sukanya, Employee Membership No. 2655, [Pg.249 ],
    Deputy Registrar, Lokayukta, Bangalore.
  51. Nabira Bool Mamdapur, Employee Membership No. 2660 [Pg.250 ],
    CJ & JMFC, Shikaripura.
  52. H.S. Ramakrishna, Employee Membership No. 2665 [Pg.250 ],
    CJ & JMFC, Siddalaghatta.
  53. Majage Nijagundappa, Employee Membership No. 2667 [Pg.250],
    Prl. CJ, Chintamani.
  54. Tippanna Avin, Employee Membership No. 2671 [Pg.250 ],
    C J [Sr. Divn], Spl. Court, Bangalore. 560009.
  55. A.V. Chandrashekhar, Employee Membership No. 2675 [Pg.250 ],
  56. Addl. City Civil & Session Judicial, Bangalore. 560009.
  57.  Khan Liyakhat Alikhan, Employee Membership No. 2680 [Pg.251 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Bangalore.
  58. Chandrappa Nagappa Shivapuji, Employee Membership No. 2683 [Pg.251 ], Deputy Law Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore. 560001.
  59. Rajshekhar Malleshappa Shetty, Employee Membership No. 2684 [Pg.251 ], Civil Judge, S C C, Bangalore. 560001.
  60. Vishwanath B. Surya Vanshi, Employee Membership No. 2689 [Pg.251 ],
    Prl. CJ & JMFC, Mudhol.
  61. Rajeshwari N. Hegde, Employee Membership No. 2691 [Pg.251 ],
    Civil Judge, Mysore.
  62. M.C. Biradar, Employee Membership No. 2702 [Pg.252 ],
    Prl. CJ, [Jr. Divn], kolar.
  63. Jagdeesh S. Deshpande, Employee Membership No. 2704 [Pg.252 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Bangalore.
  64. Subhash Yellappa Irannavar, Employee Membership No. 2708 [Pg.252 ],
    Addl. C J, Kolar.
  65. S.R. Tulasi Ram, Employee Membership No. 2717 [Pg.253 ],
    C J, Kanakapura.
  66. A.S. Patil, Employee Membership No. 2719 [Pg.253 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Athani.
  67. H.B. Khadrapathi, Employee Membership No. 2724 [Pg.253 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], JMFC,  K.R. Nagar. Mysore District.
  68. Prakash K, Employee Membership No. 2726 [Pg.253 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], Periyapatna.
  69. Pandurang Singri, Employee Membership No. 2728 [Pg.254 ],
    1st Addl. CJ & CJM, Bijapur.
  70. Mahadevegowda, Employee Membership No. 2729 [Pg.254 ],
    CJ & Prl. JMFC, Tarikere.
  71. Prakash Nadiger, Employee Membership No. 2731 [Pg.254 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Honnali.
  72. R.G. Desai, Employee Membership No. 2732 [Pg.254 ],
    CJ & JMFC, Sindhanoor.
  73. Mohammed Mujahid Ulla, Employee Membership No. 2734 [Pg.254 ],
    Addl. Civil Judge, [Jr. Divn], Chintamani.
  74. Rajendra Badamikar, Employee Membership No. 27 [Pg.25 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], Chittapur.
  75. Gireyya, Employee Membership No. 2739 [Pg.254 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Sindhnoor.
  76. Keshav Deshpande, Employee Membership No. 2744 [Pg.254 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], S C C, BANGALORE.
  77. G. Basavraj, Employee Membership No. 2747 [Pg.255 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] JMFC. Yellapur.
  78. K.B. Krishna Murthy, Employee Membership No. 2748 [Pg.255 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC. Ramadurga.
  79. Shivanand Katti, Employee Membership No. 2750 [Pg.255 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn] & Addl. CJM, Yadgir.
  80. B.V. Renuka, Employee Membership No. 2752 [Pg.255 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Manya.
  81. J.M. Khaji, Employee Membership No. 2753 [Pg.255 ],
    CJ & JMFC, Mandya.
  82. Siddappa Maradi, Employee Membership No. 2759 [Pg.255 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn]  JMFC, Ramnagar.
  83. R.B. Dhrma Goudar, Employee Membership No. 2760 [Pg.255 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Kushtagi.
  84. M. Venkatappa, Employee Membership No. 2763 [Pg.255 ],
    Court Officer, Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
  85. K.C. Ramakrishniaha, Employee Membership No. 2771 [Pg.256 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn] , Hunsur.
  86. Niyaz Ahmed S Datedr, Employee Membership No. 2772 [Pg.256 ],
    Prl. CJ, [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Chikkodi.
  87. Savitri Venkataramana Bhat, Employee Membership No. 2780 [Pg.256 ],
    Divil Judge, [Jr. Divn], Mysore.
  88. B.S. Bharati, Employee Membership No. 2781 [Pg.256 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] , Kundapur.
  89. M.S. Kanti, Employee Membership No. 2782 [Pg.257 ],
    C.J. [Sr. Divn.] Addl C J, Holenarasipura.
  90. B.G. Jattennavar, Employee Membership No. 2788 [Pg.257 ],
    C.J. [Sr. Divn.] & CJFM, Mangalore.
  91. M.G. Sudheendra, Employee Membership No. 2789 [Pg.257 ],
    Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bidar.
  92. G.K. Gokale, Employee Membership No. 2793 [Pg.257 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] ,. Ramanagar.
  93. K. Govindarajalu, Employee Membership No. 2794 [Pg.257 ],
    1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belgaum.
  94. G. Nanjundiaha, Employee Membership No. 2807 [Pg.258 ],
    Addl. Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] JMFC, Ranebennur.
  95. Balappa Karabasappa Bhuthe, Employee Membership No. 2812 [Pg.258 ],
    CJ [ Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Chikkanayakanahalli.
  96. Fashappa K Bhute, Employee Membership No. 2813 [Pg.258 ],
    CJ [ Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Ankola.
  97. Kukkaje Ramkrishna Bhat, Employee Membership No. 2816 [Pg.258 ],
    District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
  98. Karabasappa Mattur, Employee Membership No. 280 [Pg.2817 ],
    Prl. C J, [Jr. Divn], Kundapur.
  99. Narayan Hegde, Employee Membership No. 2821 [Pg.259 ],
    CJ [ Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Mangalore.
  100. Lavanya Latha, Employee Membership No. 2826 [Pg.259 ],
    II Addl. CJ, [JD] & JMFC, Tumkur.
  101. Rachappa A Chiniwal, Employee Membership No. 2831 [Pg.259 ],
    Judge, Court of Small Cause, Mysore.
  102. Shivanna, Employee Membership No. 2832 [Pg.259 ],
    CJ [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Devanahally.
  103. Krishnaji Asode, Employee Membership No. 2833 [Pg.259 ],
    MM III Court, Bangalore.
  104. Pampapati, Employee Membership No. 2838 [Pg.260 ],
    CJ [Sr. Divn] & JMFC, Chikkaballapura.
  105. Donekallu Veeranna, Employee Membership No. 2839 [Pg.260 ],
    Addl. CJ [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Doddaballapura.
  106. C.V. Margoor, Employee Membership No. 2841 [Pg.260 ],
    CJ [Sr. Divn] & JMFC, Chintamani.
  107. Prabhavati M. Hiremath, Employee Membership No. 2850 [Pg.260 ],
    CJ [Jr. Divn], Gulbarga.
  108. C Rajashekhar, Employee Membership No. 2851 [Pg.260 ],
    1st Addl. CJ [ Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Tumkur.
  109. Employee Membership No. 28 [Pg.2 ],
  110. Sri. V. Gopal Gowda, Employee Membership No.2929 [Pg. No. 265]
    (i) 2118/A, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
    (ii) Chief Justice, High Court of Orissa,
    CUTTACK, Orissa- 753 001
  111. Sri. A.V. Srinivas Reddy, Employee Membership No. 2981 [Pg. No.267 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 2118/C, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  112. Sri. Chidanand Ullal, Employee Membership No. 2980  [Pg. No.267 ]
    Former Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    No. 362/2, Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  113. Sri. K. Palakshappa, Employee Membership No. 2994 [Pg No.268],
    [Supected Judge heard Lokayukta Case against Mote Family from 2004 to 2006 ? ]
    Civil Judge [Jr. Division], Harapanahally. Karnataka
  114. Sri. P.Venkatarama Reddy, Employee Membership No.2988[Page. 268],
    (i) Former Judge of Supreme Court of India, Former Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court  and “Chairman, Law Commission of India”,
    (ii) No. 0001,  Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  115. Sri. K.L. Majunath, Employee Membership No. 3000 [Pg. No.269]
    (i) No. 2118/B, Judicial Layout,
    G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
    (ii) Sitting Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    Bangalore- 560 001.
  116. Sri. Arvind S. Pachpure, Employee Membership No. 3005 [Page.269 ],
    Judge of Karnataka High Court,
    Judicial Layout, G.K.V.K. Post, BANGALORE 560 065.
  117. Sri. M.S. Balakrishna, Employee Membership No. 3015 [Page.271 ],
    II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mangalore. D.K. District.
  118. H.G. Nagarathna, Employee Membership No. 3049 [Page.272 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Division], Addl. Secretary, Law Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-560001.
  119. H.T. Nagendrappa, Employee Membership No. 3057 [Page.273 ],
    C.A.O., District Court, Davangere.
  120. S. Gopalappa, Employee Membership No. 3063 [Page.273 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Division], Bellary.
  121. H.G. Vijaykumari, Employee Membership No. 3078 [Page.274 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], JMFC II Court, Mysore.
  122. Channabasappa V. Linge Reddy, Employee Membership No. 3084[Page. 274],
    District Judge, Gulbarga.
  123. B. Nandakumar, Employee Membership No. 3086 [Page. 274],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Division], & JMFC, KANAKAPURA. Karnataka.
  124. V.P. Jehangir, Employee Membership No. 3091[Page. 274],
    17th Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Bangalore-9.
  125. Karanappa Rastapur, Employee Membership No. 3096 [Page.275 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], CMM, N.T. Road, Bangalore
  126. K.S. Venkoba Rao, Employee Membership No. 303099 [Page.275 ],
    3rd ACMM, N.T. Road, Bangalore
    Civil Judge [Sr. Division], Law Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-1
  127. Sri. K.S. Mudgal, Employee Membership No.3100 [Page.275 ], ,
    Registrar [Judicial] of Karnataka High Court,
    Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
  128. Padmaraj N. Desai, Employee Membership No. 3103 [Page.275 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], Assistant Director, Karnataka judicial Academy, Bangalore
  129. Devender Ramachandra Renke, Employee Membership No.3104 [Page.275 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Division], Law Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore-1
  130.  A. Lourde Mariyappa, Employee Membership No.3108 [Page. 275 ],
    Additional Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Nanjangud. Karnataka.
  131. Somanath R. Sindgi, Employee Membership No.3109 [Page.276],
    Addl CJM, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore
  132. Parashuram R. Doddamani, Employee Membership No.3111 [Page.276 ],
    Asst. Court Officer, High Court, Bangalore.
  133. I.F Bidari, Employee Membership No.3115 [Page.276 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Hukkeri, Karnataka.
  134. H.S. Sabbannachar, Employee Membership No.3116 [Page.276 ],
    XVI Addl. Judge, Small Cause Court, Bangalore
  135. Girimallappa Kumbar, Employee Membership No.3129 [Page.277 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Division], VII ACMM, Bangalore-2.
  136. Jagdish Chikkannavar, Employee Membership No.3130 [Page.277 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], XII ACMM, Bangalore-2
  137. Biradar Bheemashankar Channabasappa, Employee Membership No.3139 [Page.277 ], Civil Judge [Jr. Divn]. SEDAM. Karnataka.
  138. Mohammed Khan Pathan, Employee Membership No.3141 [Page.277 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC Court, Savadatti-591126.
  139. Smt. S. Shobha, Employee Membership No.3142 [Page.277 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Kunigal, Karnataka.
  140. Shashikala M.A. Employee Membership No.3144 [Page.277 ], District Judge, City Civil Court, Bangalore-9.
  141. N. Krishnaiah, Employee Membership No.3146 [Page.278 ], Addl. CJ [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Chikkaballapur. Karnataka.
  142. A. Gurumurty, Employee Membership No.3154 [Page.278 ],
  143. M. Chandrashekhara Reddy, Employee Membership No.3155 [Page.278 ],
    No. 5/13, 16th Cross, Hosur, Tamil Nadu.
  144. Harish Kumar, Employee Membership No.3156 [Page.278 ],
    3434 D. ‘T’ Cross, R.P.C. Layout, Vijaynagar, Bangalore.
  145. Ravindra M. Vaidya, Employee Membership No.3164 [Page.279 ], 1stAddl. VIII CMM, Bangalore-2.
  146. Narendra Kumar Basavraj Gunaki, Employee Membership No.3166 [Page.279 ], 24th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore-9.
  147. Hon’ble Mr. Justice  Shantan Goudar Mohan Mallikarjunagoudar , Employee Membership No.3169 [Page.279 ],
    Judge, Karnataka High Court,
    (ii) No. 205 ,  Judicial Layout-II,
    Talghattpura , Kanakpura Road, BANGALORE 560 0.
  148. Rajendra Ankalkote, Employee Membership No.3177 [Page.279 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], Registrar, Small Cause Court, Bangalore-9
  149. Yogish N. Karagudiri, Employee Membership No.3178 [Page.279 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Bangalore-9
  150. B.S. Jayshree, Employee Membership No.3180 [Page.280 ],
    Civil Judge, [Jr. Divn], Anekal. Bangalore.
  151. Prabhavati G, Employee Membership No.3184 [Page.280 ],
    MMTC-III, Bangalore
  152. Sadashiviaha Gangadhara Hiremath, Employee Membership No.3185 [Page.280 ], Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Bangalore
  153. V.G. Bopaiah, Employee Membership No.3186 [Page.280 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Dy. Registrar, Lokayukta, Bangalore-1
  154. Bylura Shankara Rama, Employee Membership No.3187 [Page.280 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn] & Dy. Registrar, Lokayukta, Bangalore-1.
  155. Moureshappa Biliki, Employee Membership No.3189 [Page.280 ],
    XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
  156. S.H. Renuka Devi, Employee Membership No.3193 [Page.280 ],
    Civil Judge & JMFC, Chitradurga, Karnataka.
  157. K.B.M. Patel, Employee Membership No.3194 [Page.280 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], Small Cause Court, Bangalore-9
  158. A.K. Naveen Kumari,  Employee Membership No.3195 [Page.280 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Thuruvekere, TUMKUR District.
  159. K.M. Gangadhar, Employee Membership No.3196 [Page.280 ],
    Civil Judge & JMFC [Jr. Divn], Pandavpura
  160.  P. Krishna Bhat, Employee Membership No. 3197[Page.281 ],
    (i) District & Sessions Judge, Rural District Court, Bangalore-9
    (ii) Presently working as  Registrar General of Karnataka High Court,
    Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
  161. C. Sudheer Kumar, Employee Membership No.3198 [Page.281 ],
    District Judge, Bangalore-1
  162. J.N. Subramanya, Employee Membership No. 3199 [Page. 281 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], Kalaghatagi, Dharwad.
  163. Deshpande G.S, Employee Membership No.3201 [Page. 281],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], JMFC, Holalkere.
  164. Sumangala Basavanna, Employee Membership No. 3202 [Page. 281],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & III Addl. JMFC, Raichur
  165. D.T. Rangaswamy, Employee Membership No. 3203[Page.281 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn] & JMFC, Sira
  166. M. Narasimha Prasanna, Employee Membership No. 3205 [Page.281 ],
    Deputy Registrar, CMM Court, Bangalore-9.
  167. Timmegowda, Employee Membership No. 3206 [Page.281 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, KARWAR
  168. C.R. Rajasomashekhara, Employee Membership No. 3209 [Page. 281],
    Deputy Registrar, Lokayukta, Bangalore
  169. Shubhagowdar, Employee Membership No. 3210 [Page. 281],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn] & JMFC, TIPTUR
  170. Dayanand Basappa Nagamannavar, Employee Membership No. 3211[Page.281 ], Sheristedar, Civil Judge Court, [Jr. Divn] & JMFC Court, Dharwad
  171. Patil Virupaksha Gowda, Employee Membership No.3216 [Page.281 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], M.S. Buiding, Bangalore-1
  172. H.D. Sandesh, Employee Membership No.3217  [Page.282 ],
    District Judge, Mandya.
  173. Sri. K.B. Chengappa, Employee Membership No. 3218[Page.282 ],,
    Additional Registrar,
    Dharwad High Court Bench, Dharwad. Karnataka
  174. Basavraj A. Patil, Employee Membership No. 3219[Page. 282],
    21st Sist. & Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Bangalore-9
  175. Ashok G. Nijagannavar, Employee Membership No.3220  [Page. 282],
    Gollappa G. Nijagannavar, Dist. & Sessions Judge, XIII Adl. City Civil Judge,
    Mayo hall, Bangalore
  176. Usha Rani Nemiraj Shetty, Employee Membership No. 3221 [Page 282 ],
  177. Roopa Shivappa Naik, Employee Membership No. 3223 [Page 282 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, II Court, SHIMOGA
  178. L. Vijaylaksmi Devi, Employee Membership No.3226 [Page 282 ],
    Deputy Registrar, Enquiry-1, Lokayukta, Bangalore
  179. Srinivas Harish Kumar, Employee Membership No.3227 [Page 282 ],
    District & Sessions Judge, TUMKUR
  180. Virupaksha H. Sambrani, Employee Membership No. 3230 [Page 282 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], Bangalore
  181. A.K. Mulla, Employee Membership No. 3231[Page 282 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], 5th CMM, N.T. Road, Bangalore-1
  182. G.G. Kuruvatti, Employee Membership No. 3234[Page 283 ],
    Prl. Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALUR.
  183. Sadananda Doddamani, Employee Membership No. 3239 [Page 283 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], OOD Special, MM Traffic, Bangalore
  184. T.G. Shivashankaregowda, Employee Membership No.3240 [Page 283 ],
    Civil Judge [Sr. Divn], & CJM, HASSAN.
  185. P. Srinivasa, Employee Membership No.3241[Page 283 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Bantwal-574 219
  186. Radha H.R, Employee Membership No.3243 [Page 283 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, Devanahalli.
  187. Gollappa Ayyappa Mulamani, Employee Membership No. 3244[Page 283 ],
    Prl. Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], GULBARGA
  188. S.A. Nalawada, Employee Membership No.3246 [Page 283 ],
    Prl. Civil Judge [Jr. Divn], TUMKUR.
  189. S.R. Prakash, Employee Membership No. 3247[Page 283 ],
    P.S. Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC Court, HOSKOTE
  190. N. Sunil Kumar Singh, Employee Membership No. 3248[Page 283 ],
    Civil Judge [Jr. Divn] & JMFC, NANJANGUD.
  191. A.N. Deshpande, Employee Membership No. 3249 [Page 283 ],
    District Judge, Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-1, Mysore
  192. Sri. K. Somshekhar, Employee Membership No.3251[Page. 283 ],,
    (i) District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore
    (ii) Former Registrar [Judicial]  of Karnataka High Court,
    Karnataka High Court, BANGALORE 560 001.
  193. Shekhar Gowda, Employee Membership No.3253 [Page 284 ],
    District & Sessions Court, Bangalore-9
  194. R. Sharada, Employee Membership No.3260 [Page 284 ],
    Assistant Registrar, Lokayukta, Bangalore
  195. Patil Nagalinganagowda, Employee Membership No. 3262 [Page 284 ],
    (i) Civil Judge & JMFC, II Court, Davangere
    (ii)  ……. Small Cause Court
    (iii) presently serving as ACMM-VIII, Magistrate Court Complex, Bangalore.
    [Trial Court Judge in : Lokayukta Complaint Vs Digvijay Mote ]
  196. Shivaputrappa Yamunappa Kumbar, Employee Membership No. 3263 [Page 284 ], District & Sessions Judge, V FTC, Gulbarga.
  197. K.G. Shanthi, Employee Membership No. 3265 [Page 284  ],
    M.M. Traffic-II, N.T. Road, Bangalore

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

ILR 1991 KAR 2248: Cabinet Decision, Co-op dept, + CONCLUSIONS about affairs of Six Housing Society’s findings in Report

ILR 1991.KAR.2248 ; Select Paragraphs

Note To Type:  GVK Rao Reports’ observations on admitting ineligible persons as members of Six Societies, Observations Vs ineligible persons , Recommenations, Then Registrar co-operation Department Model Guidelines

Page 2284-85[part] to be typed

[2304-05]  Para 26, mushroom of HBCS in Blore, Cabinet sub-committee, G.O. HUD 156 MNJ… 14 Jan, 1991[Para 49; To sumup, our conclusions on the main issues arising for consideration in these writ petitions, are as follows: … Pages2334-239]


ILR 1991.KAR.2248.

Narayana Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Paragraph 24.  [at page 2282 ] : A detailed investigation by us in respect of the serious allegations made by the petitioner  have become unnecessary for the reason that the petitioners brought to our notice that during the pendency of these petitions, not only the acquisition of lands in favor seven respondent-Societies, but also acquisition of lands of more than one hundred housing Societies, all of which have sprung up within the Bangalore Metropolitan Planning Area had become matter of public debate and criticism, as a result of which a statutory enquiry was directed to be held by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act by Sri G.V.K. Rao, the Controller of Weights and Measures and he has submitted his Report. The petitioners submitted that the Report fully establishes the allegations made by the petitioners.  In the circumstance, at the request of the petitioners, by our Order dated 3-8-1990, we directed the Government Advocate to produce the copy of the said Report. Accordingly, it has been produced. The relevant portion of the Report generally in relation to the activities of all the  Housing Societies in the City, reads:

“The Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Industrial and Miscellaneous Co-operatives) Bangalore vide Order No.HSG 105 HHS 87-88 dated 10th March 1988, has appointed me under Section 64 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959, to enquire into certain allegations against 98 house building co-operative societies of Bangalore City. The main allegations referred to in the order are:

1.            Bogus agreements with the landlords and Estate agents.

2.            Bogus membership and irregularities in registration of members.

3.            Irregularities in distribution of sites.

4.            Collection of exorbitant site advances from the members.

xxx xxx      xxx    xxx

In brief the irregularities committed by the Societies are mainly in the nature of:

1.   Procedural irregularities in admission of members.

2.  Admission of ineligible persons as members.

3.  Admission of Associate Members without necessary provisions in the byelaws.

4.  To acquire lands outside their jurisdiction.

5.  To collect site deposits from Associate members though the objective of the society is to to form layout and distribute sites only to the members.

6.  Entering into Agreements with landlords and agents indiscriminately and in some cases unwarranted agreements.

7.  Payment of exorbitant advances to the agents without proper securities; and

8.  Collection of site deposits from the members without reference to the payments to be made to various agencies.

Page 2286 …………………………………………..  Page 2286
General Remarks

Going by the nature of irregularities committed by the Societies they can be grouped into the following categories namely,

  1. The Societies who have not committed any serious irregularities.
  2. The Societies who have mainly indulged in admission of ineligible / bogus members.
  3. The Societies who have indulged in serious irregularities.

The Societies which have indulged in serious and grave irregularities are:

Xxxx                         xxxx                                 xxxx

9. Remco [ BHEL] House Building co-operative Society Limited.
Xxxx                         xxxx                                 xxxx
24. Bank Officers and Officials House Building co-operative Society Limited.
Xxxx                         xxxx                                 xxxx
26.  H.M.T. Employees  House Building co-operative Society Limited.
Xxxx                         xxxx                                 xxxx
37.   The Bangalore Chickpet House Building co-operative Society Limited.

45. The Societies which have mainly indulged in admission of ineligible persons as members are:
Xxxx                         xxxx                                 xxxx
6. Amarjyothi  House Building co-operative Society Limited.

In the following societies there are no serious irregularities worth highlighting though in some of them there are some minor irregularities
Xxxx                         xxxx                                 xxxx
19. Jaynagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited.
Xxxx                         xxxx                                 xxxx
CONCLUSIONS about affairs of Six Housing Socity’s findings in Report at pages

[2288-89] CONCLUSIONS Remco (BHEL) House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore
As it stands today the Society is no longer running its activities for the exclusive benefit of members and the emphasis has shifted to the benefit of the associate members who are not entitled to get any sites from the society.  The committee is solely responsible for indulging in this type of illegal activities of allotment of sites to the ineligible persons and for taking the activities which are not in accordance with the objectives of the society. They should immediately refund all the site deposits collected from the associate members and concentrate their activities only as per the objectives of the Society i.e., for the benefit of the members and not for assocaite members.”

[2290-91]  Amarjyothi House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore.
CONCLUSIONS: Since there are serious irregularities regarding the admission of members and that they have admitted persons who are not eligible to be admitted as members and they also have admitted the members without any proper proceedings in the committee about their admission, all these admissions are to be treated as bogus admission and this amounts to about 4050 such bogus admission and as rthey are to be removed from the rolls of the Society. If this is done the Society will not require so much land to be acquired and the site deposits collected from ineligible and bogus members should be returned to the members. The committee of mangament is solely responsible for this type of illegal activities and they can not be expected to run the affairs of the Society in proper manner.

[2292-93] HMT Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore.
Conclusions: The Society has admitted large number of persons who are neither employees of HMT nor residents of the jurisdiction of the society. All of them are to be removed from the rolls of the Society. The Society grants membership without collecting the sufficient share amount and in many cases only the single share was taken by the members, whereas it was necessary for members to take at-least five shares. The committee solely responsible for those irregularities. Secondly the committee made huge advances to the agents without commensurate amount of guarantee or security and without any work being done by agents. There is atleast Rs. 1.6 Crores which has been advanced to the agents without any work. The committee in general and the Honourable Secretary of the Society  in particular is responsible for these irregularities.”

[2295] Bank Officers and Officials House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore.
Conclusions: The committee of management has failed to scrutinize the appilcations before admitting the new members and as result they have admitted members without ascertaing the applicants desire to settle within the jurisdiction of the society after their retirement. This being an important condition of the byelaw, admitting the the members without ascertaining this condition is irregular, because of the complacence on the part of the committee members it is possible mainly the speculators might have become members of the society. The fact that the society has blatantly  admitted husband and wife for the purpose of acquiring the site through the society, strengthens this inference that the society is operating mainly as an agency for acquiring the sites to the speculators and not for those who desire to settle in that area after their retirement.
The society after having entered into agreement with M/S Divya Enterprises to acquire the land have done precious little to follow it up and to see that the land is acquired and instead they went on paying advances to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs to the agent without getting any work done.  Similarly, the society has also paid huge  amounts as advance to M/S Vellalu Enterprises, exceeding Rs. One Crores without any guarantee and security, though the work is not progressing commensurate with the payment made. the complacency shown by the committee of management in these dealings establishes that the committee is not functioning in the overall interests of the members of the Society and the finances of the committee have not been handled prudently and the interests of the members are jeoparadised.”

[2296-97] The Bangalore Chickpet House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore.
Main irregularities committed in the Society are regarding the admission of associate members without any provision to that effect and collecting site deposits from such associate members though they are not eligible for getting any sites from the Society and payment of excess amount to the agent towards land acquisition etc., . The committee of management in general is responsible for these irregularities.  bbbb

[2297] Jayanagar  Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore.
: About 100 ineligible persons i.e., those residing outside Bangalore admitted as members and about 30 members whose applications are incomplete cannot  be considered as members and their membership has to be cancelled. Except  this there seems to be no major irregularities in the Society.

[2304-05]  Para 26, mushroom of HBCS in Blore, Cabinet sub-committee, G.O. HUD 156 MNJ… 14 Jan, 1991

Page 2304: Para 26:- From the Report of Sri. G.V.K. Rao, it is seen that the State Government had given approval for acquisition for more than one hundread Societies within the area of the Bangalore Development Authority. The Learned Government Advocate submitted that after the receipts of the above Reports, a Cabinet Sub-committee has been constituted by the Government to take a final decision in the matter and in view of the change in Government, the Cabinet Sub-committee was re-constituted. He has produced a copy of the Order dated 14-1-1991 by which the Cabinet Sub-committee has been re-constituted, which reads:
xxx                     xxx                   xxx

There is mushroom growth of House Building Co-operative Societies in large cities like Bangalore. In order to avoid such un-due Mushrooming and also to keep a check on the total extent of land to be allowed to be purchased by or allotted to them. A proposal was submitted to the Cabinet for its approval.

A Cabinet Sub-committee consisting of the following
xxx                     xxx                   xxx
was constituted to go into the proposal and come up with the contours of policy which will cover all the existing cases of House Building Co-operative Society, as well as the action to be taken by all the authorities concerned in future. In view of the change of the Government, it is necessary to re-constitute the Cabinet Sub-committee.

[at page 2305]



The Cabinet Sub-Committee on House Building Co-operative Society is reconstituted with the following :


The Housing and Urban Development Department will service the Cabinet Sub-Committee.

The learned Government Advocate also submitted that the decision to issue final notifications was taken in view of the time bar for issuing them fixed in Section 6 of the Act, but at the same time the Government had also taken a decision not to hand over possession of the lands acquired in favour of any of these Societies and other Societies, pending consideration of the matter by the Cabinet Sub-Committee and the decision of the Government in the light of the recommendation of the Sub-Committee. He submitted that possession of the lands acquired in favour of all the Societies in the option to withdraw from the acquisition in exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Act. He also also submitted that an earlier order dated 30-03-1990 had also been passed by the Registrar prohibiting all the Societies within the City of Bangalore Development Authority limits from alloting any site to any one, as certain Societies were indulging in alloting sites even before possession of the acquired lands was handed over to them.

Page 2317 . . Para 37 [ a long para] …….
the learned counsel for the for the petitioners submitted that even as the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies was looking into the matter in depth , the Notification acquiring land was issued without examining the bonafides of the Scheme of the Society .  They submitted that as late as on 30-3-1990, The Registrar of Societies has passed an order prohibiting the respondents and all other Societies within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area from allotting sites to anyone, as some of the Societies were indulging in allotment of sites even though the possession of the lands had not been taken over by the Government and handed over to the Societies in order to create a fait accompli. A copy of the order has been produced, which reads:

* Proceedings of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka, Bangalore.

REF: 1. Enquiry ordered into the affairs of House Building Co-operative Societies in No.HSG/105/HHS/87-88 dated 10-3-1988.

2.            Reports of the Inquiry conducted by Shri G.V.K.Rao.

3.            Notification No.RDC 211 CLM 84 dated 24th October 1984.

4.            DO No.CMW 30 CHS 90 dated 28-3-1990 from the Secretary to Government,

Co-operation Department.

Page 2317-19.


  1. Whereas by his order dated 10-3-1988 the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies had appointed Shri G.V.K.Rao the then Controller of Weights and Measures to inquire into the affairs of 98 House Building Co-operative Societies, Bangalore. The interim report of Shri.G.V.K.Rao was received on 13-5-1988 and the final report on 15-2-1989. He had been able to inquire into the affairs of 90 out of total of 98 house building Co-operative societies referred to him.
  2. Whereas, on 25-7-1989, a decision was taken by the Government that in case of 60 Societies where inquiry report of Shri G.V.K.Rao indicated prima-facie guilt and commission of various irregularities,  detaild inquiries were to be conducted by the Department of Co-operation before taking any further action. Similarly, the 8 cases in which  Shri G.V.K.Rao could not inquire into also had to be inquired into in detail by this office.
  3. Whereas this office in accordance with above decision conducting detailed inquiries into the affairs of such Societies and sending Reports to the Government. So far reports in 41 cases have been sent to Government including  5 interim Reports. From the 36 cases of housing Societies in which detailed reports have been sent, it is seen that a substantially large number of members in these Societies have been found to be ineligible for being considered for allotment  of house sites as per byelaws of ythe Society as well as the regulations of BDA and the Circular instructions of the concerned departments.
  4. Whereas, in 62 cases the inquiry is yet to be completed and final report sent to the Government. As the individual inquiries now being conducted by the department are of a very detailed nature, they are necessarily time consuming.
  5. Whereas, on the one hand it is felt that this department will require time to complete the remaining inquiries as well, on the other, it is apprehended that before completion of such inquiries the concerned Societies may, if not prevented, continue with the allotment of sites and in certain cases allot them to members who may be later found to be ineligible.
  6. Whereas, even in respect of other House Building Societies, which are not covered by the inquiries refered to above similar inquiries have to be ordered to weed out the ineligible members. The allotment of sites to ineligible members will be per se objectionable and will also have the effect of adversely affecting the rights of the legitimate and eligible members.
  7. Whereas, both these issues have been considered by the Government of Karnataka and it is felt that in order to ensure both i.e., prevention of allotment to ineligible members and protection of the rights of the eligible members, it will be necessary to issue uniform and detailed Guidelines in this behalf.
  8. Whereas, it is felt that to  achieve the purpose of thius exercise of laying down uniform guidelines for distribution of house sites by Societies to their members, it is necessary and desirable in public interest to prevent the Housing Co-operative Societies from distributing sites until the declaration of the uniform guidelines. Hence the following Order:



No.HSG/105/HHS/87-88 Date: 30-3-1990.

For the reasons stated in the preamble and being satisfied that it is necessary in public interest and in the interest of the members of the House Building Co-operative Societies to issue direction for preventing the affairs of the House Building Co-operative Societies in Bangalore. City Corporation and BDA limits being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the members thereof, I, Vinay Kumar, Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka, under the powers under Section 30B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, vested in me under Government Notification No.RDC 211 CLM 84 dated 24th October 1984, do hereby direct that all the House Building Co-operative Societies situated or operating in Bangalore City Corporation and BDA limits, shall forthwith stop allotment of sites until further orders.

These directions shall come into force with immediate effect.

Given under my hand and seal this day the 30th March 1990.

Sd/- Vinay Kumar, Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka, Bangalore.

The above Order covers all the Societies including the HMT Em HBCS

[Para 49; To sumup, our conclusions on the main issues arising for consideration in these writ petitions, are as follows: … Pages2334-239]

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Fraud and its Effects: The Law

Fraud and its Effects : The Law

 Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan
Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court in Meghmala & Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. has examined the concept of fraud and its effect on proceedings in a court of law. The Supreme Court reiterated that ‘fraud vitiates all’ and also the age old saying ‘Fraud avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical or temporal’. The relevant extracts from the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow;
20. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent Authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. “Fraud avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical or temporal.” (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 853). In Lazarus Estate Ltd. Vs. Besalay 1956 All. E.R. 349), the Court observed without equivocation that “no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything.”
21. In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills & Anr. AIR 1994 SC 2151; and State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481. this Court observed that a writ Court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as the courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. “Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and sub-letties invented to evade law.”
22. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan Vs. M/s. Shaw Brothers AIR 1992 SC 1555, it has been held as under:–

“Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.”

23. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1165, this Court observed that “Fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries.
24. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud. (See District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & Anr. Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655; Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. Bhaskaran (1995) Suppl. 4 SCC 100; Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. Vs. Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325; State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar (2007) 1 SCC 80; Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. Vs. Coal Tar Refining Company AIR 2007 SC 2798; and Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751).
25. Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn proceedings of courts of justice. Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. The expression “fraud” involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (Vide Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1963 SC 1572; Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550; State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao AIR 2005 SC 3110; K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 481; and Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 170).
26. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (Vide S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (supra); Gowrishankar & Anr. Vs. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2202; Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 319; Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33; Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education AIR 2003 SC 4628; and Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 2836).
27. In Kinch Vs. Walcott (1929) AC 482, it has been held that “….mere constructive fraud is not, at all events after long delay, sufficient but such a judgment will not be set aside upon mere proof that the judgment was obtained y perjury.” Thus, detection/discovery of constructive fraud at a much belated stage may not be sufficient to set aside the judgment procured by perjury.
28. From the above, it is evident that even in judicial proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages gained by playing fraud can be taken away. In such an eventuality the questions of non-executing of the statutory remedies or statutory bars like doctrine of res judicata are not attracted. Suppression of any material fact/document amounts to a fraud on the court. Every court has an inherent power to recall its own order obtained by fraud as the order so obtained is non est.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“Duties and Conduct of Advocates” : Supreme Court Explains

“Duties and Conduct of Advocates” : Supreme Court Explains

Justice Sathasivam
Supreme Court of India

Saturday, May 28, 2011

The Supreme Court in a recent decision, O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, had the occasion to examine the rules regarding Professional Conduct and etiquettes of advocates. The case in hand dealt with the contemptuous conduct of advocates before a magistrate, which resulted in suo moto initiation of contempt proceedings by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court where the court has brought a quietus to the proceedings by accepting the unconditional apologies on behalf of the advocates. However, in doing so, the Supreme Court has culled out the principles regarding duties and conduct of advocates. The relevant extracts from the judgment are reproduced herein below;

Professional Conduct and Etiquette – Rules and decisions of this Court
11) In the light of the above scenario, before considering the fresh affidavits filed before this Court by the appellants- Advocates, let us recapitulate various earlier orders of this Court as to the duties of lawyer towards the Court and the Society being a member of the legal profession.
12) The role and status of lawyers at the beginning of Sovereign and Democratic India is accounted as extremely vital in deciding that the Nation’s administration was to be governed by the Rule of Law. They were considered intellectuals amongst the elites of the country and social activists amongst the downtrodden. These include the names of galaxy of lawyers like Mahatma Gandhi, Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhulabhai Desai, C. Rajagopalachari, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, to name a few. The role of lawyers in the framing of the Constitution needs no special mention. In a profession with such a vivid history it is regretful, to say the least, to witness instances of the nature of the present kind. Lawyers are the officers of the Court in the administration of justice.
13) Section I of Chapter-II, Part VI titled “Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette” of the Bar Council of India Rules specifies the duties of an advocate towards the Court which reads as under:
“Section I – Duty to the Court
1. An advocate shall, during the presentation of his case and while otherwise acting before a court, conduct himself with dignity and self-respect. He shall not be servile and whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint against a judicial officer, it shall be his right and duty to submit his grievance to proper authorities.
2. An advocate shall maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, bearing in mind that the dignity of the judicial office is essential for the survival of a free community.
3. An advocate shall not influence the decision of a court by any illegal or improper means. Private communications with a judge relating to a pending case are forbidden.
4. An advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the court, opposing counsel or parties which the advocates himself ought not to do. An advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouth-piece of the client, and shall exercise his own judgement in the use of restrained language in correspondence, avoiding scurrilous attacks in pleadings, and using intemperate language during arguments in court.
5. An advocate shall appear in court at all times only in the prescribed dress, and his appearance shall always be presentable.
6. An advocate shall not enter appearance, act, plead or practise in any way before a court, Tribunal or Authority mentioned in Section 30 of the Act, if the sole or any member thereof is related to the advocate as father, grandfather, son, grand-son, uncle, brother, nephew, first cousin, husband, wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law daughter-in-law or sister-in-law.
For the purposes of this rule, Court shall mean a Court, Bench or Tribunal in which above mentioned relation of the Advocate is a Judge, Member or the Presiding Officer.
7. An advocate shall not wear bands or gown in public places other than in courts except on such ceremonial occasions and at such places as the Bar Council of India or the court may prescribe.
8. An advocate shall not appear in or before any court or tribunal or any other authority for or against an organisation or an institution, society or corporation, if he is a member of the Executive Committee of such organisation or institution or society or corporation. “Executive Committee “, by whatever name it may be called, shall include any Committee or body of persons which, for the time being, is vested with the general management of the affairs of the organisation or institution, society or corporation.
Provided that this rule shall not apply to such a member appearing as “amicus curiae” or without a fee on behalf of a Bar Council, Incorporated Law Society or a Bar Association.
9. An Advocate should not act or plead in any matter in which he is himself peculiarly interested.
I. He should not act in a bankruptcy petition when he himself is also a creditor of the bankrupt.
II. He should not accept a brief from a company of which he is Director.
10. An advocate shall not stand as a surety, or certify the soundness of a surety for his client required for the purpose of any legal proceedings.”
14) In the case of Daroga Singh and Others vs. B.K. Pandey, (2004) 5 SCC 26, one Additional District and Sessions Judge was attacked in a pre-planned and calculated manner in his courtroom and chamber by police officials for not passing an order they sought. This Court held that, “The Courts cannot be compelled to give “command orders”. The act committed amounts to deliberate interference with the discharge of duty of a judicial officer by intimidation apart from scandalizing and lowering the dignity of the Court and interference with the administration of justice. The effect of such an act is not confined to a particular court or a district, or the State, it has the tendency to effect the entire judiciary in the country. It is a dangerous trend. Such a trend has to be curbed. If for passing judicial orders to the annoyance of the police the presiding officers of the Courts are to be assaulted and humiliated the judicial system in the country would collapse.”
15) In R.D. Saxena vs. Balram Prasad Sharma, (2000) 7 SCC 264, this Court held as under:
“In our country, admittedly, a social duty is cast upon the legal profession to show the people beckon (sic beacon) light by their conduct and actions. The poor, uneducated and exploited mass of the people need a helping hand from the legal profession, admittedly, acknowledged as a most respectable profession. No effort should be made or allowed to be made by which a litigant could be deprived of his rights, statutory as well as constitutional, by an advocate only on account of the exalted position conferred upon him under the judicial system prevalent in the country……..”

16) In Mahabir Prasad Singh vs. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 37, this Court held that it is the solemn duty of every Court to proceed with judicial function during Court hours and no Court should yield to pressure tactics or boycott calls or any kind of browbeating. The Bench as well as the Bar has to avoid unwarranted situations or trivial issues that hamper the cause of justice and are in the interest of none.

17) In the case of Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, In Re: , (1998) 7 SCC 248, the advocate was charged of criminal contempt of Court for the use of intemperate language and casting unwarranted aspersions on various judicial officers and attributing motives to them while discharging their judicial functions. This Court held as under:

“The subordinate judiciary forms the very backbone of administration of justice. This Court would come down a heavy hand for preventing the judges of the subordinate judiciary or the High Court from being subjected to scurrilous and indecent attacks, which scandalise or have the tendency to scandalise, or lower or have the tendency to lower the authority of any court as also all such actions which interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. No affront to the majesty of law can be permitted. The fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants. The protection is necessary for the courts to enable them to discharge their judicial functions without fear.”

18) In Chetak Construction Ltd. vs. Om Prakash & Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 577, this Court deprecated the practice of making allegations against the Judges and observed as under: “Indeed, no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to browbeat the court or malign the presiding officer with a view to get a favourable order. Judges shall not be able to perform their duties freely and fairly if such activities were permitted and in the result administration of justice would become a casualty and rule of law would receive a setback. The Judges are obliged to decide cases impartially and without any fear or favour. Lawyers and litigants cannot be allowed to “terrorize” or “intimidate” Judges with a view to “secure” orders which they want. This is basic and fundamental and no civilised system of administration of justice can permit it……..”

Similar view has been reiterated in Radha Mohan Lal vs. Rajasthan High Court, (2003) 3 SCC 427.
19) Advocacy touches and asserts the primary value of freedom of expression. It is a practical manifestation of the principle of freedom of speech. Freedom of expression in arguments encourages the development of judicial dignity, forensic skills of advocacy and enables protection of fraternity, equality and justice. It plays its part in helping to secure the protection or other fundamental human rights, freedom of expression, therefore, is one of the basic conditions for the progress of advocacy and for the development of every man including legal fraternity practising the profession of law. Freedom of expression, therefore, is vital to the maintenance of free society. It is essential to the rule of law and liberty of the citizens. The advocate or the party appearing in person, therefore, is given liberty of expression. But they equally owe countervailing duty to maintain dignity, decorum and order in the court proceedings or judicial processes. Any adverse opinion about the judiciary should only be expressed in a detached manner and respectful language. The liberty of free expression is not to be confounded or confused with licence to make unfounded allegations against any institution, much less the judiciary [vide D.C. Saxena vs. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216].
20) In the matter of In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the alleged contemner), (1995) 2 SCC 534, the contemner who was a senior advocate, President of the Bar and Chairman of the Bar Council of India, on being questioned by the Judge started to shout and said that no question could have been put to him and that he will get the High Court Judge transferred or see that impeachment motion is brought against him in Parliament. This Court while sentencing him to simple imprisonment for six weeks suspended him from practising as an advocate for a period of three years and laid down as follows:
“The contemner has obviously misunderstood his function both as a lawyer representing the interests of his client and as an officer of the court. Indeed, he has not tried to defend the said acts in either of his capacities. On the other hand, he has tried to deny them. Hence, much need not be said on this subject to remind him of his duties in both the capacities. It is, however, necessary to observe that by indulging in the said acts, he has positively abused his position both as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, and has done distinct disservice to the litigants in general and to the profession of law and the administration of justice in particular.”
21) In the case of Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India & Anr., (1998) 4 SCC 409, a Constitution Bench of this Court overruled In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the alleged contemner) and held as under:
“The power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt of court, though quite wide, is yet limited and cannot be expanded to include the power to determine whether an advocate is also guilty of “Professional misconduct” in a summary manner which can only be done under the procedure prescribed in the Advocates Act. The power to do complete justice under Article 142 is in a way, corrective power, which gives preference to equity over law but it cannot be used to deprive a professional lawyer of the due process contained in the Advocates Act 1961 by suspending his licence to practice in a summary manner, while dealing with a case of contempt of court.”
It also opined that:-
“An Advocate who is found guilty of contempt of court may also, as already noticed, be guilty of professional misconduct in a given case but it is for the Bar Council of the State or Bar Council of India to punish that Advocate by either debarring him from practice or suspending his licence, as may be warranted, in the facts and circumstances of each case. The learned Solicitor General informed us that there have been cases where the Bar Council of India taking note of the contumacious and objectionable conduct of an advocate, had initiated disciplinary proceedings against him and even punished him for “professional misconduct”, on the basis of his having been found guilty of committing contempt of court. We do not entertain any doubt that the Bar Council of the State or Bar Council of India, as the case may be, when apprised of the established contumacious conduct of an advocate by the High Court or by this Court, would rise to the occasion, and taken appropriate action against such an advocate. Under Article 144 of the Constitution “all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. The Bar Council which performs a public duty and is charged with the obligation to protect the dignity of the profession and maintain professional standards and etiquette is also obliged to act “in aid of the Supreme Court “. It must, whenever, facts warrant rise to the occasion and discharge its duties uninfluenced by the position of the contemner advocate. It must act in accordance with the prescribed procedure, whenever its attention is drawn by this Court to the contumacious and unbecoming conduct of an advocate which has the tendency to interfere with due administration of justice…..” The Bench went on to say :-
“………There is no justification to assume that the Bar Council is would not rise to the occasion, as they are equally responsible to uphold the dignity of the courts and the majesty of law and prevent any interference in the administration of justice. Learned counsel for the parties present before us do not dispute and rightly so that whenever a court of record, records its findings about the conduct of an Advocate while finding him guilty of committing contempt of court and desires or refers the matter to be considered by the concerned Bar Council, appropriate action should be initiated by the concerned Bar Council in accordance with law with a view to maintain the dignity of the courts and to uphold the majesty of law and professional standards and etiquette.”
22) In M.B. & Sanghi, Advocate vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1991) 3 SCC 600, this Court took notice of the growing tendency amongst some of the Advocates of adopting a defiant attitude and casting aspersions having failed to persuade the Court to grant an order in the terms they expect. Holding the Advocates guilty of contempt, this Court observed as under:
“The tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial Officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is nipped fat the bud. And, when a member of the profession resorts to such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating the Judge into submission, it is all the more painful. When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalise which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the concerned Judge but also to the fair name of the judiciary, Veiled threats, abrasive behavior, use of disrespectful language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks like the present one are often designedly employed with a view to taming a judge into submission to secure a desired order. Such cases raise larger issues touching the independence of not only the concerned Judge but the entire institution. The foundation of our system which is based on the independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the Presiding Judicial Officers with impunity. It is high time that we realise that the much cherished judicial independence has to be protected not only from the executive or the legislature but also from those who are an integral part of the system.”
23) In the case of L.D. Jaikwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1984) 3 SCC 405, it was held by this Court that acceptance of an apology from a contemnor should only be a matter of exception and not that of a rule and expressed its opinion as under:
“6. We do not think that merely because the appellant has tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence and allow him to go unpunished. Otherwise, all that a person wanting to intimidate a Judge by making the grossest imputations against him to do, is to go ahead and scandalize him, and later on tender a formal empty apology which costs him practically nothing. If such an apology were to be accepted, as a rule, and not as an exception, we would in fact be virtually issuing a ‘licence’ to scandalize courts and commit contempt of court with impunity. It will be rather difficult to persuade members of the Bar, who care for their self-respect, to join the judiciary if they are expected to pay such a price for it. And no sitting Judge will feel free to decide any matter as per the of his conscience on account of the fear of being scandalized and prosecuted by an advocate who does not mind making reckless allegations if the Judge goes against his wishes. If this situation were to be countenanced, advocates who can cow down the Judges, and make them fall in line with their wishes, by threats of character assassination and persecution, will be preferred by the litigants to the advocates who are mindful of professional ethics and believe in maintaining the decorum of courts.
7. We have yet to come across a Judge who can take a decision which does not displease one side or the other. By the very nature of his work he has to decide matters against one or other of the parties. If the fact that he renders a decision which is resented to by a litigant or his lawyer were to expose him to such risk, it will sound the death knell of the institution. A line has therefore to be drawn somewhere, some day, by someone. That is why the Court is impelled to act (rather than merely sermonize), much as the Court dislikes imposing punishment whilst exercising the contempt jurisdiction, which no doubt has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. We do not think that we can adopt an attitude of unmerited leniency at the cost of principle and at the expense of the Judge who has been scandalized. We are fully aware that it is not very difficult to show magnanimity when someone else is the victim rather than when oneself is the victim. To pursue a populist line of showing indulgence is not very difficult — in fact it is more difficult to resist the temptation to do so rather than to adhere to the nail-studded path of duty. Institutional perspective demands that considerations of populism are not allowed to obstruct the path of duty. We, therefore, cannot take a lenient or indulgent view of this matter. We dread the day when a Judge cannot work with independence by reason of the fear that a disgruntled member of the Bar can publicly humiliate him and heap disgrace on him with impunity, if any of his orders, or the decision rendered by him, displeases any of the advocates, appearing in the matter. 24) In the case of R.K. Garg Advocate v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1981) 3 SCC 166, where a lawyer hurled a shoe on the judicial officer which hit him on the shoulder, this Court opined that there is no doubt that the Bar and the Bench are an integral part of the same mechanism which administers justice to the people. Many members of the Bench are drawn from the Bar and their past association is a source of inspiration and pride to them. It ought to be a matter of equal pride to the Bar. It is unquestionably true that courtesy breeds courtesy and just as charity has to begin at home, courtesy must begin with the Judge. A discourteous Judge is like an ill-tuned instrument in the setting of a courtroom. But members of the Bar will do well to remember that such flagrant violations of professional ethics and cultured conduct will only result in the ultimate destruction of a system without which no democracy can survive.
25) In Lalit Mohan Das vs. Advocate General, Orissa & Another, AIR 1957 SC 250, this Court observed as under: “A member of the Bar undoubtedly owes a duty to his client and must place before the Court all that can fairly and reasonably be submitted on behalf of his client. He may even submit that a particular order is not correct and may ask for a review of that order. At the same time, a member of the Bar is an officer of the Court and owes a duty to the Court in which he is appearing. He must uphold the dignity and decorum of the Court and must not do anything to bring the Court itself into disrepute. The appellant before us grossly overstepped the limits of propriety when he made imputations of partiality and unfairness against the Munsif in open Court. In suggesting that the Munsif followed no principle in his orders, the appellant was adding insult to injury, because the Munsif had merely upheld an order of his predecessor on the preliminary point of jurisdiction and Court fees, which order had been upheld by the High Court in revision. Scandalizing the Court in such manner is really polluting the very fount of justice; such conduct as the appellant indulged in was not a matter between an individual member of the Bar and a member of the judicial service; if brought into disrepute the whole administration of justice.”
26) A lawyer cannot be a mere mouthpiece of his client and cannot associate himself with his client in maligning the reputation of judicial officer merely because his client failed to secure the desired order from the said officer. A deliberate attempt to scandalize the Court which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system and would cause a very serious damage to the name of the judiciary. [vide M.Y. Shareef & Anr. Vs. Hon’ble Judges of Nagpur High Court & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 757; Shamsher Singh Bedi vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1996) 7 SCC 99 and M.B. Sanghi, Advocate vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. (supra)].
30) A Court, be that of a Magistrate or the Supreme Court is sacrosanct. The integrity and sanctity of an institution which has bestowed upon itself the responsibility of dispensing justice is ought to be maintained. All the functionaries, be it advocates, judges and the rest of the staff ought to act in accordance with morals and ethics.
Advocates Role and Ethical Standards:
31) An advocate’s duty is as important as that of a Judge. Advocates have a large responsibility towards the society. A client’s relationship with his/her advocate is underlined by utmost trust. An advocate is expected to act with utmost sincerity and respect. In all professional functions, an advocate should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and should conform to the requirements of the law by which an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. An advocate is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable. Ignoring even a minor violation/misconduct militates against the fundamental foundation of the public justice system. An advocate should be dignified in his dealings to the Court, to his fellow lawyers and to the litigants. He should have integrity in abundance and should never do anything that erodes his credibility. An advocate has a duty to enlighten and encourage the juniors in the profession. An ideal advocate should believe that the legal profession has an element of service also and associates with legal service activities. Most importantly, he should faithfully abide by the standards of professional conduct and etiquette prescribed by the Bar Council of India in Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules.
32) As a rule, an Advocate being a member of the legal profession has a social duty to show the people a beacon of light by his conduct and actions rather than being adamant on an unwarranted and uncalled for issue.
33) We hope and trust that the entire legal fraternity would set an example for other professionals by adhering to all the above-mentioned principles.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Judicial Precedents . . Relevance

Thursday, May 26, 2011
Guest Post : Judicial Precedents

 Guest Post By : Mr. Vinay Sonpal, Advocate
As a matter of degree, the Courts tend to attach greater weight to their own previous decisions than to the views of text writers. A judicial precedent speaks with authority. It is an evidence of law and source of it. The authority of precedents is great because of power, skill and professional reputation of judges who make them. Judicial precedent means the process whereby judges follow previously decided cases where the facts are of sufficient similarity. The doctrine of judicial precedent involves an application of the principle of stare decisis, which is Latin for “let the decision stand” i.e. to stand by the decided. In practice, this means that inferior courts are bound to apply the legal principles set down by superior courts in earlier cases. Judge made law via the cases upon which they decide is one of the oldest sources of law. This provides in the law consistency and predictability.
Judicial precedent means a judgment of a court of law cited as an authority for deciding a similar set of facts; a case which serves as authority for the legal principle embodied in its decision. A judicial precedent is a decision of the court used as a source for future decision making.
The phrase doctrine of precedent has two meanings; the phrase means merely that precedents are reported may be cited and will be followed by the courts. In the second, the strict meaning, the phrase means that precedents not only have great authority but must ( in certain circumstances) be followed. The practice of citing cases and of attaching weight to them is necessary to secure the certainty of law. The doctrine of judicial precedents broadly speaking implies that court is bound to follow decisions of its higher courts but may not be bound by decisions of courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
A ruling of a superior court is a binding law. It is not of scriptural sanctity but is of ratio-wise luminosity within the edifice of facts where the judicial lamp plays the legal flame. Beyond those walls and de hors the milieu eternal vernal value to the decision, exalting the doctrine of precedents into a prison-house of bigotry, regardless of varying circumstances and myriad developments can not be imparted. Realism dictates that a judgment has to be read, subject to the facts directly presented for consideration and not affecting those matters which may lurk in the record.
The Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. M/s. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and others, AIR 1976 SC 1455: 1976(3) SCC 832:
The law laid down by Supreme Court of India is binding upon all courts in the country under Article 141 of the Constitution, and numerous cases all over the country are decided in accordance with the view taken by Supreme Court.
Judicial decisions may be distinguished as authoritative and persuasive. An authoritative precedent is one which judges must follow whether they approve of it or not.
A persuasive precedent is one which the judges are under no obligation to follow and which they will take into consideration and to which they will attach such weight as it seem to them to deserve.
Authoritative precedent are legal sources of law, while persuasive precedents are merely historical.
Foreign judgments and obiter dicta are not binding upon courts, however they have persuasive value.
Decisions of English courts lower in the hierarchy. For example, the House of Lords may follow a Court of Appeal decision, and the Court of appeal may follow a High Court decision, although not strictly bound to do so. In India Supreme Court may follow judgments of High Courts and High Courts may follow judgments of other High Court.
The English decisions referred to by Supreme Court are of courts of a country from which India has derived its jurisprudence and large part of Indian laws and in which the judgments were delivered by Judges held in high repute. Undoubtedly, none of these decisions are binding upon Supreme Court but they are authorities of high persuasive value to which Courts may legitimately turn for assistance. Whether the rule laid down in any of these cases can be applied by Courts must, however, be judged in the context of Indian own laws and legal procedure and the practical realities of litigation in India. Forasol v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, AIR 1984 SC 241; 1984 Supp. SCC 263.
The Supreme Court is not bound by the dicta and authority of English cases.
Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram and others, AIR 1954 SC 236:
Supreme Court although can be guided by English judgement but can not ignore the rulings of Supreme Court itself.
Samant N. Balakrishna, etc. v. George Fernandez and others etc. AIR 1969 SC 1201; 1969(3) SCC 238.
American cases relating to American constitution cannot be relied for the purpose of examining fundamental rights under Indian Constitution because of difference of social conditions and habits of people of both the countries. Pathumma and others v. State of Kerala and others, AIR 1978 SC 771: 1978(2) SCC 1:
The Courts have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. Courts can not allow its judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that in any other foreign country. Indian Courts no longer need the crutches of a foreign legal order. Indian courts have to build up their own jurisprudence. M.C. Mehta and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1987 SC 1086: 1987(1) SCC 395:Forasol v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, AIR 1984 SC 241; 1984 Supp. SCC 263.
American cases relating to American constitution cannot be relied for the purpose of examining fundamental right under Indian Constitution because of difference of social conditions and habits of people of both the countries. Pathumma and others v. State of Kerala and others, AIR 1978 SC 771, 1978(2) SCC 1.
Decisions of Privy Council or Federal Court are not binding on Supreme Court. State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid, AIR 1954 SC 245.
The judge may go on to speculate about what his decision would or might have been if the facts of the case had been different. This is an orbiter dictum.
The binding part of a judicial decision is the ratio decidendi. An obiter dictum is not binding in later cases because it was not strictly relevant to the matter in issue in the original case. However, an obiter dictum may be of persuasive (as opposed to binding) authority in later cases.
Where there is no direct authority in the form of decided cases, persuasive authority may be found in legal writings in textbooks and periodicals. In modern times many authors have been cited frequently in court, both by counsel and by judges in judgments.
Courts can use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no authority. The judicial decorum and legal propriety demand that where a learned single Judge or a Division Bench does not agree with the decision of a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the matter shall be referred to a larger Bench. It is a subversion of judicial process not to follow this procedure. The judicial review is the duty of judges of superior courts and tribunals to make the law more predictable. The question of law directly arising in the case should not be dealt with apologetic approaches. The law must be made more effective as a guide to behavior. Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others v. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others. AIR 1990 SC 261; 1989(3) SCC 396.
As regards the question of punishment, what is awarded in one matter cannot be the guiding factor for punishment in another. Murray & Co. vs. Ashok Kumar Newatia and another, AIR 2000 SC 833; ;2000(2) SCC 367.
Whether a Division Bench decision is given in an appeal from an original suit or in a writ petition the ratio is binding on the subsequent Division Bench, and merely because the previous Division Bench judgment was given in a suit the subsequent Division Bench cannot refuse to follow the same because it was hearing the proceeding in a writ petition. The rule of judicial precedent is a very salutary one and is aimed at achieving finality and homogeneity of judgments.
Ram Jivan v. Smt. Phoola (dead) by L.Rs. and others, AIR 1976 SC 844; 1976(1) SCC 852 .
Precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice. It has been held time and again that a single Judge of a High Court is ordinarily bound to accept as correct judgments of Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and of Division Benches and of the Full Benches of his Court and of Apex Court. The reason of the rule, which makes a precedent binding lies in the desire to secure uniformity and certainty in the law.
Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel and others, AIR 1968 SC 372;70 Bom LR 73.
It is improper to overlook the opposing point of view even if it is expressed in minority judgment.
Deena alias Deen Dayal and others etc. v. Union of India and others etc., AIR 1983 SC 1155; 1983(4) SCC 645.
A precedent may be binding to one court but may be persuasive to other court.
Two courts of equal authority have power to overrule each others decision . Where a precedent is merely not followed the result is not that the later authority is substituted for the earlier, but that the two stand by each other conflicting with each other.
It is for the higher court which will in due time decide between the competing precedents, formally overruling one of them and sanctioning the other as good law. In the mean time matters remains at large ad the law uncertain.
When the High Courts have expressed different views one time or the other it would be singularly inappropriate to invoke the doctrine of stare decisis in a case of this kind where High Courts have differed and the matter has been brought to Supreme Court for resolving the said difference of opinion, and it is duty of the Apex Court, to construe the relevant clause and decide which of the two conflicting views should thereafter prevail. Therefore the argument based on the practice prevailing in the majority of the High Courts in this country can not be of much assistance. Tirumalachetti Rajaram v. Tirumalachetti Radha- krishnayya Chetty and others, AIR 1961 SC 1795.
A decision which has held field for a long time should not be disturbed in public interest.
India Electric Works Ltd. v. James Mantosh and another, AIR 1971 SC 2313;, 1971(1) SCC 24.
The decision holding the key for number of years but when the decision is plainly wrong and discloses the weakness in the reasoning, it is duty of the Court to overrule it.
M/s. Jetha Bai & Sons, Jew Town, Cochin. etc. etc. v. M/s. Sunderdas Rathenai etc., AIR 1988 SC 812; 1988(1) SCC 722.
Judgments of court are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes: their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. M/s. Amar Nath Om Prakash and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1985 SC 218; 1985(1) SCC 345
It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete `law’ declared by the Court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the Court. A decision of this Court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying the decision a later case, the courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of this Court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by this Court, to support their reasoning.
Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd., AIR 1993 SC 43;: 1992(4) SCC 363.
The decision or judgement of a judge may fall into two parts: the ratio decidendi (reason for the decision) and obiter dictum (something said by the way).
The principles of Binding Precedent apply only when the facts must be sufficiently similar and the court must be more senior or on the same level.
It is only the ratio decidendi (the legal reasoning or ground for the judicial decision) which is binding on later courts under the system of judicial precedent.
RATIO DECIDENDI – The ratio decidendi of a case is the principle of law on which a decision is based. When a judge delivers judgement in a case he outlines the facts which he finds have been proved on the evidence. Then he applies the law to those facts and arrives at a decision, for which he gives the reason (ratio decidendi).
OBITER DICTUM – The judge may go on to speculate about what his decision would or might have been if the facts of the case had been different. This is an obiter dictum.
The binding part of a judicial decision is the ratio decidendi. An obiter dictum is not binding in later cases because it was not strictly relevant to the matter in issue in the original case. However, an obiter dictum may be of persuasive (as opposed to binding) authority in later cases.
A difficulty arises in that, although the judge will give reasons for his decision, he will not always say what the ratio decidendi is, and it is then up to a later judge to “elicit” the ratio of the case. There may, however, be disagreement over what the ratio is and there may be more than one ratio.
In a judgement delivered by a court, what part is a binding precedent is relevant so as to be precise as to what is ultimately biding proposition to other courts. What the court decides generally is ratio decidendi or rule of law which it is authority. As against persons not parties to suit or proceeding general rule of law i,e ratio decidendi is binding . The rule of law or ratio decidendi is that what is applied and acted upon by the Court . The rules of law or ratio decidendi are developed by courts and are thus creatures of courts. The ratio has to be developed by judges while deciding cases before them. Statement made by judges when giving lectures are statements made in extra judicial capacities and are therefore not binding. In the course of judgement a judge may make observations not precisely relevant to deicide the issue. These observations are obiter dicta and are having no binding authority but are none the less important. These obiter dicta are helpful to rationalize law only to suggest solutions to problems not yet decided by the Court. Any ratio decidendi are amenable to distinction on different facts and thus where the meaning thereof are widened , restricted, distinguished or explained , the latest interpretation of ratio decidendi in later cases becomes authority to these state of facts and in that sense. The rule of law based on hypothetical facts is mere obiter dicta and thus not binding.
Not infrequently it is difficult to find out what is the ratio decidendi in the judgement when several propositions are considered by the Court. In short ratio is general rule without which the case would have been decided otherwise.
The application of the same law to the differing circumstances and facts of various cases which have come up to this Court could create the impression sometimes that there is some conflict between different decisions of this Court. Even where there appears to be some conflict, it would, we think, vanish when the ratio decidendi of each case is correctly understood. It is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts.
The Regional Manager and another v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, AIR 1976 SC 1766:; 1976(3) SCC 334.
The general observations therein should be confined to the facts of those cases. Any general observation cannot apply in interpreting the provisions of an Act unless the Court has applied its mind to and analysed the provisions of that particular Act.
M/s. Raval and Co. v. K.G. Ramachandran and others, AIR 1974 SC 818; 1974(1) SCC 424.
* There is certainty in the law. By looking at existing precedents it is possible to forecast what a decision will be and a person can plan accordingly.
* There is uniformity in the law. Similar cases will be treated in the same way. This is important to give the system a sense of justice and to make the system acceptable to the public.
* Judicial precedent is flexible. There are a number of ways to avoid precedents and this enables the system to change and to adapt to new situations.
* Judicial precedent is practical in nature. It is based on real facts, unlike legislation.
* Judicial precedent is detailed. There is a wealth of cases to which to refer.
* Difficulties can arise in deciding what the ratio decidendi is, particularly if there are a number of reasons.
* There may be a considerable waiting period for a case to come to court for a point to be decided.
* Cases can easily be distinguished on their facts to avoid following an inconvenient precedent.
* There is far too much case law and it is too complex.
If two judges Bench finds a judgement of a three judges Bench to be so incorrect that it can not be followed in any circumstances , keeping view of judicial discipline and propriety, the proper course is to refer the matter before it to another Bench of three judges. Pradip Chandra Parija v/s Pramod Chandra Patnaik AIR 2002 SC 296 ;(2002) 1 SCC 1 .
It is impermissible for a High Court to over rule the decision of the Apex Court on the ground that the Supreme Court laid down legal position without considering any other point . High Court can not question the correctness of the decision of the Supreme Court even though the point sought before the High Court. Suganthi Suresh Kumar v/s Jagdeeshan (2002) 2 SCC 420.
When a court differs from the decision of a co-ordinate bench of a Single Judge of High Court, the decision should be referred to Larger Bench. Ayyaswami Gounder and others v. Munnuswamy Gounder and others, AIR 1984 SC 1789: 1984(4) SCC 376.
If a division bench of a High Court differs from the view expressed by another division bench of the same court, it is appropriate that the matter is referred to a larger bench.Rajesh Kumar Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, AIR 1995 SC 1421: 1995(2) SCC 129; Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others v. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and others, AIR 1991 SC 1893; 1989(3) SCC 396. Union of India and others v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806; 1985(4) SCC 369.
Division Bench of Supreme Court consisting of two Judges cannot over rule the decision of a Bench of two Judges as it would be an inappropriate.
Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1985 SC 231; 1985(1) SCC 275.
When there is a conflict of opinion that is when there is disagreement by one single judge with the decision of another single Judge it is appropriate that the appropriate course is to refer the matter to a larger bench for an authoritative decision.
Shridhar son of Ram Dular v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and others, AIR 1990 SC 307; 1990 Supp. SCC 157.
One Full Bench decision cannot over rule another Full Bench Decision delivered by Judges of equal strength.
Shyamaraju Hegde v. U. Venkatesha Bhat and others, AIR 1987 SC 2323: 1987 Supp. SCC 321.
1. ABROGATED DECISIONS: A decision ceases to be binding if a statute or statutory rule is inconsistent with it is subsequently enacted or if it is reversed or overruled by a higher court.
2. IGNORANCE OF STATUTE: A precedent is not binding if it was rendered in ignorance of a statute or rule having the force of statute i.e. delegated legislation. Such decisions are per incuriam and not binding . The mere fact that the earlier court misconstrued a statute or ignored a rule of construction is no ground for impugning the authority of precedent. It is clear law that a precedent loses its binding force if the court that decided it overlooked an inconsistent decision of a higher court . Such decisions are also per incuriam. A court is not bound by its own decision that is in conflict with one another. If the new decision is in conflict with the old, it is given per incuriam and is not binding on later courts. In this circumstances the rule is that where there are previous inconsistent decisions of its own , the court is free to follow either i.e. earlier or later.
To come within the category of per incuriam it must be shown not only that the decision involved some manifest slip or error but also that to leave the decision standing would be likely, inter alia, to produce serious inconvenience in the administration of justice or significant injustice to citizens.
SUB SILENTIO: Precedents sub silentio or not argued: A decision passes sub silentio when the particular point of law involved in decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind. When a decision is on point A upon which judgement is pronounced but there was another point B on which also court ought to have pronounced before deciding he issue in favour of the party, but that was not argued or considered by the Court. In such circumstances although point B was logically involved in the facts and although the case had a specific out come , the point B is said to pass sub silentio.[ Gerard v/s Worth of Pipers Ltd (1936) 2 All. E R 905(A) ] . It is rightly said that an hundred precedent sub silentio are not material. Where a judgement is given without the losing parties having been represented , there is no assurance that all the relevant consideration have been brought to the notice of the court and consequently the decision ought not be regarded as absolute authority even if it does not fall within sub silentio rule. A precedent is not destroyed merely because it was badly argued , inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned. Total absence of argument vitiates the precedent. A decision is an authority only for what it actually decides and not for what may logically or remotely follows from it. Decision on a question which has not been argued cannot be treated as precedent. M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 1990 SC 781: 1990(2) SCC 71: 1989 Supp. (1) SCR 510: 1989(2) Scale 982
When observation of the court on a question about validity of a statutory provision which was neither raised nor argued would not be a binding precedent.
Rajpur Ruda Meha and others v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 1707: 1980(1) SCC 677.
5. DISTINGUISHING: A binding precedent is a decided case which a court must follow. But a previous case is only binding in a later case if the legal principles involved is the same and the facts are similar. Distinguishing a case on its facts, or on the point of law involved, is a device used by judges usually in order to avoid the consequences of an earlier inconvenient decision which is, in strict practice, binding on them.
If a Court deems fit to follow a precedent of a superior court the proper course , in such a case, is to try to find out and follow the opinions expressed by larger benches of SuperiorCourt in the manner in which it had done this. The proper course for a Court , is to try to find out and follow the opinions expressed by larger benches of superior Court in preference to those expressed by smaller benches of the Court. If, however, the Court was of opinion that the views expressed by larger benches of this Court were not applicable to the facts of the instant case it should say so giving reasons supporting its point of view.
Union of India and another v. K.S. Subramanian, AIR 1976 SC 2433;1976(3) SCC 677.
Even Apex Court is bound by its earlier decisions. It is only when the Supreme Court finds itself unable to accept the earlier view, it shall be justified in deciding the matter in a different way.
Income Tax Officer, Tuticorin v. T.S. Devinatha Nadar etc., AIR 1968 SC 623.
6. OVERRULING: A higher court can overrule a decision made in an earlier case by a lower court eg. the Court of Appeal can overrule an earlier High Court decision. Overruling can occur if the previous court did not correctly apply the law, or because the later court considers that the rule of law contained in the previous ratio decidendi is no longer desirable.
The overruling is retrospectively except as regards matters that are res judicata or accounts that have been settled in the meantime.
The Apex Court or any superior court cannot allow itself to be tied down by and become captive of a view which in the light of the subsequent experience has been found to be patently erroneous, manifestly unreasonable or to cause hardship or to result in plain iniquity or public inconvenience. The Court has to keep the balance between the need of certainty and continuity and the desirability of growth and development of law. It can neither by judicial pronouncements allow law to petrify into fossilised rigidity nor can it allow revolutionary iconoclasm to sweep away established principles. On the one hand the need is to ensure that judicial inventiveness shall not be desiccated or stunted, on the other it is essential to curb the temptation to lay down new and novel principles in substitution of well established principles in the ordinary run of cases and the readiness to canonise the new principles too quickly before their saintliness has been affirmed by the passage of time. It may perhaps be laid down as a broad proposition that a view which has been accepted for a long period of time should not be disturbed unless the Court can say positively that it was wrong or unreasonable or that it is productive of public hardship or inconvenience.
Manganlal Chhagganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay, AIR 1974 SC 2009; 1974(2) SCC 402.
Decision of Full Bench of High Court passed after considering the local conditions and history should not be easily disturbed.
Nityananda Kar and another, etc. etc. v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1991 SC 1134; 1991 Supp (2) SCC 516 .
7. REVERSING:.Reversing is the overturning on appeal by a higher court, of the decision of the court below that hearing the appeal. The appeal court will then substitute its own decision.
8. CONCESSION:Concession made by counsel on a question of law is not binding as precedent.
The Government of Tamil Nadu and others v. Badrinath and others, AIR 1987 SC 2381: 1987(4) SCC 654; State of Rajasthan v/s Mahaveer Oil Industries (1999) 4 SCC 357.
9. CONSENT: When a direction or order is made by consent of the parties, the Court does not adjudicate upon the rights of the parties nor lay down any principle.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 38: 1989(1) SCC 101; 1989 Supp. (2) SCR 929.
10. NON SPEAKING ORDER: Non speaking order dismissing special leave petition would not constitute binding precedent as to the ratio of the High Court involved in the decision against which special leave petition to appeal was filed. Ajit Kumar Rath v/s State of Orissa (1999) 9 SCC 596.
11.SPECIFIC EXCLUSION:A judgment stating therein itself that the ratio laid down there in shall not be binding precedent or shall not be followed or relied upon , can not be treated as binding precedent. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v/s Ram Ratan Yadav(2003) 3 SCC 437.
12 .ON FACTS: If a judgment is rendered merely having regard to the fact situations obtaiing therein , the same could not be declaration of law within meaning of Article 141.UP State Brassware Corp. Ltd v/s Uday Narain Pandey AIR 2006 SC 586 ;(2006)1 SCC 479;.
There is nothing in the Constitution which prevent the Supreme Court from the reversing its previous decision.
State of West Bengal v. Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1967 SC 997: 1967(2) SCR 170.
An earlier decision cannot be departed unless there are extra-ordinary or special reasons for doing so.
Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. The Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur,AIR 1976 SC 410;: 1996(4) SCC 124.
Non-consideration for foreign decisions. The decision of Constitution Bench which held the field a quarter of century without challenge. Reconsideration on account of non-consideration of an American decision, not cited before the bench, is not called for.
Smt. Maya Rani Punj v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, AIR 1986 SC 293: 1986(1) SCC 445: ;India Electric Works Ltd. v. James Mantosh and another, AIR 1971 SC 2313; 1971(1) SCC 24.
Thus , one of the tools of an Advocate to persuade a Court on the point canvassed before it, that is to cite a binding precedent, is not always without limitations and it has to be an endevour of every advocate to perform an exercise to find out the ratio decidendi of a judgement and its relevancy to the proposition put before the court in the context of the facts of the case, before the same is quoted.
Prospective overruling implies that an earlier decision of the same issue shall not be disturbed till the date of the later judgement. It is resorted to mould relief claimed to meet the justice of the case. It means that relief though the Petitioner may be entitled to in law because of interpretation of the law made by the Supreme Court, the same shall not be applicable to past transactions. Frequently such situations arise in service matters or tax matters where in the person already appointed for a long time based on interpretation of a law by the Apex Court in its earlier judgment , but the same is overruled in the later judgement, and therefore the person already in public employment need not be directed to vacate the post or the tax already imposed and collected is not directed to be refunded.
In normal course, a law declared by supreme court is the law assumed to be from the date of inception and prospective overruling is only an exception when the Supreme Court it self make the applicability of the ration of the judgement prospectively to do complete justice to the parties or to avoid chaos.It is therefore necessary that if a law is to be made applicable prospectively , the same is required to be so declared in the judgement when it is delivered .M.A.Murthy v/s State of Karnataka (2003) 7 SCC 517. If supreme court does not exercise such discretion to hold that the law declared by it would operate only prospectively, High Court can not of its own do so. Sarwan Kumar v/s Madanlal Agarwal AIR 2003 SC 1475; (2003) 4 SCC 147.
The author can be contacted at
You might also like:
The Concept of ‘Finality of Judgment’ : Supreme Court …
Public Interest Litigation : Definition, Origin & Evolution …
Power of High Courts to Compound / Quash Non-Compoundable …

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


20.       Moreover, it is well settled that fraud vitiates all proceedings. The issue of misrepresentation and fraud has been considered by the Courts time and again.  A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72, placed reliance upon the judgment in Lazarus Estates Ltd v. Beasley, 1956 All ER 341, wherein it has been observed:

No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud.”

21.  It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an order by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannathan, AIR 1994 SC 853.

22.   In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills,AIR 1994 SC 2151 and State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, 1994(2) SCC 481, the Supreme Court has observed that a writ Court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to promote perpetration of a legal fraud as the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith.  Equity is also known to prevent the law from the craft evasions and subtleties invented to evade law.”

23.  The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation, and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate  the fraud by entertaining the petitions on their behalf vide District Collector and Chairman, U.S.W School Society v. M. Thirupura Sundri Devi, 1990(3) SCC 655; and Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, 1996(73) FLR 1676(SC).

24.   In United India Insurance Company Ltd v. V. Rajendra Singh, AIR 2000 SC 1165, the Apex Court observed that Fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries.


25.    A similar view has been reiterated in K.G. Ashok v. Kerala Public Service Commission, AIR 2001 SC 2010; and Kendiya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003(97) FLR 117 (SC).

26. In Upen Chandra Gogai v. State of Assam, AIR 1998 SC 1289, the Apex Court held that the Court should not validate an action which was not lawful at inception.”  Nor should the Court permit an appointment made by giving a go-bye to the essential mode of recruitment as provided by the Statutory Rules or the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution which have binding force and  the same cannot be permitted to be over looked/violated vide R.K. Trivedi v. Union of India, 1998 (9) SCC 58.

27.   Similarly, in New India Assurance Co, Shimla v. Kamla, AIR 2001 SC 1419, the Apex Court held that an order which is null and void remains inexecutable and unenforceable forever as it cannot acquire legal validity by any process of sanctification whatsoever for the reason that forgery is anti-thesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery.


28.  In Virendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P, 2004 (1) All WC 6, a Division Bench of  Allahabad High Court held that a lease executed in favour of a certain party which had been bequeathed by the original owner to a trust for building an eye hospital was wholly fraudulent, and hence was null and void.

29.   In United India Insurance Company Ltd v. V. Rajendra Singh (supra), the question whether a decree or an order of a Court obtained by fraud is void was again considered and it was held that such an order is wholly void.

30.  The Supreme Court followed its own earlier judgment in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs v. Jagannathan (dead) by L.Rs (supra), in which the Supreme Court observed:

Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago.  It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud  on the Court is a nullity and non est in the yes of law.  Such a judgment/decree by the first Court or by the highest Court has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or inferior.  It can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings.”

31.  The Supreme Court also relied on its earlier decision in Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt Ltd, where it was observed that since fraud amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court the Court has inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud.

32.  Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others, JT 1994 (5) SC 488.

33.  In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition.  The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.




March     21,2006              SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Inherent Powers of Courts under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Inherent Powers of Courts under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code

Justice P. Sathasivam
Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy has examined various judicial pronouncements on the Inherent Powers of the Courts under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We have already dealt with a similar topic titled ‘Power of Courts to Quash Criminal Proceedings : The Law‘, where Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan of the Supreme Court of India had examined the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in relation to quashing of criminal proceedings.
The relevant extracts from this latest judgment are reproduced hereinbelow;
6. Section 482 of the Code deals with inherent power of High Court. It is under Chapter XXXVII of the Code titled “Miscellaneous” which reads as under:
“482. Saving of inherent power of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
This section was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1923 as the High Courts were unable to render complete justice even if in a given case the illegality was palpable and apparent. This section envisages three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely:
1. to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C., 2. to prevent abuse of the process of any court, 3. to secure the ends of justice.
7. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866=(1960) 3 SCR 388, this Court laid down the following principles:-
“(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;
(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction;
(iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and
(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.”
8. In State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1489, this Court has held as under:-
“In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.”
Though the High Court has inherent power and its scope is very wide, it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in exceptional cases. Section 482 is a sort of reminder to the High Courts that they are not merely courts of law, but also courts of justice and possess inherent powers to remove injustice. The inherent power of the High Court is an inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the courts subordinate to it. These powers are partly administrative and partly judicial. They are necessarily judicial when they are exercisable with respect to a judicial order and for securing the ends of justice. The jurisdiction under Section 482 is discretionary, therefore the High Court may refuse to exercise the discretion if a party has not approached it with clean hands.
9. In a proceeding under Section 482, the High Court will not enter into any finding of facts, particularly, when the matter has been concluded by concurrent finding of facts of two courts below. Inherent powers under Section 482 include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any court subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution.
10. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code.- (vide Kavita v. State (2000 Cr LJ 315) and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana & Anr. ((2003) 4 SCC 675).
If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.
11. The inherent power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, to do real and substantial justice, for administration of which alone Courts exist. Wherever any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent the abuse. It is, however, not necessary that at this stage there should be a meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case ends in conviction or acquittal. (Vide Mrs. Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 494; Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs. S. Bangarappa & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 41; and M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. vs. Md. Sharaful Haque & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 9).
12. It is neither feasible nor practicable to lay down exhaustively as to on what ground the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised. But some attempts have been made in that behalf in some of the decisions of this Court vide State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others (1992 (4) SCC 305), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and Another vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Another (1995 (6) SCC 194), and Indian Oil Corp. vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006 (6) SCC 736).
13. In the landmark case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335) this Court considered in detail the provisions of Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. This Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
14. In Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736 a petition under Section 482 was filed to quash two criminal complaints. The High Court by a common judgment allowed the petition and quashed both the complaints. The order was challenged in appeal to this Court. While deciding the appeal, this Court laid down the following principles:
“1. The High courts should not exercise their inherent powers to repress a legitimate prosecution. The power to quash criminal complaints should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
2. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence.
3. It was held that a given set of facts may make out (a) purely a civil wrong, or (b) purely a criminal offence or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence.”
15. In State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540, it has been held that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The relevant passage reads thus:
“It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.”
16. In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 709, this Court held as under:-
“The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”
17. This Court, while reconsidering the Judgment in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia (supra), consistently observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc., the Court may consider “special facts”, “special features” and quash the criminal proceedings to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties.
18. The said Judgment was reconsidered and explained by this Court in State of Bihar & Anr. vs. Shri P.P. Sharma & Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1260 which reads as under:
“Madhaorao J. Scindhia v. Sambhaji Rao AIR 1988 SC 709, also does not help the respondents. In that case the allegations constituted civil wrong as the trustees created tenancy of Trust property to favour the third party. A private complaint was laid for the offence under Section 467 read with Section 34 and Section 120B I.P.C. which the High Court refused to quash under Section 482. This Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings on the ground that even on its own contentions in the complaint, it would be a case of breach of trust or a civil wrong but no ingredients of criminal offences were made out. On those facts and also due to the relation of the settler, the mother, the appellant and his wife, as the son and daughter-in-law, this Court interfered and allowed the appeal. Therefore, the ratio therein is of no assistance to the facts in this case. It cannot be considered that this Court laid down as a proposition of law that in every case the court would examine at the preliminary stage whether there would be ultimate chances of conviction on the basis of allegation and exercise of the power under Section 482 or Article 226 to quash the proceedings or the charge-sheet.”
Thus, the judgment in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia (supra) does not lay down a law of universal application. Even as per the law laid down therein, the Court can not examine the facts/evidence etc. in every case to find out as to whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in conviction. The ratio of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia (supra) is applicable in cases where the Court finds that the dispute involved therein is predominantly civil in nature and that the parties should be given a chance to reach a compromise e.g. matrimonial, property and family disputes etc. etc. The superior Courts have been given inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of court where the court finds that the ends of justice may be met by quashing the proceedings, it may quash the proceedings, as the end of achieving justice is higher than the end of merely following the law. It is not necessary for the court to hold a fullfledged inquiry or to appreciate the evidence, collected by the Investigating Agency to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized