Allowed

Smt Prabhavathi Hiremath v. Sri Naveen H Kalra

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2013WP/15922/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash adverse remarks in an order transferring civil and maintenance cases. The High Court held that judicial officers must be given an opportunity to controvert allegations before adverse findings are made. All prejudicial remarks were expunged while the transfer order was treated as a legitimate exercise of discretion to allay apprehension of bias.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed to the extent of expunging all adverse remarks against the petitioner in the order dated 06.02.2013.

Smt Prabhavathi Hiremath Vs Sri Naveen H… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

¶6

W.P.Nos.15922/2013 & 18710/2013 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PRABHAVATHI HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O PANCHAKASHARISWAMY IVTH ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI K V NARASIMHAN, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI NAVEEN H KALRA S/O SRI. HARISH S. KALRA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RA/T NO.S-5, 2ND FLOOR, SLV PEARL APARTMENT KENCHANAHALLI RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE

¶13

SMT. MANVEERKAUR W/O SRI. NAVEEN H. KALRA D/O MANJIT SINGH ANAND AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.516, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL APARTMENT, SECTOR-7 PLOT NO.11, DWARAKA NEW DELHI-110075

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI B S ARAVINDA BABU, ADV. FOR R2

¶16

R1-SERVED)

¶17

¶18

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO; QUASH THE ADVERSE REMARKS/FINDINGS IN THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-E DATED 6.2.2013 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE IN CASES MIS. PET. NOS. 26 AND 27 OF 2013 TOUCHING THE CONDUCT/CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS BY PETITIONER.

¶19

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for appropriate direction to quash/expunge the adverse remarks/findings made against the petitioner in the order dated 06.02.2013 at Annexure-E to the petition.

¶22

The petitioner herein is the Presiding Officer of the

¶23

Court of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. In a proceedings inter-se between the respondents herein in G & WC No.77/2012 and M.C.No.3932/2012, respondent No.1 herein has filed petitions in Misc.No.26/2013 and 27/2013 under Section 24 of CPC to transfer G & WC No.77/2012 and M.C.No.3932/2012, pending on the file of the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, which was presided by the

¶24

¶25

petitioner herein. In the said petition, certain allegations of bias was made against the petitioner by referring to certain open remarks that is said to have been made by the petitioner during the course of consideration of G & WC No.77/2012 and M.C.No.3932/2012. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, while accepting such allegations has directed transfer of the petitions from the said Court. Neither of the parties have assailed the said order of transfer. However, in view of the remarks made during the course of the order, the petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by such observations/findings in the said order.

¶26

With regard to the power to be exercised under Section 24 of CPC, there can be no dispute that under the circumstances provided therein, the Principal Judge would be entitled to transfer cases to any other Court or withdraw cases from one Court and deal with the same. Hence, in my opinion, insofar as the ultimate direction issued by the Principal Judge of the Family Court to list the cases before another Court, the same in any event not being under challenge, need not be gone into.

¶27

¶28

The question however is as to whether the

¶29

learned Principal Judge was justified in accepting the allegation of bias made against the petitioner in the manner as it has been done?

¶30

To come to such conclusion, the observation of the Principal Judge would indicate that he has accepted the same merely because the allegations made in the petition imputing bias and pre-deposition on the part of the Presiding Officer was not refuted by the respondents to the transfer petition, in their objection statement. I am of the opinion that such conclusion is misplaced inasmuch as if at all there were certain allegations against the petitioner herein and if the learned Principal Judge was to accept the same, the same could have only been done, if the petitioner also had opportunity to controvert the same and not because one of the parties to the petition had not controverted.

¶31

Needless to mention that in catena of decisions of

¶32

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been observed that no observations or remarks should be made against the Judicial

¶33

¶34

Officer unless opportunity of controverting the same is granted to such person and the superior Court should desist from making remarks. Therefore, the observation made therein and the conclusion reached by the Principal Judge that in view of such allegations, the Presiding Officer had pre-judged the issue cannot be accepted merely because one of the parties alleged to that effect. Therefore all observations in the course of the order which are prejudicial to the petitioner shall stand expunged/quashed. However, the order of transfer shall be treated only as an exercise of discretion by the Principal Judge to withdraw cases from the said Court to be posted to another Court for trial which would also allay the apprehension of all concerned though the allegation is not substantiated.

¶35

In terms of the above, the petitions stand allowed, to the extent of expunging all remarks against the petitioner herein in the order dated 06.02.2013.

¶36

SD/-

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

hrp/bms

Smt Prabhavathi Hiremath v. Sri Naveen H Kalra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Prabhavathi Hiremath v. Sri Naveen H Kalra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mahesh B N Vs Smt. Rekha

Smt Nagalakshmi B S Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri Roli Mandanna Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Richard H Mascarenhas Vs the Manager the Federal Bank Ltd.

B Abdur Rahaman Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Sri S Lakshmanaiah Vs the Bangalore Development