B.T. Krishnappa Vs. Principal Munsiff, Kolar and ors.

B.T. Krishnappa vs Principal Munsiff, Kolar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jul 06, 1979

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/375487

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/375487
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: K.A. Swami, J.
Decided On: Jul 06, 1979
Case Number: Writ Petn. No. 4285 of 1979
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972[C.A. No. 39/1972]Section 4(6); [Subhash B. Adi, J] Gratuity amount Deduction of amount towards damage caused by employee Termination of services of driver on account of accident caused by him in which bus got damaged Damage was quantified to the tune of Rs.25,000/- - Held, Provision...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - 0rder 18, Rule 18; Constitution of India - Article 14

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

B.T. Krishnappa

Advocate G.N. Seshagiri Rao, Adv.

Respondent

Principal Munsiff, Kolar and ors.

Advocate U.N. Narayana Rao, Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - 0rder 18, Rule 18; Constitution of India - Article 14
Reported In: AIR1980Kant106

Excerpt

- payment of gratuity act, 1972[c.a. no. 39/1972]section 4(6); [subhash b. adi, j] gratuity amount deduction of amount towards damage caused by employee termination of services of driver on account of accident caused by him in which bus got damaged damage was quantified to the tune of rs.25,000/- - held, provisions of section 4(6) of act confer power on state road transport corporation to deduct amount towards damage from gratuity amount. income tax act,1961[c.a.no.43/1961] -- sections 192 & 10(10): [subhash b. adi, j] exemption from deduction of income-tax from gratuity ceiling limit of rs.3,50,000/- fixed upto which in come tax is not deductible held, state road transport corporation cannot deduct income tax from gratuity amount on ground that gratuity is paid under regulations and not under the gratuity act. - 2. an interesting argument was advanced by shri g......provisions are opposed to article 14 of the constitution.2. an interesting argument was advanced by shri g. n. seshagiri rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that o. 18 r. 18 empowers the court to make an inspection and record the fact observed by the court at such an inspection and such a record shall form a part of the record of the suit and that being so, the party will not have an opportunity to challenge the same before the court and thereby, the court will be exercising an absolute power, hence it was submitted that it will be opposed to article 14 of the constitution.3. i have not been able to comprehend how the provisions of order 18, rule 18,are opposed to article 14 of the constitution. inspection is made by the court in the presence of the parties and the relevant facts observed in the presence of the parties during the course of inspection will be recorded. that being so, there is no reason whatsoever to think that the court will be exercising an absolute power, it is nothing but recording the facts -as found during the course of inspection. this provision is in tended to advance -the cause of justice and to avoid unnecessary evidence being adduced in the case. further, the record made of the facts observed during the course of observation enables the court to give its verdict in conformity with the real nature of things. thus the inspection by the court in cases which are required to be decided it the preference to certain things alleged to exist will great help the court to arrive at a correct decision. if the court acts arbitrarily during the course of inspection, it is always open for correction either in the if appeal preferred against the decree passed in the suit or in revision in deserving cases. the application of the provision is not confined to a particular class of persons or to a particular class of suits that being so, the contention of shri seshagiri rao that the provisions contained in 0. 18 r. 18 of the c, p. code,.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. In this petition, under Articles 226(1)(a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution, the petitioner who is the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 125/77 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Kolar has challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in 0. 18 R ' 18 Civil P. C. as amended by Act No. 104 of 1976, on the ground that the said provisions are opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. An interesting argument was advanced by Shri G. N. Seshagiri Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that O. 18 R. 18 empowers the Court to make an inspection and record the fact observed by the Court at such an inspection and such a record shall form a part of the record of the suit and that being so, the party will not have an opportunity to challenge the same before the Court and thereby, the Court will be exercising an absolute power, hence it was submitted that it will be opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution.

3. I have not been able to comprehend how the provisions of Order 18, Rule 18,are opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution. Inspection is made by the Court in the presence of the parties and the relevant facts observed in the presence of the parties during the course of inspection will be recorded. That being so, there is no reason whatsoever to think that the Court will be exercising an absolute power, It is nothing but recording the facts -as found during the course of inspection. This provision is in tended to advance -the cause of justice and to avoid unnecessary evidence being adduced in the case. Further, the record made of the facts observed during the course of observation enables the Court to give its verdict in conformity with the real nature of things. Thus the inspection by the Court in cases which are required to be decided it the preference to certain things alleged to exist will great help the Court to arrive at a correct decision. If the Court acts arbitrarily during the course of inspection, it is always open for correction either in the if appeal preferred against the decree passed in the suit or in revision in deserving cases. The application of the provision is not confined to a particular class of persons or to a particular class of suits that being so, the contention of Shri Seshagiri Rao that the provisions contained in 0. 18 R. 18 of the C, P. Code, are opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution, is untenable. It was also further submitted that by reason of such power, the Court will be playing a role of a witness which is incompatible with the function of the Court' to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. This contention also is equally untenable. As already pointed out, the court makes the inspection in the presence of the parties as a Court and not as a witness. The inspection is made for the purpose of enabling the Court to decide the case and to arrive at a just decision. That being so, there is no ground to issue Rule. Hence, the writ petition is rejected.

4. Petition dismissed.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1979 Same Parties B.T. Krishnappa vs Principal Munsiff, Kolar and ors. Same Subject Constitution Same Judge K.A. Swami, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - 0rder 18, Rule 18; Cons...

Constitution