Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court has recommended action against a city civil judge in Bengaluru for citing non-existent Supreme Court judgments while ruling on an application filed under the Civil Procedure Code.
“What is more disturbing is that the judge of the City Civil Court has cited two decisions that were never decided by the Supreme Court or any other court. The senior counsel for the plaintiffs has clearly stated that such decisions were not cited by the plaintiffs’ counsel. This act on the part of the judge requires further probe and appropriate action in accordance with the law,” Justice R Devdas observed in his order dated March 24. The matter is to be placed before the Chief Justice for action.
The case is a civil revision petition filed by defendants Samman Capital Limited and Samman Finserve Limited, challenging a Nov 25, 2024 order, by the civil judge. Realty firms Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and others were the plaintiffs in the said suit and Samman Capital Limited and Samman Finserve Limited the defendants.
According to submissions before the high court, Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and other plaintiffs had availed loans from Samman Capital Limited and the other defendant by pledging shares. After defaulting, the lenders issued a notice in Sept 2024 seeking the transfer of the pledged shares. In response, Mantri Infrastructure filed a commercial suit in the Bengaluru commercial court, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the lenders from proceeding further with the transfer of shares.
However, on Oct 1, 2024, Mantri firms withdrew the commercial suit, seeking liberty to file a fresh suit. Instead of filing a fresh suit before the commercial court, they filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Bengaluru.
The lenders filed an interlocutory application arguing that the suit be rejected as the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to hear it as it was a commercial dispute and therefore should be tried only by the commercial court.
While rejecting this plea, the 9th Additional City Civil judge cited two Supreme Court decisions—M/s. Jalan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Millenium Telecom Ltd. and M/s. Kvalrner Cemintation India Ltd. vs. M/s. Achil Builders Pvt. Ltd. However, it was later found that both decisions did not exist.
After reviewing the case, Justice Devdas pointed out that the plaintiffs had no explanation for withdrawing the commercial suit and filing a civil suit.
“In the considered opinion of this court, the application filed by the defendants to return the plaint, should have been allowed, for more than one reason. Firstly, the plaintiffs who had earlier filed a commercial suit, did not seek leave of the court while withdrawing the same, to present the suit before the civil court,” the judge observed while allowing the civil revision petition.
The high court remitted the matter to the 9th additional city civil and sessions judge, Bengaluru, to allow the plaintiffs to file an application seeking rejection of the suit.
