North India Statesman
[ad_1]
A shocking case has come to light in Karnataka, where a civil judge dismissed the petition, citing such decisions of the Supreme Court, which were not actually given. Following this revelation, the Karnataka High Court has recommended an inquiry against the judge.
What is the whole matter?
According to the Times of India report, the case is related to a civil revision petition, which was filed by Samman Capital Limited and Samman Finserv Limited. He challenged the order given by the Civil Judge of Bangalore in the High Court.
The case is related to Minister Infrastructure Private Limited and other litigants who pledged their shares to take loans from honor capital. When the borrowers defaulted the payment, the lenders issued a notice to transfer shares in September 2024. In response, Minister Infrastructure registered a case in the Bengaluru Commercial Court and demanded a stay on the action of the lenders.
Later, on 1 October 2024, Minister Infrastructure withdrew his case and filed it again in the City Civil Court. The lenders argued that the case can only be heard in the commercial court, so it should be dismissed.
Petition dismissed by citing fake decisions
The 9th Additional City Civil Judge of Bangalore made two decisions of the Supreme Court –
-
M/s. Jalan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Millenium Telecom Ltd
-
M/s. Kvalrner Cemintation India Ltd. vs. M/s. Achil Builders Pvt. Ltd
The petition was dismissed citing. But later it was revealed that these decisions had never been given by the Supreme Court.
High court’s strict comment
In March 2025, Justice Devdas while hearing the case said,
“The most disturbing thing is that the judge of the civil court cited such decisions that are not really in existence.”
He recommended the matter to be presented to the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court and said that further investigation and action is needed on the decision.
Further action
Following the directions of the High Court, the matter will now be reviewed and appropriate action can be taken against the concerned civil judge.
