The Karnataka High Court declined to entertain a writ appeal challenging the application of Union of India v. Ganapathi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., citing pendency of a review petition in the Supreme Court. The judgment does not create a new precedent but maintains the current legal position, granting liberty to revive the appeal if the review petition succeeds. The case affirms the prevailing precedent’s application and has limited binding effect.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/1138/2023 of INITIATING OFFICER UNDER THE PBPT ACT AND Vs SRI. KEMPE GOWDA |
| CNR | KAHC010483382023 |
| Date of Registration | 13-09-2023 |
| Decision Date | 01-03-2024 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, J. |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | N.V. Anjaria, Chief Justice |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka |
| Bench | Division Bench: N.V. Anjaria, CJ & T.G. Shivashankare Gowda, J. |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms application of Union of India v. Ganapathi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (SC) as followed by Single Judge |
| Type of Law | Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act); Appellate procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ appeal is sustainable when the Single Judge’s order follows a Supreme Court decision under review |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court found it unnecessary to maintain the appeal while a review petition against the relied-upon Supreme Court decision is pending, and dismissed the appeal with liberty to recall the order if the Supreme Court review petition succeeds. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Union of India v. Ganapathi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 5783/2022, SC] |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Parties to the case; limited binding effect generally due to procedural dismissal |
| Persuasive For | High Courts facing similar situations involving pending Supreme Court review of relied-upon decisions |
| Follows | Union of India v. Ganapathi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court, 2022) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Karnataka High Court Division Bench declined to adjudicate an appeal where the Single Judge had followed a Supreme Court precedent under review, dismissing the appeal with liberty to restore it if the review in the Supreme Court succeeds.
- This preserves the procedural rights of the Revenue without disturbing the existing application of the Supreme Court’s decision on benami transactions, pending review outcome.
- Lawyers should note the court’s approach of refusing to proceed on merits when the precedential foundation (Supreme Court decision) is under reconsideration, with explicit liberty to revive in case of change in law.
- No new substantive law on the PBPT Act was laid down.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Revenue/Appellant contended that the Single Judge’s judgment was based entirely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Ganapathi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.
- Counsel for the Revenue informed the Division Bench that a review petition against the Supreme Court decision was pending.
- The High Court Division Bench found it would be “unnecessary to maintain this writ appeal” while the Supreme Court’s review proceedings were pending.
- The appeal was dismissed, but the court granted express liberty to seek recall of this order in the event the Supreme Court’s review petition is allowed.
- No discussion on the underlying merits of the PBPT Act or interpretation of substantive rights; all present issues postponed subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court review.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Revenue/Appellant)
- The Single Judge allowed the writ petition solely based on Union of India v. Ganapathi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (SC).
- A review petition against the Supreme Court decision has been filed by the Revenue.
- Sought to keep the appeal alive, at least until the Supreme Court’s review is decided.
Respondent (Not detailed in the judgment)
No explicit submissions recorded in the judgment from the respondents.
Factual Background
- The Single Judge allowed a writ petition in favour of the respondents following the ratio of Union of India v. Ganapathi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court).
- The Revenue filed a writ appeal against this order.
- The Revenue’s counsel reported to the Division Bench that a review petition challenging the said Supreme Court decision was pending.
- The core legal issue was whether the appeal should continue during the pendency of that review.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment pertains to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act).
- No statutory provision was interpreted on merits because the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.
- The procedural approach was influenced by deference to the Supreme Court’s pending review process.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions; both judges agreed.
Procedural Innovations
- Dismissal of an appellate proceeding with specific liberty to restore if the apex court’s decision is reviewed.
- The appeal was dismissed on account of pendency of review in the Supreme Court and not on the case merits.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows Supreme Court precedent (Union of India v. Ganapathi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.) and defers further proceedings until review is decided.