Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by an accused convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, which deal with murder and attempt to murder. The panel comprising Justice K. Surender and Justice J. Anil Kumar was dealing with the appeal filed by Kommu Anil. The appellant questioned his conviction for murder, in connection with the killing of four persons and injuries caused to two others in Karimnagar district in March 2012. He argued that there was no test identification parade and that the incident occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation, attracting Section 304 IPC, which covers culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The panel observed that the appellant stabbed six persons indiscriminately, killing four of them, and that the act was cruel and unusual. Holding that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which applies to sudden fights without intent, did not cover the case, the panel dismissed the appeal and directed that the accused, who is on bail, be sent back to prison to serve the remaining sentence. A separate appeal by the state seeking to bar the accused’s parole till his natural death was also dismissed, with the panel noting absence of any report from jail authorities that he misused bail or posed a continuing threat.
HC explains monetary limits of commercial courts
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar held that the minimum threshold or “specified value” for commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, stood at Rs 3 lakh following the 2018 amendment and does not require a separate notification by the state government. The panel was dealing with a civil revision petition filed by Janset Labs Pvt. Ltd, after a trial court at LB Nagar dismissed its plea on the ground that the suit did not meet the earlier Rs 1 crore threshold required for classification as a commercial suit. Rejecting this contention, the panel clarified that the 2018 amendment, which lowered the specified value from Rs 1 crore to Rs 3 lakh, applied across India, including Telangana. The panel observed that the term “specified value” referred to the monetary value of the dispute required for it to qualify as a commercial suit, whereas “pecuniary value” related to the jurisdictional limits of commercial courts and may be fixed by the state government in consultation with the High Court. “The requirement of a state notification cannot be read into the provisions of the Act,” the bench noted, emphasising that only the Centre could raise the base level beyond Rs 3 lakh. It pointed out that the prayers in the suit, which include recovery of Rs 58.58 lakh with interest, Rs 45 lakh as damages, and future interest, satisfied the statutory threshold. While the trial court’s order did not specifically address the specified value issue, the panel upheld its decision, finding no legal basis to reject the plaint. Dismissing the revision petition, the panel clarified that Janset Labs was free to raise all permissible legal arguments during the trial.
SCCL to pay SPRA to staffer.
Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court upheld the plea of an employee of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) for special piece rated allowances (SPRAs) while fixing his pay as general mazdoor and subsequently as coal filler. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Godala Narsimha Rao. The petitioner joined the company as a badli filler in 1989 and rose to the position of overman. The petitioner contended that his SPRAs as on November 1995 were not taken into account when his post was converted from general mazdoor to coal filler in December 1997. Instead, his pay was fixed at a lower increment, causing him financial loss. It was argued that the action was contrary to the company’s circular of November 1997, which entitled him to carry forward the allowances. On behalf of SCCL, it was contended that a subsequent circular issued in May 2003 barred reopening of cases prior to January 1999, and therefore the petitioner’s claim was untenable. The judge rejected this contention, observing that benefits earned by employees for their hard work could not be retrospectively withdrawn. Allowing the writ plea, the judge directed the company to calculate the arrears due to the petitioner in terms of the 1997 circular and pay the same within three months.
No proof of 40% disability. compensation reduced
Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda of the Telangana High Court reduced the compensation awarded to a 65-year-old woman by a Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (MVACT) from Rs 6.51 lakh to Rs 3.86 lakh, holding that there was no proof of 40 per cent permanent disability to justify the higher award. The judge was hearing an appeal by the TGSRTC questioning the grant of claim by the MVACT Chairman–cum–I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. The case arose from an accident in February 2011 when the claimant and the respondent in the current writ petition, Jangirala Shankaramma, fell while boarding an RTC bus and the vehicle’s wheel ran over her leg, resulting in multiple injuries and amputation of her left great toe. The tribunal in 2019 awarded Rs 6.51 lakh as compensation after holding the driver negligent. On appeal, the corporation contended that the award was excessive and unsupported by medical evidence on disability. The judge held that there was no proof of 40 per cent permanent disability and disallowed compensation under the heads of permanent disability and loss of future earnings. The compensation was reduced to Rs 3.86 lakh, while other amounts granted under heads such as pain and suffering, transportation, extra nourishment, and cost of artificial toe were upheld.
