What did the High Court hold?

The High Court upheld the lower court's decision to appoint a Court Commissioner. The court reasoned that a commissioner's expertise is valuable for the court to arrive at correct conclusions, especially in matters requiring special knowledge.

The petitioner, a road transport corporation, challenged an order appointing a Court Commissioner in a suit filed by a contractor for recovery. The petitioner argued that a commissioner was unnecessary for calculation-based claims.

What were the issues?

Whether a Court Commissioner is necessary for a recovery suit based on calculations, and if the court can suo motu appoint one.

The Executive Engineer vs Shri. T.G. Shet | Karnataka High Court 2017

Before: AND SHRI T.G.SHET

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION NO.112455/2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BELGAUM DIVISION, BELAGAVI REP BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P P HIREMATH AND SRI SUNIL S DESAI, ADVOCATES) AND SHRI T.G.SHET AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS OCC: CLASS-1 PWD CONTRACTOR R/O GURUKRUPA II CROSS OLD INCOME TAX OFFICE ROAD VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI I.S.UPPIN AND SRI G.S.TURAMARI, ADVOCATES) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO

2 QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2015, PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, ON I.A.NO.7 IN O.S.NO.163/2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER I.A.No.1 of 2017 fled by the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC which is the subject matter allowed in this writ petition filed by the defendant. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no rationality in making this application to appoint Court Commissioner. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for recovery which is on the basis of the calculation made by the plaintiff. For the purpose of calculation there is no necessity to appoint the court commissioner. What has been averred in the plaint plaintiff wants to prove the same. 2. I have heard the petitioner and gone through the papers. The court below thought it fit to appoint commissioner as otherwise it is difficult for the court

3 which has not special knowledge and expertise to arrive at right conclusions. Even without such an application the court could exercise inherent power to appoint commissioner if the situation demands it. 3. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition is rejected. The court below is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Sd/- JUDGE VB*

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, vs. SHRI. T.G. SHET,

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments