Married daughter with siblings not entitled to compassionate job: TS HC

HYDERABAD: Justice K. Sarath of the Telangana High Court declared that a married daughter is not entitled to a compassionate appointment on the death of her father if she has siblings. The judge dismissed a writ petition filed by G. Sowmya seeking employment in the government as a junior assistant on compassionate grounds; her father Shyam Sunder had died in harness as an assistant manager in government service. In a joint application with her mother, and her younger brother, Sowmya said that she was married in 2007 but her husband had deserted her before the demise of her father in 2018. The government rejected her case on the ground that the case of a married daughter of the deceased government employee for compassionate employment can be considered only when she does not have an elder or younger brother or sister, and the spouse of the deceased employee is not willing to avail the offer. Justice Sarath reasoned that the scheme was to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the breadwinner. Therefore, it cannot be granted as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the employee’s family at the time of death or incapacity. Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependents of the deceased/incapacitated employee. Interpreting the government memo, he declared that the petitioner was not eligible to seek a compassionate appointment.

HC rejects plea wife alone can file DV Act case

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court upheld an office objection of the High Court that a writ petition was not maintainable in seeking to quash a domestic violence case. Dinesh Kumar, a resident of Chanakyapuri, Hyderabad, sought a prohibition against the Junior Civil Judge cum Additional Metropolitan Judge from entertaining a domestic violence case that his mother Roopa had filed. The Registry refused to number his petition on the question of maintainability. The petition filed by his mother, Kumar said, was not maintainable as there was no domestic relationship between him and his mother. The petitioner submitted, in vain, that a wife or another person who has a relationship in the nature of marriage alone is entitled to initiate proceedings of domestic violence, and not any other person. He pointed out that his mother did not come within the preview of Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Justice Sreenivas Rao on an interpretation of the DV Act pointed out that Section 2(f) stated that not only a wife but any family member living together as a joint family came within the definition of a domestic relationship. Admittedly, the respondent was the mother of the petitioner. Her specific claim was that she was living with the petitioner as a joint family and there was a domestic relationship. “In view of the same, respondent comes within the definition of aggrieved person as envisaged under Section 2(a) of the Act which says that any woman who is or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges that to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent,” the judge said. The judge rejected the plea that a wife alone was entitled to file a complaint under the DV Act and that no application under CrPc Section 482 to quash the case could be filed.

Land deal disputes should go to commercial court: HC

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court declared that a dispute arising out of a joint venture agreement for land development would fall within the definition of commercial dispute and that the parties must go to the commercial court and not approach the civil court. The bench comprising Justice P. Naveen Rao and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao upheld an order passed by the Special Court for Commercial Disputes, Hyderabad, on the question of its jurisdiction. The dispute arose on the basis of a joint venture agreement. The plaintiff, K.R.K. Reddy, complained in a suit that the defendant had agreed to develop a property on Road No. 1, Banjara Hills, as a joint venture in April 2009, and he invested Rs 2 crore. When the defendant failed to proceed according to the terms of the contract and failed to pay a sum of Rs 3 crore, he lodged a suit. The defendant, P. Shiva Mohan Reddy, moved a preliminary objection before the commercial court stating that that plaint must be returned as the dispute between him and the plaintiff was not of a commercial nature. After examining the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act 2009, the Commercial Court upheld its jurisdiction and ruled that the transaction between the parties was commercial. The High Court bench referred said it was not a simple agreement to buy land and put it to use, but to develop a land identified for the purpose of earn profits. Speaking for the bench, Justice Naveen Rao said, “On thorough analysis of the statutory scheme and precedent decisions, we hold that the commercial court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute flowing out of ‘joint venture agreement’ in the instant suit. We uphold the decision of Commercial Court. Civil revision petition fails.”