Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum celebrates his 51st birthday today.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was born on 05.05.1972 to Shri Shankar Baburao Magadum and Smt. Pushpa Shankar at Chikodi, Belgaum District. His great grandfather Shri Ishwar Magadum was the first Chief Engineer of Bombay/Karnataka State during whose regime supply of Cauvery water to Bengaluru City was started. His father Shri Shankar Magadum having a strong background in the field of Education is the founder of Gnyan Sadhana Education Society, Chikodi.
Justice Sachin S Magadum completed Matriculation in G.S.E.S. English Medium School, Chikodi and Pre-University education and Degree from Basavaprabhu Kore College, Chikodi and Graduated LL.B. at R.L. Law College, Belagavi.
Justice Sachin S Magadum enrolled as an Advocate on 31.10.1998 and practised at Chikodi from 1998 to 2001. He started his career by joining the chambers of Shri O P Burji at Chikodi.
From 03/07/2001 to June 2008 he practised at the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, in the field of Civil, Criminal and Constitutional Matters. He appeared before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and other tribunals. While practising in Bangalore, he initially joined the chambers of Shri Vigneswar Shastry and later practised independently. After the establishment of the Circuit Bench at Dharwad he shifted practice to the High Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad and stood as Standing Counsel for the National Highways Authority of India and Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubbali.
Justice Sachin S Magadum then got appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 23.09.2019 and became Permanent Judge on 01.03.2021.
Justice Sachin S Magadum is a great sportsperson. He has excellent skill in cricket, lawn tennis and table tennis.
Some of the important judgments delivered by Justice Sachin S Magadum.
Karnataka Police Act. Failure to provide reasonable opportunity to the person sought to be removed from the local limits of his jurisdiction renders the order illegal. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/WfrOF59GJQYQgVKtXnjvQx6f1
Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act. Failure to implement the scheme substantially within five years and shifting of the scheme to other land results in lapsing of the acquisition proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Hb5AwXnGI91P2CM0SLMFoJEcp
Educational qualification cannot be insisted for transfer of authorization of licence on compassionate ground Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ZpFclsXiu5nwoYud3lPNvGBW
Landowner is entitled to additional interest on the compensation when dispossessed from the property before the initiation of the acquisition proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/boNDIz5Fkelkepz8XjO1teZ20
Karnataka SC-ST (PTCL) Act, 1978. In an appeal under Section 5A of the Act by the grantee, Deputy Commissioner can NOT stay mutation entry in the name of subsequent purchaser. Remedy is only under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ZORKi3wBXAlfBwhOHhkxZFCYT
C.P.C. Execution. Person who claims under a Will and seeks declaration of title and possession can NOT maintain application under Order 21 Rule 97 as obstructer. He has to file separate suit for declaration and possession. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/W1BX2nBw58m4Lc4Co8Sc2dNoq
Suit for possession based on title without seeking declaration of ownership is maintainable when the defendant does not assert the title to himself. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/bwOUYiHYqq2Zc4wlmsFQFhc8s
Suit against public trust. Court cannot entertain application seeking appointment of receiver by deferring the application seeking leave to prosecute the suit under Section 92 of CPC. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/99kJJbmjcpeU6HZvF6QdO95nl
Acceptance of lesser share by father in ancestral properties in family partition will not prevent his son from claiming actual/correct share in the properties. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/lH8UX2ApuNy7StVQeKgv4g366
Decree holder can decide in which of the several modes mentioned in Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code, he will execute his decree. The judgment debtor cannot invoke the Section. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/GgSR0z6iSSTq78PsYqzvYWWvS
Mere amendment to plaint adding properties describing them as joint family properties will not cause hardship since the nature of the properties need to be substantiated during the trial. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ON3MWU8ICHwXx6Qzg5x6VzKNb
Where property is sold under the Partition Act 1893, provisions of Order 21 Rules 84 & 85 CPC regarding mandatory deposit of entire balance sale price within 15 days do not apply. Court can extend time for such payment. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ftBEuUrvqx3sHe2V7cFsYvxKY
When a cross objection is not maintainable independently, then there is no question of maintaining two separate order sheets as per Rule 155 of the Civil Rules of Practice. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/dcje4BfRHhnQXqCEbr8pKokg6
In a suit for partition, defendant can seek direction to plaintiff to include certain properties in the plaint schedule and seek partition of the same. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ILh8GtkO4hA7IEoFpjKnVRvuI
Non-binding arbitration agreement with an option to litigate further if the parties do not resolve the disputes pursuant to such non-binding arbitration cannot be termed an arbitration agreement. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/00Rg07Jw5jZ5AnDf2lG2sCy7l
Advocate representing a party has a right to be physically present in a Remote Point when the evidence of his client is being recorded. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Jy4rDr9s2lZSwMbMYr8q4dFrE
Court exercising revisional power under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code can admit additional evidence/document. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/d5F5onkN7FiWSetM3ATFQU4Uc
Question of violation of building bye-laws or plan etc are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the planning authorities. Civil Court cannot try these aspects in a civil suit. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/up5BlwOF1ERz3PCnYpPDBRUbG
SARFAESI Act. Even person other than principal borrower, like tenant, can challenge the order passed under Section 14 only before the competent Tribunal. Writ petition is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/wvlbkDcWQyw7x6uZyCECmWLXs
Courts are under an obligation to follow religious text and old practices in religious disputes so long as they do not violate constitutional rights of an individual. Karnataka High Court while approving Bala Sanyasa. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/YcnhMaQFG6CVLFKHCK8Zab4Kh
On account of expansion of public interest litigation, we are witnessing frivolous litigations and increasing instances of abuse of public interest litigation. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/BNG5fqTj2q7KB2rBeyvwzTqYS
Guns are part of martial race Kodavas. Exemption of Kodavas under the Arms Act is a reasonable classification. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Di8lHzPxDofJYu0sZOVUXXLuo
Privatisation of Airports. Policy decision of the executive are best left to it and a Court should not interfere with the policy decision unless the decision of the authority is mala fide, arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/zEbsCgl9aoHhnNfo9RNKj6dQC
‘Planting trees on a barren Government land is not a crime. Afforestation is an essential tool to deal with global warming’. Karnataka High Court
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Lq1wZ1Mm7zcjgcwj0KBwljt5B
Karnataka SC-ST (PTCL) Act, 1978. If the grantee converts the granted land for non agricultural purposes, it is no more a ‘granted land under the Act’ and hence prior permission to sell is NOT necessary. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/6RtC2rw9UbeawCXsJfwnGZFcu
Karnataka SC-ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 is NOT applicable if the granted land is converted by the grantee to non-agricultural purposes under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/NMiN2CZSZ8JdZCAd2i2uxenk9
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1978. ‘Granted land’ (original grant to SC-ST persons) includes house sites or non-agricultural land also. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/3BcHZkmwX69KaHWO4KiWoYnQq
Land acquisition for Urban Development Authorities. Prolonged delay in issuing final notification after preliminary notification amounts to abandonment of acquisition. Landowner can utilize the lands in accordance with law. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Rur2eEXZMG7yKzmsosROngM24
Civil Procedure Code. Order 23 Rule 1(3)(a). Withdrawal suit. Scope explained. The object of the Rule is NOT to provide fresh opportunity to plaintiff who failed to make out a case. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/RuXXIrOvUnceHjnS8v7AXXevf
Evidence Act and Karnataka Stamp Act. Even a photocopy-xerox copy of the original document can be impounded and deficit stamp duty can be collected by the Court if the same is produced after laying proper foundation. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/6lstfgUodgBAVzDmHaQsFsrxN
Land acquisition. Kharab lands falling under category ‘A’ of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules belong to landowners and not to Government. Landowners are entitled to compensation. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/cA82Orf6qOpoXE6tmoYtZiv8w
C.P.C. Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. Grant of temporary injunction restraining usage of confidential information of plaintiff by defendant. Principles summarised. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/T1TxfItq0N90hp2Ro0DGRwmke
Mareva Injunction. Court can grant mareva injunction where recovery of amounts outstanding is a long drawn process and transfer of assets by defendant defeats the claim of the plaintiff. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/kNN4tUaMUDx1bDzYZy8rYFrmC
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Award rejecting claim if found to be illegal fresh award cannot be made by Court under Section 34. Only option is to set aside award and leave parties to resume Arbitration once again. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qUFbIxtepWCxHWeCMg61OZwwx
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Application under Section 9 is maintainable even after conclusion of arbitral proceedings and during Section 34 proceedings only in so far as the claim granted by the arbitrator. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/OAEKztRfhK7ZhoijVje4Lduvh
CPC. Attachment before judgment is a drastic power which should NOT be exercised mechanically to convert unsecured debt into a secured debt. Prima facie case and the chance of suit being decreed are relevant. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/VVRqjCkCocseG0gLmnDiGaC5w
Hindu Succession Act. Amended Section 6. Plea of prior partition. Mere partition decree will not sever joint family status. Until final decree is passed and allottees of shares are put in possession – there is no partition. Karnataka High Court.
DB
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/cVSv4aF0KiIjrAxeB849GREtT
Contempt of Courts Act. High Court has no power to take cognizance of contempt of Appellate Tribunal since the Tribunal is not court subordinate to High Court. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/4IrxfFssRPHNrHC094siXPldn
Specific Relief Act. Bar under Section 22 against grant prayer not sought for does not curtail power of the appellate Order XLI Rule 33 CPC. Court can refund of sale consideration even in the absence of prayer. Karnataka High Court.
DB
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/KOcjJTBvmF5QZZ8EhyMj545yC
Income Tax Act. Section 147. Mere change of opinion on consideration of the same material is not a ground to reopen the assessment. Full Bench Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/7sTlzX2KidKjHLINVfe3QDMBR
A member of the Bar is expected to act first as an Officer of the Court and thereafter as the mouthpiece of his client. Karnataka High Court censures lawyer for filing contemptuous petition. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/fzAXguziZ8tux8PINupTNoBcQ
Karnataka High Court follows 1948 Privy Council judgment on boundary dispute. The judgment has become Locus Classicus even after seven decades HC (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/MFsneyllF43iQKNdYSHvkQUMA
No confidence motion. Right to move not dependant on Rules.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/hu24Zoy3iv2dSrB6uRDY6Ct2X
Criminal Trial. Circumstantial evidence. Principles explained.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/gtC8Y2v1fKt4rkvOmpRnQnu7f
Daksha Legal 