Justice Veerappa retires today. (Born on 1 June 1961)
It is with great admiration and respect that we reflect upon the remarkable career of this honest, bold, and hardworking individual. Throughout his tenure on the bench, Justice Veerappa has consistently exemplified the virtues of integrity, courage, and diligence, leaving an indelible mark on the judicial system.
First and foremost, Justice Veerappa has been a paragon of honesty. His unwavering commitment to upholding the principles of truth, fairness, and justice has been a guiding light for all who have appeared before them. His ethical conduct and transparent approach to each case have earned him the trust and confidence of the legal community and the public at large.
He has exhibited boldness in his decisions, fearlessly tackling complex legal issues and making tough choices that were in the best interest of justice. With an unyielding dedication to the law and a deep understanding of its nuances, he has demonstrated the courage to stand up for what is right, even in the face of adversity.
Justice Veerappa has also been an epitome of hard work throughout his career. His tireless efforts in meticulously examining the factual and legal position, researching legal precedents, and hearing arguments have ensured that every case received the utmost attention and consideration. His commitment to thoroughness and a fair trial has set a high standard for his colleagues and inspired many aspiring legal professionals.
Beyond his individual qualities, Justice Veerappa has played a pivotal role in promoting the values of honesty, boldness, and hard work within the legal community. His mentorship and guidance have positively influenced countless junior lawyers, encouraging them to uphold the highest ethical standards and strive for excellence in their practice.
As we bid farewell to Justice Veerappa on this momentous occasion, we express our profound gratitude for his invaluable contributions to the judiciary. His legacy of honesty, boldness, and hard work will undoubtedly endure, serving as a testament to his exceptional career and inspiring future generations of legal professionals.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.Veerappa: Born on 1st June, 1961. Studied in Primary Education at Government Primary School, Nagadenahalli, Srinivasapura: Secondary Education at Government Higher Primary School, High School and Pre-University Education at Government High School, Composite Junior College, Srinivasapura, Kolar; Degree at Government College, Kolar and LL.B., at Renukacharya Law College, Bengaluru.
He started practice in the High Court of Karnataka in the year 1988 in the office of Prof. M.S.Gopal, Senior Advocate at Bengaluru
Appointment as Government pleader on 01.07.1995 and worked upto 15.09.2000 and as Additional Government Advocate on 25.05.2005 and continued as such till 1.1.2015 by conducting various cases. worked as Government Advocate for more than 15 years in all successive Governments.
Ministry of Education & Social Welfare, Government of India has awarded “Three Stars” Merit Certificate for Completion of the National Physical Efficiency Tests (Seniors) COnducted in the year 1979 in the state of Karnataka on 16.06.1979.
He has passed National cadet Corps (N.C.C.) ‘B’ Certificate on 11.5.1985 (CPL) and National Cadet Corps (N.C.C.) ‘C’ Certificate during Feb 1983 (SGT) under the authority of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India.
He has represented the Bengaluru University in Wrestling in the year 1984-85. Won first place in Kabaddi in Inter College Competition during the year 1984-85
Appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 02-01-2015 and Permanent Judge on 30.12.2016.
Some of the Important Judgements delivered by Justice Veerappa.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Deputy Commissioner has no power under the Act to stop construction on agricultural lands. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/tdWZHaALRnuGz0MEYzQreD2RN
“Speedy trial in NIA cases guarantees the fundamental right under Article 21”. Karnataka High Court directs establishment of three more Special to ensure speedy trial and disposal of the NIA cases. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/OmixS2OMoTfqrljhC59QMaM87
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. Transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor. Karnataka High Court reiterates. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aUu8uX7bmkOYVriDpbGom08vE
Criminal trial. Denying cross-examination violates a person’s life and liberty which are not only fundamental rights but also basic human rights. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qhP62q66ATPHhdLMUcCTX8cxa
“It is the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of the Courts and Majesty of the law”. Karnataka High Court sends the contemnor to jail for selling property in gross violation of interim order. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/l99JHmqInDCZZT8yj3E6xS8KR
“Remove encroachments and provide burial grounds to all the villages and towns”. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/cxScGAAjYuRJ9J4La5kIUXT92
Muslim couple enter into agreement to adopt unborn child of Hindu couple to overcome Muslim Law barrier. Karnataka High Court expresses shock while nixing the agreement. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/LdDURFb0oyUCI1CKzs6Ht8viF
Willful disobedience of the Court order to survey land of the aged/poor farmer. Karnataka High Court imposes cost of Rs. 3 lakhs recoverable from the Tahsildars responsible for the inaction. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/P7L8xsJ9Ftn31Xi5EUxzRyYxU
“Unborn child has a right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” Karnataka High Court while nixing the agreement to adopt unborn child. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qGDWkrXKEkdkSbStLTgzVGWCn
Judiciary. ”Woodpeckers inside pose a larger threat than the storm outside”. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/iKrP4EJTE9wLjwLPA8bTTJ1h4
Land Acquisition Act. In respect of the awards passed after 2013 Act, appeal is maintainable only under Section 74 of the 2013 Act and not under Section 54 of the 1894 Act. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/yYoD3YlUODtHxWYw0ay4VJtmq
Karnataka High Court deprecates speculative litigation by colleges harming educational prospects of the students. Imposes exemplary costs. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/e66BRxeHwkda3cRTpaVBQyuGB
Preventive detention. Detaining authority cannot plead ignorance of representation by detainee. Non-consideration of the representation renders the detention illegal. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/uxfPpO5NbKzlgJJNkXJeDDXOq
Judges cannot maintain angelic silence when the court orders are violated with impunity. Karnataka High Court convicts husband who failed to pay maintenance to wife despite repeated court orders. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/mKaVg1ZSlU8WdCiGY8MwkT9yr
Karnataka High Court declares creation of the Anti Corruption Bureau unconstitutional.(DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/lNoCjEnpODYsV9A3ZmnPaOSz7
”Love should be from heart to heart and not mere external attraction” – Youngsters should act responsibly while choosing life-partners against parents’ will. Karnataka High Court implores. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/XG50sf1GzdmcSl3YRXz1GA3zD
Review. An error, which is not self-evident and to be detected by the process of reasoning, can not be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the Court to exercise the power of review. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/lNWIWXA1XFG7LLXZll95CNEVi
Appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is maintainable before division bench of the High Court only against an interlocutory order granting or refusing to grant bail passed by the Special Court. Karnataka High Court (FB). (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/FBwebZL0wC2MnokDaoCb4OK49
Imposition of realistic, punitive cost is necessary to prevent abuse of process of court. Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 50,000 cost on husband who filed frivolous Habeas Corpus petition seeking custody of child from wife. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/tUb8VMk0OUlI4MUexYADa0FL7
”It’s time to restore confidence of the people in independent judiciary”. Karnataka High Court charges Tahshildar for contempt of Court for not entering name of the farmer in revenue records despite court orders. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/68Ry1ZQTYW7LuskFG7vt3HiqJ
”Sambhavami Yuge Yuge”. Court has to act as ‘Societal Parent’ to protect Dharma as preached by Bhagvan Sri Krishna in Bhagavadgeetha. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/yzLLxFh4BQCmdZueaT5akDbQb
Frivolous litigation against Azim Premji and Forum Shopping. Karnataka High Court convicts office bearers of India Awake for Transparency for contempt of court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/JCzaV462tXkaXCkBwNyNTSS7w
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. District court has no jurisdiction to decide child custody issue unless the child resides within its jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Qljk50exXNJtcZkjOoEPfSanH
”Stop treating the child as chattel since such conduct violates child’s right under Article 21”. Karnataka High Court advises parents while rejecting claim of wife for sole custody of the child. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/UcmuS1Yl1eOIVdbdQQrPcNyI4
In-service employee tendering technical resignation on being appointed to new post in new department on direct basis. His past service shall be counted for consequential benefits when discharged from new post. Karnataka High Court.(DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/RyQiAk99LWBdTrsyYv5MwMguk
”Classic case where the political parties and the police tried to bury the truth”. Karnataka High Court upholds CBI investigation against former Minister Vinay Kulkarni and others in a murder case. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/v7Pa2mpJs6qZQ5R0lCXbOIVex
‘Acid attack is not only a crime against victim, but a crime against the entire civilized society. It is high time to deal with the acid attackers with iron hand.’ Karnataka High Court upholds life sentence to acid attacker. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/0YkRvJRrnLkrok11ekMO10wLD
Criminal Law. Testimony of a witness who identified the accused for the first time in Court without knowing him before, and in the absence of any Test Identification Parade, would be valueless and unreliable. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/mY1PIXZM0ajyiKOSeJpO8YW8q
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Regular First Appeals filed before the 2007 amendment, whose value is less than Rs.15 lakhs, have to be heard by the Division Bench. Amendment applies only to appeals filed after 28 August 2007. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/PXoK3UOnorXI9fFmo3hRJY72F
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Death of employee. Amount received by dependents under group insurance scheme is NOT a pecuniary advantage and can NOT be deducted from the MVC compensation. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/rDJ9RaN3TSSjBom75EJF8zhJg
Criminal Law. Life imprisonment means imprisonment for complete span of life. Consecutive sentences in case of conviction for several offences at one trial does not arise. Application for clarification of sentence is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/k0E96nReluOkSg9gvuq8PnrHW
Specific Relief Act. Where specific performance of oral agreement is sought for heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that there was consensus ad idem between the parties for a concluded oral agreement for sale of immovable property. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/WcXQuo01BGv85t9aR6QAVPC3s
It is high time for the government to introspect and take stringent measures to protect forest and government lands. Karnataka High Court expresses deep concern over encroachment of forest and government lands. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/CIurCR0mz9fwk3ZUF4Xk1IKRe
Cr.P.C. Appeal by victim under Section 372 will not abate if victim dies during the appeal proceedings. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/E1RWZHZuQd17PLnJMsG4bHc1u
Adverse possession. Person occupying forest land in violation of Karnataka Forest Act 1963 cannot claim adverse possession against the government. Government directed to take possession. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/YZeQthlxjR67yFQhFtjjjXUIm
Civil Procedure Code. Order XII Rule 6. Judgment on admissions. Admission must be absolute and not interlinked with issues to be determined after evidence. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Le6a9YKgzpF48JYpGTwqi17ww
Cruelty by husband falling short of gravity under Section 304B. He can still be convicted under Section 498A. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/amW5VPpUJkCTM9ZoDa7y7rJ0K
Suit for specific performance. Question of readiness and willingness becomes immaterial when the agreement itself is doubtful.(DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/FchTA38UTeybKIbK3M8hfOIwa
Daksha Legal 