Honble Mr. Justice H. P. Sandesh is celebrating his 59th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hethur Puttaswamygowda Sandesh was born on 2 December 1964, at Hethur in Sakaleshpur Taluk, Hassan District to Late Sri. Puttaswamy Gowda and Late Smt. Kaveramma as a second son. He had his Primary Education at Hethur and Sakaleshpur. Secondary Education at Pre-University Government College, Sakaleshpur.
Thereafter, he obtained 5 years Law Degree from M. Krishna Law College, Mysuru University from 1987 to 1992 and started practice with Sri.K. Anantharamaiah, Senior Advocate on both Civil and Criminal Law at Hassan. Thereafter, shifted his practice to Bengaluru in 1994. He has practiced both on Civil and Criminal side in High Court and District Judiciary in Bengaluru.
He was directly selected as District & Sessions Judge in 2002 and worked as First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya and Mangaluru, Principal Secretary to Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Registrar (Administration) in High Court of Karnataka, Principal District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru and Haveri, Registrar (Infrastructure), Registrar (Administration), Secretary to Hon’ble The Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Karnataka and elevated as Additional Judge, High Court of Karnataka on 03.11.2018 and permanent Judge on 26.02.2020.
He got married to Smt. Hemavathi and has two daughters by name Kum. Sahana Sandesh, who is an Engineering graduate and Kum. Sneha Sandesh, who is pursuing her MBBS., and now doing her internship in M.S.Ramaiah Medical College, Bengaluru.
Hobbies: Reading and playing Cricket.
Important judgments delivered by Hon’ble Justice H.P. Sandesh.
Criminal Procedure Code. Section 482. Mere pendency of civil suit on the issue is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings when serious allegations are made in chargesheet. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/48FA9iVPCttGxZ7khhaFJidMJ
Negotiable Instruments Act. Whether a cheque is issued in respect of a time barred debt is a matter for trial. Proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/7bphhFPLCyWieyTYZBh9CjXY7
Criminal Procedure Code. Section 482. When prosecution prima facie establishes receipt of huge money by son relatable to crime of corruption by the father defence of private transaction cannot be accepted to quash proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/VjYpHKDHuwuYGowWp7l7rw424
Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138. Non mentioning of transaction date in the complaint is not fatal to the case when evidence is led to corroborate the transaction details. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/z659c6I3c06GsImwRjAcrVvGx
Negotiable Instruments Act. Imprisonment ordered in default of fine in different and independent transactions. Sentence will run consecutively and NOT concurrently. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/QGrJExDOxydA37BfhSNfphOWr
Cr.P.C. Section 482. Though a transaction is civil in nature, if the complaint specifically avers dishonest and fraudulent acts inducing complainant to part with money, the criminal proceedings can NOT be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/x7T1G9RZnXL7341qcduK4KF0o
Rape. Alleged bad character of a woman does not justify sexual assault on her. Karnataka High Court condemns the police machinery which tried to protect the rapist police officer.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/UzKC7topOemiCdv9opXdl8pwc
Motor Vehicles Act. Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation under personal accident claim benefit even when the borrower of the vehicle met with personal accident. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aIFtiKs5cg9Baqi5LiX46HTD1
Motor Vehicles Act. After 1994 amendment, in case of goods vehicle, owner or his authorised representative are covered and entitled for compensation even though policy was issued earlier to 1994. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/EZ3xGcS9Vh85cYKQTSyle5AoX
Motor Vehicles Act. Vehicle covered under valid insurance policy driven by person without a driving licence at the time of accident. Insurance company has to pay compensation and recover the same from the owner. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/H43ffM7Bb3biILEMZzBrpue54
Motor Vehicles Act. Comprehensive policy covers employee of owner of vehicle involved in accident. Insurance company is liable to pay compensation for death of such employee. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/z49AJgYjojzzfYLAPHPQL6afP
Negotiable Instruments Act. Against the order of acquittal passed by the first appellate court, appeal to High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C is maintainable. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aVozOBbe9iHM7zs1Z9FMdzr1g
Forgery of document produced before the Court. If the document was already tampered before its production before the Court, bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) for prosecution will not apply. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/F55FMapE0UuHkjlzO6xPJoK0M
Complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act filed without application to condone delay. Limitation issue raised for the first time in appeal. Appellate Court can send matter back to trial court by permitting complainant to file necessary application. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qZCAffwdcFDU3U8aYxQgqWYnS
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
Suit for specific performance. When entire sale consideration is paid and possession of the property is also delivered to the agreement holder, the readiness and willingness issue becomes illusory. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Ypn2mPw28jITgGrOhft3XoJ7w
Defamation. Onus of proving two ingredients; truth of the imputation and the publication of the imputation for the public good, is on the accused. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ZlD1aqZA5JrlbuBXWDDzANb0T
Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Court cannot frame charge for ‘adulteration’ when prosecution case is ‘misbranding’. Judgement based on such charge liable to be set aside. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/56B1pCoudopOGayj5MkxZgn4R
Make sure that men of integrity are posted to Anti Corruption Bureau which is established to prevent corruption. Karnataka High Court directs the Chief Secretary to Government.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qVZBaxbiffBdsucvbuMzlw7H1
”Financial dependency is not the Ark of The Covenant”. Even the married sons and daughters are also entitled to compensation under the MVC Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/4QlCbLZ3vJ9PqOmfAwRxA6Jq3
Workmen’s Compensation Act. There is no bar to enhance compensation invoking Order XLI Rule 33 of the CPC even in the absence of an appeal by the claimants. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/NGpz5YHCO8W3EyNxPAYs9Ze0p
Death of driver due to heart attack while taking rest in parked vehicle shall also be construed as death during the course of employment. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/g8EUlgRXYwWMWqigVJf0EnB59
Motor Vehicle Act. Karnataka High Court exercises power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC to enhance compensation from 11 lakhs to 44 lakhs in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/FvwDAUhvvr21fdTqcRQcRVFwZ
MVC Act. Insurance Company cannot escape its liability by merely branding driving license as fake without actually proving the same. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/iB7VDZtxGbE1dYhLSAd82MX8u
After collecting premium for one year, Insurance Company cannot disown its liability on the ground that the registration of the vehicle expired in the meanwhile. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/GigIj3zjFWAw4kCTgb5gextdf
Workmen Compensation Act. When the employer has not maintained the register, the salary claim of the claimant has to be accepted. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/tkuuVrGMxdu5aSXJ6MTKuktJF
After issuing the policy, Insurance Company cannot avoid liability if the cheque towards premium is dishonoured unless the Insurer cancels the policy and intimates the insured. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/QNSzC4b3LJJnIhwwbXzGuaX9r
Failure to conclude criminal trial expeditiously cannot be a ground to grant bail when the involvement in serious offences is made out. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/o8ZoD9s7BSxk7sw2zJ0TMVqRw
Rejection of earlier bail petition does not bar the Court from considering further developments on different considerations in a successive bail petition subject to gravity of the offence. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/FgEu4HDTYbKvaixUAgcvpiqmm
Even the illegitimate children of the deceased are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/pmNHLx8GvRLMRWLOw7uTT90eh
Order rejecting bail petition does not preclude another petition on a later occasion giving more materials, further developments and different considerations. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/uSTaA2BQnG0u97AeShZoDYhmw
Order 41 Rule 33 CPC can be invoked to enhance compensation even in an appeal filed by the insured as well as Insurance Company in the absence of appeal filed by the claimant. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/3sdAx8ZBgXOBjYC9gp99wETxy
Bail. Merely because another accused who was granted bail was armed with similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether bail can be granted on the basis of parity. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/kkH4gMKbqdtaAMizQ0BT2wAz6
NDPS. Possession could mean physical possession with animus; exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment; or personal knowledge as to the existence of the contraband and the intention based on such knowledge. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/rUWN0mAFRVJK0XsGieSZNO0Ih
Petition for anticipatory bail is NOT maintainable once accused appears through his Advocate and gets exemption from appearance. He can seek only regular bail. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aiBcpoGv4FpNuBFUEusXh0w3s
Hindu Succession Act. Grant of occupancy rights in favour of a woman member of the joint family under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act cannot be considered as her absolute property under Section 14. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/MOtU3D8iHW6jgStwsEk163Hwq
Permissive possession cannot be claimed as adverse possession unless the possession is adequate in continuity, adequate in publicity and adverse to a competitor. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/NbmhIkzvEw6XUP66W807ZQDGj
Limitation for suit for comprehensive relief of declaration and possession is 12 years under Article 65 and not 3 years under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/BscaGpnHiOByhvRKT2s8YbHy0
Suit for specific performance. When suit is filed after non-alienation period is over, the suit cannot be said to be barred by time especially when entire sale consideration is paid under the agreement of sale. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Kd1u0me8IMgfvfela3JZl1tKS
Disposition property in unnatural, improbable or unfair manner and exclusion of or absence of adequate provisions for the natural heirs without any reason is a ground to doubt the execution of a Will. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/0hmXB9EYreHdsB16ElXBHM1nO
Though sale in violation of non-alienation clause is voidable, if no action is taken against the purchaser or the sale for long time, by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, the purchaser gets his title perfected. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/rmudGGMY1ZKYmKr18tS14qb3f
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Limitation under Section 34(3) commences only from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party applying for setting it aside. Mere knowledge of the award is not enough. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aH9c61sGf7q9Kroj20i00yP1N
Suit for partition filed several years after the property was sold by the karta or the mother is hit by the doctrine of acquiescence and the same is liable to be dismissed. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/XGUr2e0ZtuvnX4nzP7z8jKFFG
Suit seeking direction to conduct prayers/mass prayers in Church in a particular language invoking fundamental right under Article 25 does not involve Canon Law. Plaint cannot be rejected on this ground. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/AIRsNBR8nsiYuzzDjqTJwpoAi
Suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor, can be filed only before the Family Court and the District Court has no jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/bZ7O71z1DJx0TROtu7TiYCR0U
Suit for partition filed three years after the minor coparcener attaining majority merely pleading that alienation of ancestral properties by karta is not binding on him is barred by law of limitation. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/l8o5RTOBOhfBXLpztTaknOuwM
Counter claim need not be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court. When counter claim exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction, the Court shall return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC to be presented before the proper Court. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/B7Mi3jZtu4ezANan0aMIJgkHP
When the rent and the leased area are within the prescribed limit under the Rent Act, the Court must reject the plaint for ejection filed under the Transfer of Property Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/6w6sKb3jogeFNktHRx1evjsHU
If the premises used for commercial purpose is more than fourteen square meters, it is excluded from the applicability of the Karnataka Rent Act. This can’t be defeated on the ground that its rent is less than the amount stipulated. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/B4Cl9o7KEsMJkU5gCzUBZ62lQ
Indian Succession Act. Jurisdiction of the court to grant Succession Certificate is based on the ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of death with an intention to stay at that place for a considerable length. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/PGMGRehDoJ07cIohU7LZ0WNl3
Mere pendency of second appeal against dismissal of suit for specific performance of sale agreement between landlord and tenant is not a ground to postpone the eviction proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/vC9cJKGP0LnJmBG5AyOoTtxzc
Suit by purchaser of property during pendency of civil suit, seeking declaration that the decree passed in the suit is not binding on him, is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/iD95E3MUNh1cSQbc6XJgiyG2T
Plaintiff not signing every page of the plaint is not a ground to reject the plaint when the verification column is duly signed by the plaintiff. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/RSed4hOxmUSjQoGlU6kNKxgL8
Cheque Bounce cases. Moratorium contained in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code applies only to Corporate Debtors. Directors are liable under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/D5BdzfNtpM2bRwkavFCeKoy3v
Constructive resjudicata under Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC does not apply when the later suit is based on fresh cause of action. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/AMR0LtIApJWg01vM5U9FRcMBf
When specific averments are made in the plaint, the defence is immaterial while considering application under Order 7, Rule 11. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/wLXsfRg5PsyDYyeZPHR1icDGx
Resjudicata is a mixed question of fact and law. Plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. without holding full fledged trial. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/kRkz8MoxscUmVYvVVdgWStUtB
Attachment under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC. Even where the defendant is removing or disposing his assets, attachment before judgment will not be issued if the plaintiff is not able establish prima facie case. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/0qeg5vKPP6dK4hUqnzKF0o42X
Appeal against grant/refusal to grant temporary injunction. Appellate Court can mould the relief taking note of the relief sought in the Trial Court as on the date of suit. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/7Komv7vU4PvkkcnFlUTbXJUUD
Sale cannot be set aside under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC unless there is material irregularity which has resulted substantial injury to the judgment-debtor. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/yi8GLBqvJoSWP4rgDGBVSOH6Q
Grant of temporary injunction in suit based on defamation. Issue regarding territorial jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and the Court must consider this issue before considering other aspects. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/O214kwsjoq1U7XSWicKsJB0xq
Judgment of the foreign Court is not executable in India if the same is not on merits. Even when the defendant is placed exparte, the judgment ought to be the one based on evidence led by the plaintiff. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/9CE8PpRLXIk04myTSTOrmIpDR
Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act is not a bar for the public authority to file for eviction against a dismissed employee seeking possession of the service quarters. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/CbC5btMHN9SAYfdZ9L7TPUapv
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Second revision petition under Section 115 of CPC is maintainable as against the revisional order passed by the District Court under Section 46. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/55ip0jPD9j6u1T7rsp29jADd4
An independent suit questioning the compromise decree is not maintainable. Parties must approach the very same Court if any fraud or misrepresentation is alleged while obtaining the compromise decree. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/PxZ7O6BgjAIkmR66RQHojtvML
Second wife is not entitled to retirement benefits of her deceased husband. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ee5HeWoH3pS8XqClfpmUAW0Gb
Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked in an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/9OBavZ20RNvc0ZO7GQdUqHKkL
Bar of Civil Court jurisdiction in a statute. Before considering the application for temporary injunction, the court must first consider the issue regarding jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ybFKjlPGyPqpHDK3Z9qd4rXqj
Judgment on admissions. It is not permissible for the Court to make roving enquiry for disposal of the application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/U9K7VhZIytF5RkVekdVN9BHBP
Karnataka Rent Act. Date of filing eviction petition governs the jurisdiction of the Court. Subsequent conduct of the parties will not oust the jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/GewuIMqAUOnfyojFpOuPbXjbo
When appeal against dismissal of suit for injunction is pending, the same does not give right to the defendant to seek injunction by way of fresh suit on same the cause of action pleaded by him. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/pNZS1KMst8EzUhsVOrhnJ5yZF
Successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained when the case diary and the status report clearly indicates that the accused is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/sOTRkua6fVMsDV5xbcj4DzNGs
Preventing bank from exercising its right under the SARFAESI Act in the guise of partition suit among family members with prayer for injunction is hit by Sections 35 and 36. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qnQEJz65yYylguhyuVQzPN4JE
Second suit for partition, instead of enforcing the earlier decree for partition within the period of limitation, is not maintainable. Plaint is liable to be rejected. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Dhc1sRdwlSF9rEkwZLQetsBCv
Revocation of probate under the Indian Succession Act. Delay in applying for revocation cannot be considered when the service of notice and publication of citation was defective. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/vKq4ymcf2N6ZX0AszlbD7q9Cr
Hindu Succession Act. Mother as class-I heir is entitled to a share in her deceased son’s property. Her death during the suit/appeal will not alter the situation since Section 15 gets attracted. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/pWDXYPTde4USAqz95OnVWIhuf
Counter claim for possession based on dispossession/trespass. Trial Court is bound to raise the issue of limitation even in the absence of any pleadings with regard to limitation. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/OTVm68u0Punbeo67ukmoktHym
Sale deed registered outside the State in respect of property situated within the State of Karnataka is a void document and does not confer any right. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Pxn4FbkUZc7fZFuHiKqNBq0iZ
Daksha Legal 