Hon’ble Mr. Justice C M Poonacha celebrates his 50th birthday today.
Justice C M Poonacha was born on 6th April 1974. He completed Law from University Law College, Bangalore and enrolled as an Advocate in October 1997.
He joined the chambers of Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy, Senior Advocate and later his father Sri C. M. Monnappa, Advocate. He co-founded a law firm ‘Lexplexus’ in August 2001. He handled various matters before the District Courts, High Court of Karnataka and Supreme Court of India as well as before various Forums and Tribunals as also numerous Arbitration matters.
Justice Poonacha represented various Government Entities, Banks, Insurance Companies and other institutions apart from private clientele. He was empanelled with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, High Court of Karnataka since 2015.
Appointed as Addl. Government Advocate, High Court of Karnataka in August 2020.
Justice Poonacha was appointed as Additional Judge, High Court of Karnataka and taken oath on 13.06.2022. His appointment is recently confirmed by the collegium of the Supreme Court of India.
Important Judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C M Poonacha.
Alienation of the re-granted ‘Service Inam Land’ from the period 1:2:1963 to 7:8:1978 is valid and permission for sale is only a formality since the Deputy Commissioner is bound to give permission. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/BJgIIOisX5GEQJ1VIQOeB6Lrz
Industrial Disputes Act. Employer is not liable to pay Provident Fund contribution in respect of Section 17B wages to employee. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/3COZkcdReu0NDtwgSvCvkIbML
Stay of execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 29 during pendency of suit does not apply when the suit if filed after initiation of the execution proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/HWF0i0p1kk3zLISSyCTqYGLoD
Sale deed executed in violation of an order of injunction passed by a competent Court is unlawful under Section 23 of the Contract Act and the purchaser cannot claim any right or equity under the sale transaction. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Q2uw7IaSqdK2fROn3UZm2nTPK
Employer is not liable to deposit provident fund contribution in respect of payments made in compliance of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/TrhlKYgo7OlRXOTg2KLIvx3z4
Industrial Disputes Act. Proportionality of the punishment cannot be gone into by the Tribunal while considering the application of the employer under Section 33(2)(b). Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/m3QivhoPb5fMOM1GDS7ga076n
Suit for recovery of arrears of rent. Landlord cannot claim enhanced rent under the lease deed which requires registration but not registered. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/xGqk3fpNUCBvYIlc7mWRGn7vK
Provision regarding regulation of erection of buildings under the Panchayat Raj Act does apply to erection of mere compound wall. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Vx2kofaKE8FZeeNHlm8fnY5v6
Sufficiency of cause for wife to live separately from husband cannot be gone into in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Negligence or refusal by husband to maintain is sufficient. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/0LVZn0rgkUrSMQYO99nrs00qH
Execution of decree. If objector claims through Judgment Debtor, the application is to be rejected. If the claim is based on an independent right, such an application shall be enquired into. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aYtutQ3CiGIDjIKd7NV2KwVu8
Remand of the entire suit for fresh trial when the first appellate Court records a finding that the decree was a collusive one and material facts having been suppressed, is permissible. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/oCG2NsjzPTMZaHESSuN45jI9c
Civil Procedure Code. Summons served on wife of defendant is sufficient service. Presumption arises that the defendant had knowledge of the suit and the date of hearing mentioned in the summons. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/2bQvHCIEhHcWq7VD0L5G4qhkg
The only relevant issue in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is prior possession and illegal dispossession therefrom. Title to the property is irrelevant. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/JV707aPMuxGJMz83tvQSrn1Sx
Withdrawal of suit without liberty to institute a fresh suit as contemplated under sub-rule (3) of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC operates as res judicata for fresh suit on the same cause of action. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/8RtfFt0Dnj8imnjO3wrEchf8E
Question of limitation in a suit for partition arises only if defendants prove ouster of plaintiff from the joint family properties. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/eKWE0e5fGBDeR6MKN58wlVCmv
Suit for partition. When one co-sharer is in possession of the properties, all other co-sharers are presumed to be in possession on the basis of joint title. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/n2oo8U8EiWNNe1AIDzGXYYxlz
Executing court can go into validity of claim based on Will in final decree proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/2ESKgcXmB5uqD4jX89L1vBS4r
Execution Court must consider whether a portion of the property is sufficient to satisfy the decree. Failure amounts to ‘substantial injury’ within the meaning of Order 21 Rule 90. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/fTdXMOBVJ3t1dzRBIG3wVNItJ
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Once the calendar of events is published, the District Election Office loses jurisdiction and cannot order postponement of the elections. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/BGMonYvoHhixtQHdWJIB2AX3v
If majority of members of a Co-operative Society resign thus bringing strength below the quorum, then all other members shall be deemed to have vacated their office and fresh election shall be held to all the posts. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/n5eZNsiFHG0kOOV4bacNcTlku
‘’Land acquisition for public purpose. Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause’’. Karnataka High Court while upholding land acquisition by the BDA.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qcpe4j5ctWMt2jSgFgXvc9WI9
Employers Compensation Act is a beneficial Legislation which requires liberal interpretation. Liability of the insurer cannot be limited to the actual wages paid by the employer. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/4EJBeuBU6azCVJrUivOh7X4eA
MV Act. Tribunal cannot simply rely on the pleadings by claimant about his income while applying Section 163A. Tribunal can independently assess the income to give benefit of the section. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/nA3rvcSTTM9nispZdM4xlejao
Payment of Gratuity Act. Impleading principal instead of the management in claim before the Controlling Authority will not vitiate the proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/LAA4R4kciq3iVNGwQx8X1zUE0
Independent suit to set aside compromise decree is maintainable by a person who was not a party to the compromise decree. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/eVP2Ip56VZ52xXPMWxIfwEJ9G
Decree of mere declaration of title granted by trial court cannot be set aside when the plaintiffs had sought for other consequential reliefs also in their suit. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/kwBUhhl9ZriyTHFEkPyPfB2wj
Daksha Legal 