Justice E S Indiresh celebrates his 52nd birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Engalaguppe Seetharamaiah Indiresh was born on 16th April, 1972. Had early education at Pandavapura Town. Secured B.Sc degree from Yuvaraja’s College, Mysore. Obtained degree in Law from Sharada Vilas College, Mysore and LL.M. from University of Mysore. Secured First Rank in Constitutional Law Branch.
Enrolled as an Advocate in the Karnataka State Bar Council on 12.1.1996. Joined the Office of Smt. B.V. Nagarathna, who is presently serving as Judge of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Practiced in different branches like Service, Labour, Education etc.
Served as Panel Advocate for Mysore Sugar Company, KSFC, Karnataka Marketing Federation, Oriental Insurance Company, United India Insurance Company etc. Worked as Part-time Lecturer in Sharada Vilasa Law College, Mysuru and later worked at Havanur College of Law and Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies at Bangalore. Was a regular faculty at Karnataka Police Academy and had given lectures on preventive Detention matters, particularly, Goonda Act and Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA).
Served as Government Pleader and as Additional Government Advocate between 2009 till elevation.
Appointed as an Additional Judge of the Karnataka High Court on 07th February, 2020 and Permanent Judge on 25th September, 2021.
Important Judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice E S Indiresh.
Sale of property attached towards permanent alimony granted under the Hindu Marriage Act is hit by the provisions of Section 64 of Code of Civil Procedure and Sections 52 and 100 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/yNcbnEmI19cgFMjp208uETNd1
Karnataka Co-operative Society Rules. Auction purchaser who fails to deposit entire bid amount within time under Rule 38(2)(i) loses all claims to the property and becomes liable for loss occasioned by the subsequent sale. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/GJ99QhLk4S01LfwFPyeSFsMGe
Procedural laws should advance substantial justice to the parties. Technicalities should not come in the way of extending benefits to litigants who approach the Court with clean hands. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/AtRgC9gN30fizTFKXRpS0zPXO
Auction purchaser withdrawing from the sale due to the property embroiled in further litigation is entitled for refund of the deposit amount under Order XXI Rule 86 of CPC. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/hIKK6F6MHhEwnSV8yfWX9N64f
Bombay Public Trust Act. Though alienation of immovable property by the public trust without the previous sanction of the Charity Commissioner is null and void, the challenge to such alienation shall be made within reasonable time. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/98zpR5RpmqdQLsx8ZUkQJGwkW
Temporary Injunction. Latest and important judgment. Principles reiterated and laid down. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/oAFBRx7QzmW18opOYqKjJCU3J
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Erroneous part of an award can be separated under proviso to section 34(2) instead of ordering fresh arbitration. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/rpOeQqJOk00Pivwdz6ZICaNyd
Civil Procedure Code. When written statement is not filed, the court cannot straightway decree the suit. Court must carefully consider ex-parte evidence and give adequate reasons for its judgment. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/mgv4ybZNuuCQkknxUy6MhOJck
Even adopted children are entitled for compassionate appointment. Rule to the contrary is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/rRAEZSt6c7UWvh3kqb1pGHJ9X
In proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C, family Court must accept address provided in the petition supported by an affidavit. Technicality shall not defeat the purpose of the provision aimed at safeguarding wife and children. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qtlw55CyevSLoCZuiHPhxte1N
Award of compensation in land acquisition is not as a matter of right and the same is dependent on the persons establishing their title over the property. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/oG7lWotQ6kfAjQfiaAEwQSCgH
Passing of second award for lands acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 is without jurisdiction which can be quashed by a Writ despite the availability of alternate remedy under the Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Kjni3zORSBUNhtUMCggBFFKuI
Government has no power to prescribe fee structure in private unaided Schools. Karnataka High Court strikes down offending provisions of the Karnataka Education Act as unconstitutional.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/yEc9vIUGYwu0S5hGQXbNiNcMS
Tahsildar has no power to evict a person from Government lands under Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/vZ5kPfQbhbj9K6tY0StbO2vyG
Hindu Succession Act. Amended Section 6 has no application in respect of property already sold prior to 20th December, 2004 even though the daughters have not joined the sale transaction. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/sXRU5s7HrbdXov2CF2lLwxYI6
Unregistered relinquishment deed can be relied on for the collateral purpose of proving earlier partition and division of joint family status as recited in the deed. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/knY7JAseZj4F0bjklQM9h5doq
Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. Authorities under the Act have no jurisdiction to decide title of parties. Validity of registered Sale Deed cannot be gone into under Sections 70 and 118 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/eiKffHffADriiTcPOoHHzrFG9
Suit for partition. Mere purchase of property in the name of co-sharer does not prove self acquisition when there is joint family nucleus and when independent income is not proved. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Tw9oVZkpfhVfGIURUrkenLnkv
Daksha Legal 