Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao celebrates his 59th birthday today.
Justice V. Kameswar Rao was born on 7 August 1965. He did his BA (Hons.) Geography and LL.B from Delhi University in the years 1987 and 1990 respectively. Awarded Certificate of Merit for standing second in College in the year 1985-86.
He enrolled as an Advocate in March, 1991 with Bar Council of Delhi. Practiced in the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court, Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi. Also appeared in other High Courts like at Madras High Court, Port Blair (Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court). Conducted cases relating to Service Law, Labour Law, Arbitration, Constitution and Administrative Law. Represented various Public Sector Undertakings, Banks & Autonomous Bodies. Was Member Executive of the Central Administrative Tribunal Bar Association (Principal Bench), New Delhi.
He was designated as Senior Advocate by the Delhi High Court in January, 2010.
Justice V Kameswar Rao was elevated as Additional Judge of High Court of Delhi on 17 April, 2013 and as Permanent Judge on 18th March, 2015 (F/N) and was transferred as a Judge of Karnataka High Court and assumed office on 01.06.2024.
Important and latest judgements delivered by Justice V. Kameswar Rao.
Period treated as ‘not spent on duty’ will be counted for the purpose of seniority, and also for all consequential benefits. The period treated as ‘not spent on duty’ must be construed for the purposes of back wages only and not for the purposes of seniority, promotion etc. Vinod Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6011. Delhi High Court.
When an employee gets involved in a crime, disabling himself from rendering his services on account of conviction or incarceration, even if he is acquitted subsequently on appeal and re-instated in service, he cannot, as a matter of right, claim back wages for the period when he was not in service. Vinod Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6011. Delhi High Court.
Nurses working in hospitals provide a very valuable humanitarian service; their duties are manifold – from assisting doctors in carrying out treatment to taking personal care of patients and even sometimes handling bystanders and relatives of the patients. They attend to the needs of the sick and the ailing in the extremely tense atmosphere of hospitals. It would be a travesty of justice, if such people are denied adequate compensation for their services as they are entitled. Sita Mundu v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6216. Delhi High Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. High Court while exercising judicial function under Section 11(6) can determine the issue of maintainability of a petition on any ground including on territorial jurisdiction/res judicata, etc. The principle of res judicata shall be applicable to a petition under Section 11. Otherwise, it would mean, despite a petition under Section 11(6) not maintainable, like, on the ground that the High Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction as the seat of arbitration is elsewhere; the petition needs to be entertained. Such cannot be the position in law. This Court can, if a petition is not maintainable, shall be within its right to dismiss the petition at the threshold. Antique Art Export Pvt. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1091. Delhi High Court.
The children room in every District must be kept open on Sundays and second Saturdays also between 10 AM to 5 PM, so that any Court passing an order of visitation can also direct the visitation to be effected in Children Room, Family Court, District Court on every second Saturday and Sunday as well. Necessary directions be issued by the Registrar General of this Court to the District Judge/Principal Judge, Family Courts of every District in that regard. Samrat Singh Rawat v. Poonam Rawat, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7973. Delhi High Court.
Cause of action in a partition suit is recurring one. Dismissal of earlier suit for partition for default is not a bar for the second suit. Srinivas and others Vs M.C. Narayanaswamy and others.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/articles/actionView/I0ljh6xv2LGTCbdkMgrdpfmAL
Daksha Legal 