Author Archives: rajdakshalegal

Keep water on your terrace for birds this summer.

Keep water for birds on your terrace. From my office terrace, I can only see concrete jungle amidst scorching sun. This universe is 13.8 billion years old (1380,00,00,000 years i.e. One Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Crores years). Our Earth is 4.5 billion years old i.e. 450,00,00,000 i.e. Four Hundred Fifty Crores years. Humans entered the picture just …

Continue reading “Keep water on your terrace for birds this summer.”

Advocates Act, 1961. State Bar Council can suspend an Advocate after taking suo motu cognizance of his grave misconduct. Madras High Court.

R.D.Vijay Anand vs The Secretary, The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Writ Petition 29258 of 2013 decided on 21 November 2013. Justice K.K. Sasidharan Full Judgment: 1. Whether the State Bar Council is vested with the power to suspend an Advocate on its rolls from practising the profession of law pending disposal of suo-motu …

Continue reading “Advocates Act, 1961. State Bar Council can suspend an Advocate after taking suo motu cognizance of his grave misconduct. Madras High Court.”

Hybrid System of Hearing – Best solution

B V Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General for Karnataka. Bangalore The controversy among two sections of lawyers regarding physical hearing and virtual hearing is continuing and the Supreme Court Advocates Association has minced no words when its President stated “we have no choice but to take agitational approach”. Shockingly he told the Judges …

Continue reading “Hybrid System of Hearing – Best solution”

Aarogya Setu App. Informed consent of users of the app is must for sharing user data by the Government of India and National Informatics Centre. Karnataka High Court.

Anivar A Aravind vs Ministry of Home Affairs and others. Writ Petition 7483/2020 decided on 25 January 2021. Chief Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty Judgment Link: https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/noticeBoard/WP-7483-2020.pdf HELD: 28. (i) We accept the assurance given by the Governmentof India that no individual will be denied the benefitsof any services that are …

Continue reading “Aarogya Setu App. Informed consent of users of the app is must for sharing user data by the Government of India and National Informatics Centre. Karnataka High Court.”

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 . Section 15. Requirement of a woman witness to be present during the search and/or for a woman police officer to be present during the search is directory and not mandatory when the accused is male. Karnataka High Court.

M. Vishwanath vs State of Karnataka. Criminal Petition 2113/2020 decided on 23 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/360577/1/CRLP2113-20-23-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 11.3. This Court in several decisions has come to a conclusion that the requirements under Section 15 of the Act are mandatory and not directory. However, in all the said decisions the dictum by the Hon’ble …

Continue reading “Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 . Section 15. Requirement of a woman witness to be present during the search and/or for a woman police officer to be present during the search is directory and not mandatory when the accused is male. Karnataka High Court.”

Election Law. Purposive interpretation. “Assets of candidate” includes consideration passed on for agreement of sale. Candidate must disclose such asset in the affidavit accompanying the Nomination Form. Karnataka High Court.

Firdous Parveez Taj vs Yasmin Taj. Writ Petition 11100/2020 decided on 22 January 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/360729/1/WP11100-20-22-01-2021.pdf Relevant paragraphs: There is no dispute as to the legal requirement of disclosure inter alia of “assets” of the candidate and of spouse, both in terms of the State Election Commission Notification dated 14.07.2003 and the mandatory  prescription …

Continue reading “Election Law. Purposive interpretation. “Assets of candidate” includes consideration passed on for agreement of sale. Candidate must disclose such asset in the affidavit accompanying the Nomination Form. Karnataka High Court.”

Election Petition. Amendment to introduce “material facts” after the expiry of limitation to file election petition not permissible. Only “amplificatory particulars” can be added. Karnataka High Court.

Firdous Parveez Taj vs Yasmin Taj. Writ Petition 11100/2020 decided on 22 January 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/360729/1/WP11100-20-22-01-2021.pdf Relevant paragraphs: It is basic to the law of elections that in a democracy, the mandate of people as expressed at the hustings must prevail and be respected; that is why the election of a successful candidate is …

Continue reading “Election Petition. Amendment to introduce “material facts” after the expiry of limitation to file election petition not permissible. Only “amplificatory particulars” can be added. Karnataka High Court.”

Will. Proof. Attesting witness of a will is not found or having died, Court can accept the evidence of the Sub-Registrar who had registered the will. Supreme Court.

Ved  Mitra  Verma v. Dharam  Deo  Verma,  Civil Appeal. 153 of 2009 decided on 31:7:2014. Reported in 2014 (15) SCC 578 Judgment: Justice Ranjan Gogai and Justice S.A.Bobde Aggrieved by the judgment and order of reversal passed by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati, Shillong Bench, this appeal has been filed. The respondent Dharam Deo …

Continue reading “Will. Proof. Attesting witness of a will is not found or having died, Court can accept the evidence of the Sub-Registrar who had registered the will. Supreme Court.”

Criminal Procedure Code. Section 202. When the accused has office, branch office or the like within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate where the offence has been committed, there is no requirement of enquiry before issuance of summons. Karnataka High Court.

M/s. Dream Logistics Company vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. Criminal Petition 101728/2017 decided on 6 November 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348072/1/CRLP101728-17-06-11-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 9. Whether a Magistrate can issue summons to a person residing outside the territorial jurisdiction without conducting an enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., if so under what circumstances? 9.5 The procedure under …

Continue reading “Criminal Procedure Code. Section 202. When the accused has office, branch office or the like within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate where the offence has been committed, there is no requirement of enquiry before issuance of summons. Karnataka High Court.”