Author Archives: rajdakshalegal

Labour dispute. Dismissal of a workman cannot be interfered with merely on the ground that no disciplinary enquiry was held, if the employer could justify the action before the Labour Court. Supreme Court.

State of Uttarakhand and others. vs Sureshwati. Civil Appeal 142/201 decided on 20 January 2021. Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/13459/13459_2020_38_1501_25605_Judgement_20-Jan-2021.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 14.This Court has in a catena of decisions held that where an employer has failed to make an enquiry before dismissal or discharge of a workman, it is open for him to justify the action …

Continue reading “Labour dispute. Dismissal of a workman cannot be interfered with merely on the ground that no disciplinary enquiry was held, if the employer could justify the action before the Labour Court. Supreme Court.”

Pollution Control laws. Tenant of a property or operator of industry in the air pollution control area has to obtain consent/permission from the Pollution Control Board unless there is a contract to the contrary in the lease agreement. 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: 12. Point (v). Can a tenant or a licencee of the property contend that the liability of obtaining permission from the respective Pollution Control Board would be that of the owner and the …

Continue reading “Pollution Control laws. Tenant of a property or operator of industry in the air pollution control area has to obtain consent/permission from the Pollution Control Board unless there is a contract to the contrary in the lease agreement. Karnataka High Court”

Destruction of the environment is “Ecocide”. Person stacking iron ore in open space causing Air and Water pollution is liable for prosecution. Karnataka High Court

NOTE: The Karnataka High Court applies the principle of “Ecocide” in a case involving Air and Water pollution by trader who stacked iron ore in open place causing Air and Water pollution. Ecocide is criminalized human activity that violates the principles of environmental justice, as by substantially damaging or destroying ecosystems or by harming the …

Continue reading “Destruction of the environment is “Ecocide”. Person stacking iron ore in open space causing Air and Water pollution is liable for prosecution. Karnataka High Court”

Writ seeking appointment of members from religious minorities as Chairman of Minorities Development Corporation by rotation. In the absence of a legal obligation, such a direction cannot be issued. Karnataka High Court.

Read judgment:

Service Law. Principle that person who participates in the selection process cannot challenge the procedure for selection is not absolute. Estoppel and acquiescence would not apply in case of glaring illegalities in the selection. Karnataka High Court.

Dr. Raghavendra H.K. vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 4923/2020 decided on 16 January 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/360403/1/WP4923-20-16-01-2021.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 17. Insofar as the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the selection process after having participated on the ground of acquiescence is concerned, the said principle is …

Continue reading “Service Law. Principle that person who participates in the selection process cannot challenge the procedure for selection is not absolute. Estoppel and acquiescence would not apply in case of glaring illegalities in the selection. Karnataka High Court.”

Claim to property based on adverse possession. Period starts from the time of giving up the claim based on title. Plea of title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent. Karnataka High Court.

Noor Aftab Parveen and others vs H.N. Chandrashekar by lrs. Regular Second Appeal 864/2015 decided on 15 January 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/359967/1/RSA864-15-15-01-2021.pdf Relevant portion page 23: The claim of adverse possession requires fulfillment of the three criteria concurrently which are:- (a) nec vi – adverse in continuity (b) nec clam – adverse in publicity (c) …

Continue reading “Claim to property based on adverse possession. Period starts from the time of giving up the claim based on title. Plea of title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent. Karnataka High Court.”

High Court of Karnataka to bring out book entitled “History of Courts of Karnataka”. Makes general appeal for information.

The High Court of Karnataka has constituted a constituted aCommittee chaired by Hon’ble Smt. Justice B.V. Nagarathna to bring out a book entitled “History of Courts of Karnataka”. The High Court has made general appeal to persons with knowledge in this behalf and tapping all sources of information. The High Court has requested such persons …

Continue reading “High Court of Karnataka to bring out book entitled “History of Courts of Karnataka”. Makes general appeal for information.”

Public policy. Unconditional withdrawal of public interest litigation acts as a bar to file fresh writ petition seeking same reliefs. Karnataka High Court.

India Awake for Transparency vs The Director Directorate of Enforcement and others. Writ Petition 12073/2020 decided on 21 January 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/359840/1/WP12073-20-21-01-2021.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 3. In this writ petition, petitioner has inter alia prayed for a direction against Director of Enforcement to register a case of money laundering arising out of scheduled offences set …

Continue reading “Public policy. Unconditional withdrawal of public interest litigation acts as a bar to file fresh writ petition seeking same reliefs. Karnataka High Court.”

Criminal Procedure Code. Section 173(2). Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the final report submitted by Central Crime Branch since CCB is not a police station. Karnataka High Court.

Dr. M.G. Gopal vs State by Central Police (CCB). Criminal Revision Petition 34/2018 and connected matter decided on 18 January 2021. Judgement Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/359830/1/CRLRP34-18-18-01-2021.pdf Held: 14. What constitutes a police station has been defined in Section 2(s) of the Code, which reads as under:- “2(2): “police station” means any post or place declared generally or …

Continue reading “Criminal Procedure Code. Section 173(2). Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the final report submitted by Central Crime Branch since CCB is not a police station. Karnataka High Court.”