M/s. JSW Steel Limited vs Mysore Minerals Limited. Writ Petition 15190/2020 decided on 13 January 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/359218/1/WP15190-20-13-01-2021.pdf Note: The kind of law reporting by few agencies in the recent past has reached the level of sensationalism. Headings are crafted in such a way as to receive sharp reactions on the social network. Few judges …
Author Archives: rajdakshalegal
Civil Procedure Code. Amendment of written statement to add counter claim. A prayer for counter claim/decree cannot be belatedly superadded once the same becomes time barred. Karnataka High Court.
M/s. JSW Steel Limited vs Mysore Minerals Limited. Writ Petition 15190/2020 decided on 13 January 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/359218/1/WP15190-20-13-01-2021.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 1. Petitioner being the plaintiff in a money suit in Com.O.S.No.7213/2012 is at the door steps of the Writ Court for assailing the order dated 10.11.2020 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby the …
Constitutional validity of Sections 3, 4 and 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act 2020 upheld by the Supreme Court.
Manish Kumar v. Union Of India And Another. WRIT PETITION(C) NO.26 OF 2020 decided on 19/01/2021Judgment Link:https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/583/583_2020_33_1501_25559_Judgement_19-Jan-2021.pdf Factual antecedents. The challenge is to Sections 3, 4 and 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act 2020. Section 3 of the impugned amendment amends Section 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Section 4 …
Authoritative pronouncement of the Karnataka High Court on the tests of motive, eye witness, interested witness, independent witness, unlawful assembly in a criminal trial.
Pampapathi vs The State of Karnataka. Criminal Appeal 100346/2016 and connected appeals decided on 22 December 2020. Justice B.A. Patil and Justice M.I. Arun. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/358937/1/CRLA100127-17-22-12-2020.pdf PDF Copy
Karnataka High Court upholds constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011.
Shriram Properties Pvt Ltd vs State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 47747/2017 and connected matters decided on 19 January 2021. Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice B.A. Patil. HELD: We uphold the validity of the Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011. The evidence admitted in civil court can be admitted in …
Advocates shall follow normal dress code from 1st February 2021 – Karnataka High Court SOP guidelines.
The latest Standard Operating Procedure issued by the Karnataka High Court on 18 January 2021 withdraws the relaxation made to the dress code of the Advocates. The Advocates are expected to follow normal dress code with effect from 1st February 2021. Read the SOP Notification PDF
Creating posts having trappings of the Ministers to overcome the upper ceiling limit under Article 164(1-A) is ultra vires the constitutional mandate. Karnataka High Court.
M.B.Adinarayana vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 2073/2020 and connected matter decided on 4 January 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/312451/1/WP2073-19-04-01-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 1 and 5. The question which arises for consideration in both the petitions is whether the Karnataka Parliamentary Secretaries Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1963 (for short ‘the said Act …
Challenge to appointment of M.P. Renukacharya and others as ‘Advisors to Chief Minister’. High Court of Karnataka orders notice on the PIL filed by Samaj Parivarthana Samudaya.
The High Court of Karnataka, Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, ordered notice in a Public Interest Litigation filed by Samaj Parivarthan Samudaya challenging the appointment of Sriyuts – M.P. Renukacharya , Mahadev Prakash, Mohan A. Limbikai , Sunil G.S., Shankargowda Patil, M.B. Marmkal and Laksminarayana as advisors to Chief Minister …
Civil Procedure Code. Attachment before judgment. The purpose of Order 38 Rule 5 is not to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt. Any attempt by a plaintiff to utilise the provision as a leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged. Supreme Court.
Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. v. Solanki Traders, (2008) 2 SCC 302 Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/31173.pdf PDF Copy HELD: 4. The object of supplemental proceedings (applications for arrest or attachment before judgment, grant of temporary injunctions and appointment of receivers) is to prevent the ends of justice being defeated. The object of Order 38 Rule …
Civil Procedure Code. Order 40 Rule 1. Appointment of a Receiver in pending suit is only on a prima facie finding that the plaintiff has an excellent chance of success in the suit. Supreme Court.
Parmanand Patel v. Sudha A. Chowgule, (2009) 11 SCC 127. Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/34044.pdf PDF Copy: HELD: 23. A Receiver, having regard to the provisions contained in Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is appointed only when it is found to be just and convenient to do so. Appointment of a Receiver …
Daksha Legal 