S. Sarojini Amma vs Velayudhan Pillai Sreekumar Civil Appeal No. 10785 of 2018†, decided on October 26, 2018. see (2019) 11 SCC 391 See paragraphs: 13, 16 and 17 Full Judgement in PDF format
Author Archives: rajdakshalegal
Hindu Law. A Coparcener can sell his undivided interest. However, the purchaser cannot get possession except by way of a suit for partition. Supreme Court.
Hardeo Rai vs Sakuntala Devi Respondent. Civil Appeal No. 3040 of 2008 decided on April 29, 2008. (2008) 7 SCC 46. See paragraphs 22 to 26 Full Judgment in PDF format. Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal. Picture courtesy, LiveLaw
Hindu Law. A coparcener cannot gift his undivided share in coparcenery property without the consent of other coparceners. Supreme Court.
Thamma Venkata Subbamma vs Thamma Rattamma . Civil Appeal No. 258 of 1974, decided on May 6, 1987. (1987) 3 SCC 294. See paragraphs 8 to 18 Full Judgment in PDF format.
Can a lawyer appear on behalf of his parents, brothers, sisters or close relatives?
The answer is yes. However this comes with a condition which is found in the Rule framed by the Bar Council of India. The same reads thus SECTION II – DUTY TO THE CLIENT 13. An Advocate should not accept a brief or appear in a case in which he has reason to believe that he …
Constitution of India. After 1993 amendments, elections to local bodies can be questioned only by way of election petition. Writ petitions are not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.
Geetha vs The Returning Officer. Writ Petition 15005/2020 decided on 17 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/357013/1/WP15005-20-17-12-2020.pdf Full Judgment: The grievance of the petitioner is that her nomination for the election to the Guddekoppa Gram Panchayat, Thirthahalli Taluk, has been rejected by the Returning Officer by order dated 13.12.2020 at Annexure-A. This writ petition is filed …
Contract Act. Fraud on third parties committed by employees during the course of their action and while working on behalf of the employer. Employer is liable for such actions. Karnataka High Court.
Electronic Research Private Ltd vs Canara Bank and others. Regular First Appeal 253/2000 decided on 22 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/357268/1/RFA253-00-22-12-2020.pdf Held: Para 74. Section 238 of the Indian Contract Act, contemplates that if any misrepresentation is made or fraud committed by agents, acting in the course of their business for their principal, have the …
Criminal Trial. Closing defence of accused when counsel remains absent violates Articles 21 of the Constitution of India. Court must ensure alternate legal assistance to accused. Karnataka High Court.
GOVINDARAJU @ KUTTI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1459/2019. Decided on 23 DECEMBER, 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/357186/1/CRLA1459-19-23-12-2020.pdf Para 22. We have come across several cases, wherein the trial Courts during trial when the accused counsel was absent, closes the cross-examination of the defence as nil and proceed to pass the judgment of conviction …
Information Technology Act. An intermediary or its directors and officers are not liable for any action or inaction on part of a vendor or seller making use of the facilities provided by the intermediary in terms of a website or a market place. Karnataka High Court.
KUNAL BAHL and another vs STATE OF KARNATAKA. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4676 OF 2020. Decided on 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/357138/1/CRLP4676-20-07-01-2021.pdf HELD: 16.1 At the time of taking Cognisance and issuance of process, the Court taking Cognisance is required to pass a sufficiently detailed order to support the conclusion to take cognisance and …
Service Law. Selection. Court would not sit in the armchair of experts to assess or award marks for publications except in cases of arbitrariness or malafides. Karnataka High Court.
Dr. Prashant Babaji vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 10807/2018 decided on 30 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/357135/1/WP10807-18-30-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 14. It is trite law that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be loathe to interfere with the marks awarded by a selection committee to the candidates …
Arms Act, 1959. No prior sanction of the District Magistrate to prosecute is required if the prohibited arm is possessed for sale. Sanction required only in cases of mere possession of arm. Karnataka High Court.
Khadir Sab vs State of Karnataka. Criminal Petition 6173/2020 decided on 16 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354801/1/CRLP6173-20-16-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 9.6 In the present facts and circumstances, the allegation against the petitioner is that he was in possession of prohibited arm with an intention to sell the same. The said offence does come under Section 3 …
Daksha Legal 