Details of the case are given below. Stung by the observations made by the Karnataka High Court, the Commissioner of Police, Central Division has issued instructions to all its divisions to take corrective steps immediately. The Memorandum dated 24 December 2020 takes serious exception to the practice of the Station House Officers to send back …
Author Archives: rajdakshalegal
Anti-Suit Injunction. Case laws on the point.
Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., (2003) 4 SCC 341 – Paragraph 10. The courts in India like the courts in England are courts of both law and equity. The principles governing grant of injunction — an equitable relief — by a court will also govern grant of anti-suit injunction which is but …
Continue reading “Anti-Suit Injunction. Case laws on the point.”
‘Slayer Rule’. A murderer cannot inherit property of the victim even where the provisions of Hindu Succession Act do not apply. Karnataka High Court.
Swami Shradanand vs Gauhar Taj Namazie and others. Regular First Appeal 148/2003 decided on 17 March 2017. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/159003/1/RFA1487-03-17-03-2017.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3knwf8n83KNvLscdUhmuOdw10E1NsSSKeYhmGrk1ZRtxSznCy7tY4AU6M Relevant paragraphs: 11.Having regard to the aforesaid rival contentions, the prime question for consideration in the application is, “Whether the appellant has incurred disqualification to represent the estate of deceased Shakereh Khaleeli on account of …
Specific Performance. In case of immovable property, time is not the essence of the contract. However, Court can infer essence of time in certain cases. Supreme Court
Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, (1993) 1 SCC 519. (Constitution Bench) Paragraph 19. It is a well-accepted principle that in the case of sale of immovable property, time is never regarded as the essence of the contract. In fact, there is a presumption against time being the essence of the contract. This principle is not …
Marriages registered under the Registration of Hindu Marriages Act 1955 even after coming into force of the Karnataka Marriages (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976 are valid. No implied repeal of 1955 Act. Karnataka High Court.
Sadananda Naik vs State of Katnataka. Criminal Revision Petition 567/2011 decided on 11 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354623/1/CRLRP567-11-11-12-2020.pdf Facts. Wife filed criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused denied marriage itself. Argument in High Court was that the alleged marriage was registered under the Registration of Hindu Marriages Act 1955 …
Law of precedent. Observations made by the court must be read in context in which they appear to have been stated. The judgments of the courts are not to be construed as statutes. Karnataka High Court.
M/s. Kluber Lubrication (India) Pvt Ltd vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. TAET 10/2014. Decided on 16 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354692/1/TAET10-14-16-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs. 20. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying the law of precedent have become locus classicus. “Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between …
Tax laws. Interpretation. There is no equity about tax. No presumption as to tax. Nothing to be read in, nothing to be implied except the actual language used. Karnataka High Court.
M/s. Kluber Lubrication (India) Pvt Ltd vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. TAET 10/2014. Decided on 16 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354692/1/TAET10-14-16-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs. 18. In the backdrop of aforesaid relevant statutory provisions referred to supra, we may advert to well settled principles of construction of taxing statutes. It is well established rule of interpretation …
Filing new vakalat in place of the existing counsel. It is mandatory to obtain consent (NOC) of the former advocate on record or leave of the Court. Karnataka High Court.
See PDF copy of the order
Human rights vs Police apathy. Karnataka High Court disciplines erring Police in unique way.
Tarabai vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition Habeas Corpus No. 200012/2020 decided on 17 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354098/1/WPHC200012-20-17-12-2020.pdf Text of Judgment. The petitioner Tarabai is present along with her son Suresh. This Habeas Corpus writ petition was filed on account of her son Suresh going missing on 20.10.2020. Subsequently, he was …
‘Unlawful assembly’ as an offence under IPC, was a colonel weapon of oppression invented during the British rule to suppress freedom movement and still remains in the statute book. Landmark judgment of the Karnataka High Court.
Santu @ Santosh Poojary vs State of Karnataka. Criminal Appeal 880/2015 and connected appeals decided on 15 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354638/1/CRLA880-15-15-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 41. By a careful reading of the provisions of Section 149 of IPC, it clearly depicts that every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object …
Daksha Legal 