All supreme court judgments from 1950 to 2020 i.e. 38152 Judgments are available on one touch at – http://www.liiofindia.org/in/cases/cen/INSC/
Author Archives: rajdakshalegal
Hindu Marriage Act – Section 13- “Cruelty” meaning explained with case laws.
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, at page 546 : No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are …
Continue reading “Hindu Marriage Act – Section 13- “Cruelty” meaning explained with case laws.”
Specific Relief Act. Section 28. Executing Court can rescind the agreement of sale and anull the decree for specific performance- Karnataka High Court.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 28(1) – Rescission of Contract – Parameters – Sale Agreement annulled at execution stage.T.L. Rajagopal v. S.N. Shivakumar, 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 10072 : ILR 2014 KAR 4035 : (2014) 3 KCCR 2182 : (2014) 4 AIR Kant R 701 : (2014) 6 Kant LJ 423 : (2014) 4 …
“Orders of appointment and transfers are made by the State Government and the top Executives in utter disregard to reminders of the Courts to act in public interest” – Karnataka High Court.
Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 11455/2020 decided on 1 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/350672/1/WP11455-20-01-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: The petitioner was appointed as Director of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), on 6:12:2019. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7:10:2020 passed by the respondent-State Government, whereby respondent No.4 was appointed as …
Service Law. Person who questions a Government order in Court and accepts another Government order without demure loses right to challenge the first order. Karnataka High Court.
Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 11455/2020 decided on 1 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/350672/1/WP11455-20-01-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: The petitioner was appointed as Director of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), on 6:12:2019. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7:10:2020 passed by the respondent-State Government, whereby respondent No.4 was appointed as …
“From Estoppel to Expectations”. Supreme Court dissects doctrines of Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation.
The State of Jharkhand and Ors vs Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi and Anr. Civil Appeal 3860-3862/2020 decided on 1 December 2020. Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/17227/17227_2020_33_1501_24877_Judgement_01-Dec-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: H.3 Promissory estoppel – origins and evolution 27. In order to analyze the contentions relating to the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the present case, it is necessary to …
Limitation Act. Section 5. ‘Sufficient Cause’. Order of dismissal from service deprives right to livelihood. Courts have to apply the provision in a meaningful manner to subserve ends of justice. Karnataka High Court.
Suresh H.L vs The Management Sarvodaya Vidhyavardhaka and another Writ Petition 46435/2017 (S-Dis) decided on 4 November. Judgement link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/347715/1/WP46435-17-04-11-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 8. Condonation of delay is discretion of the Court. Sufficient cause depends on the facts of each case. Sufficient cause means adequate cause. The party who seeks conduction of delay shall demonstrate that …
Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020; and Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat) Rules, 2020 are retrospective in operation. Karnataka High Court.
Geetha Pandit Rao and another vs State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 7717/2020 & Writ Petition 226494/2020 decided on 30 November 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/350506/1/WP7717-20-30-11-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: (after thoroughly discussing case laws). 48. In order to ascertain correct position of law relating to interpretation of word “substitution”, it is relevant to consider the law …
Right of a major individual to marry person of his/her choice is a fundamental right which cannot be encroached by anybody irrespective of caste or religion. Karnataka High Court.
Civil Procedure Code. Order 39 Rules 1 & 2. Power of granting ad interim injunction, is to preserve the subject matter of the suit in the status quo for the time being. Supreme Court. (Judgment enclosed)
Relevant paragraph: 4. Order 39 Rule 1(c) provides that temporary injunction may be granted where, in any suit, it is proved by the affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the court may by …
Daksha Legal 