rajdakshalegal

“ಸಾದನೆಯ ಹಾದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು.” – ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಡಾ. ಎನ್. ಕುಮಾರ್.

ಸಾದನೆಯ ಹಾದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು. ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಡಾ. ಎನ್. ಕುಮಾರ್ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ ಲಾ ಅಕೆಡೆಮಿಯು ಏರ್ಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದ Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ಅ0ತರ್ಜಾಲ ಉಪನ್ಯಾಸ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ತಾರೀಖು 3 ನವೆ0ಬರ್ – 13 ನವೆ0ಬರ್ ವರೆಗೆ ಉಪನ್ಯಾಸ ನೀಡಿದ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ನಿವೃತ್ತ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಡಾ. ಎನ್. ಕುಮಾರ್, ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ಮುಕ್ತ್ಯಾಯ ಸಮಾರ0ಭದ0ದು ಅಭಿನ0ದನೆ ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು ಕೈಗೊ0ಡಿರುವ ಕಾರ್ಯಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಪ್ರಶ0ಶೆ …

Continue reading ““ಸಾದನೆಯ ಹಾದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು.” – ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಡಾ. ಎನ್. ಕುಮಾರ್.”

Criminal Trial. “A conviction must rest on proof, so strong that Court must be convinced that what it concludes must necessarily has happened and is not reasonably explicable in any other way. When the prosecution has relied upon circumstantial evidence, it has to be proved as if there is no proof, than the offence having occurred other than the accused”. Karnataka High Court.

Prathap vs The State of Karnataka. Criminal Appeal 633/2014 decided on 7 October 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/347395/1/CRLA633-14-07-10-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 29.. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B in the teeth of Section 59 and 65-A. A …

Continue reading “Criminal Trial. “A conviction must rest on proof, so strong that Court must be convinced that what it concludes must necessarily has happened and is not reasonably explicable in any other way. When the prosecution has relied upon circumstantial evidence, it has to be proved as if there is no proof, than the offence having occurred other than the accused”. Karnataka High Court.”

Show cause notice with intention to blacklist should clearly spell out such intention: Supreme Court

Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/18159/18159_2019_40_1501_24686_Judgement_16-Nov-2020.pdf https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-show-cause-notice-blacklist-intention CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3687 OF 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14228 of 2019) UMC TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. decided on 16 November 2010 Paragraph 14: Specifically, in the context of blacklisting of a person or an entity by the state or a state corporation, the …

Continue reading “Show cause notice with intention to blacklist should clearly spell out such intention: Supreme Court”

No fault liability under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Rider of the vehicle, who is not the owner, can NOT claim compensation under the Section against owner of the vehicle. He can only claim to the extent of the contract i.e. personal accident cover. Karnataka High Court. 1:10:2020

The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Tushar and others. Miscellaneous First Appeal 22058/2011 decided on 1 October 2020. Judgement Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348033/1/MFA21930-12-01-10-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: Facts. The rider borrowed motorcycle from its owner and while riding the motorcycle, he lost control and dashed against road side stone and died. The legal representatives of …

Continue reading “No fault liability under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Rider of the vehicle, who is not the owner, can NOT claim compensation under the Section against owner of the vehicle. He can only claim to the extent of the contract i.e. personal accident cover. Karnataka High Court. 1:10:2020”

“Joint Hindu Family, Coparcenary, Joint Tenants, Tenants-in-Common”. Explained.

S. Basavaraj, Senior Advocate, Bengaluru. Coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family are NOT synonymous to each other. Joint Hindu family signifies a big institution which consists of a common ancestor, his mother, wife, male descendants, their wives, widows and unmarried daughters below to any degree. It is based on the sapinda relationship of the members. Joint …

Continue reading ““Joint Hindu Family, Coparcenary, Joint Tenants, Tenants-in-Common”. Explained.”

Whether plaint can be amended at the instance of defendant in a partition suit to include property. Karnataka and Madras High Courts take different views.

Karnataka High Court. Channaveerappa Gowda vs Renukappa Gowda and others. Writ Petition 34142/2012 decided on 1 April 2014. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/942536/1/WP34142-12-01-04-2014.pdf Held: Paragraph 14. Coming to the case on hand, Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings as …

Continue reading “Whether plaint can be amended at the instance of defendant in a partition suit to include property. Karnataka and Madras High Courts take different views.”

Partition suit. New property cannot be added at preliminary decree stage. However, if sufficient cause is shown, a second suit for partition is maintainable regarding that property. Karnataka High Court.

Channaveerappa Gowda vs Renukappa Gowda and others. Writ Petition 34142/2012 decided on 1 April 2014. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/942536/1/WP34142-12-01-04-2014.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 7. In a partition suit, first a preliminary decree is passed declaring the rights of the parties in the schedule property. During the course of final decree proceedings, the court has jurisdiction to alter shares …

Continue reading “Partition suit. New property cannot be added at preliminary decree stage. However, if sufficient cause is shown, a second suit for partition is maintainable regarding that property. Karnataka High Court.”

Execution proceedings. Death of decree holder after the decree. Conflicting claims by legal representatives can be adjudicated by the executing Court. Supreme Court. 22:1:2020

Varadarajan vs Kanakavalli and others. Civil Appeal 5673/2009 decided on 22 October 2020. AIR 2020 SC 740 Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2008/7407/7407_2008_7_1501_19791_Judgement_22-Jan-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 8. We may state that Order XXII of the Code is applicable to the pending proceedings in a suit. But the conflicting claims of legal representatives can be decided in execution proceedings in …

Continue reading “Execution proceedings. Death of decree holder after the decree. Conflicting claims by legal representatives can be adjudicated by the executing Court. Supreme Court. 22:1:2020”

Wills. Proof. One of the earliest and authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 AIR 1959 SC 443.

18. What is the true legal position in the matter of proof of wills? It is well-known that the proof of wills presents a recurring topic for decision in courts and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. The party propounding a will or otherwise making a claim under a will …

Continue reading “Wills. Proof. One of the earliest and authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 AIR 1959 SC 443.”

Passport Act, 1967. Mere pendency of criminal case not a ground to refuse renewal of passport to travel back to India. Parameters for grant of a passport can’t be applied for its renewal. Karnataka High Court.

Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata vs The Union of India and others. Writ Petition 9141/2020 decided on 1 October 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/343236/1/WP9141-20-01-10-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 10. As per Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, the Passport Authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any country under Clause (b) or (c) of Sub-Section …

Continue reading “Passport Act, 1967. Mere pendency of criminal case not a ground to refuse renewal of passport to travel back to India. Parameters for grant of a passport can’t be applied for its renewal. Karnataka High Court.”