This is one of the earliest and most celebrated judgments from the Karnataka High Court. Even after 55 years, the ratio laid down holds the field like an oak tree. Of course, this judgment is from one of the finest judges of the Karnataka High Court, Justice G.K.Govind Bhat. In just 11 paragraphs, the entire …
Author Archives: rajdakshalegal
ಜೀವನಾ೦ಶದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಜಾರಿಗೊಳಿಸುವ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು, ಜೀವನಾ೦ಶದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಬದಲಾಯಿಸುವ ಅದಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಹೊ೦ದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ
ಭಾರತೀಯ ದ೦ಡ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ ೧೨೫ ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಜೀವನಾ೦ಶಕ್ಕೆ ಹೊರಡಿಸಿದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ ೧೨೮ ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಜಾರಿಗೊಳಿಸುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಜೀವನಾ೦ಶದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನೇ ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ರದ್ದುಗೊಳಿಸಿದೆ. ಜೀವನಾ೦ಶದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಜಾರಿಗೊಳಿಸುವ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು, ಜೀವನಾ೦ಶದ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಬದಲಾಯಿಸುವ ಅದಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಹೊ೦ದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎ೦ದು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಹೇಳಿದೆ. Huligewwa and another vs Hanumanthappa. Criminal Petition 102043/2017 decided on 5 November 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/347694/1/CRLP102043-17-05-11-2020.pdf HELD: The …
Maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court enforcing order of maintenance under Section 128, can NOT modify the order of maintenance. Karnataka High Court. 5:11:2020
Huligewwa and another vs Hanumanthappa. Criminal Petition 102043/2017 decided on 5 November 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/347694/1/CRLP102043-17-05-11-2020.pdf HELD: The role of the trial Court under Section 128 Cr.P.C. is very limited and confined only for enforcement of the order of maintenance. Modification can be done only by filing an application under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C. Relevant Paragraphs: …
Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138. When disputed questions of facts are involved which need to be adjudicated during trial, the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act shall not be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. Supreme Court
Para 22. When disputed questions of facts are involved which need to be adjudicated after the parties adduce evidence, the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act ought not to have been quashed by the High Court by taking recourse to Section 482 Full Judgment: Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 3 …
Adverse possession. There can be no claim of adverse possession by one co-owner against another. Important case laws on the point.
P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy AIR 1957 SC 314. “It is well settled that in order to establish adverse possession of one co-heir as against the other, it is not enough to show that one out of them is in sole possession and enjoyment of the profits. Ouster of the non-possessing co-heir by …
Accused in a cheque bounce case filing frivolous counter criminal case against the complainant. The same amounts to abuse of process of law. Proceedings quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Rajashekar vs State by Banavasi PS. Criminal Petition 8846/2015 decided on 3 November 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/347381/1/CRLP8846-16-03-11-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 12. In the instant case, the second respondent who is a defacto complaint initiated criminal prosecution against the petitioner who is arraigned as accused by registering private complaint in PCR No.13/2015 based upon which Crime No.111/2015 …
Criminal Trial. Split-up charge sheet. Once co-accused is acquitted, on facts, the same benefit shall be accrued to others. This is the real object behind Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.
Syed Asif Ali and another vs The State of Karnataka and another. Criminal Petition 2614/2017 decided on 5 November 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/347386/1/CRLP2614-17-05-11-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 9. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any court subordinate to it and are of wide …
Injunction. No injunction can be granted against co-owner or persons in joint possession. Karnataka High Court.
Eswaraiah v. B.S. Siddalingappa. ILR 1999 Kar 3037 Full Judgment below. T.N. VALLINAYAGAM, J.:—Defendant No. 2 is the appellant who is aggrieved by the grant of injunction against him alone by the Courts below. 2. The facts are not in serious dispute. The plaintiffs who are the sons of one Siddamallaiah have filed a suit …
Criminal trial. “Essence of conspiracy is a simultaneous conscious mind of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result by a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to it”. Case Law discussed. Karnataka High Court
Ningappa and others vs The State of Karnataka. Criminal Appeal 100059/2018 decided on 19 August 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/342132/1/CRLA100059-18-19-08-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 86. Whenever prosecution invokes Section 34 of IPC, it must be established that the criminal act was done by more than one person in furtherance of common intention of all. It must, therefore, be …
ನೊ೦ದಣಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ೧೯೦೮. ಖಡ್ಡಾಯವಾಗಿ ನೊ೦ದಣಿಯಾಗಬೇಕಾದ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು, ನೊ೦ದಣಿಯಾಗದಿದ್ದರೂ ಕೂಡ, ಈ ದಾಖಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬೇರೆ ನೊ೦ದಣಿ ಆಗಬೇಕಾಗಿರದ ದಾಖಲೆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಮೂದಿಸಿದ್ದರೆ, ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಜರು ಪಡಿಸಬಹುದು.
ಉದಾಹರಣೆ-. ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಹಕ್ಕು ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ (ರಿಲೀಸ್) ದಾಖಲೆ ಖಡ್ಡಾಯವಾಗಿ ನೊ೦ದಣಿ ಆಗಬೇಕು. ಇದು ನೊ೦ದಣಿ ಆಗದಿದ್ದರೆ, ಇದನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸುವ೦ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಈ ದಾಖಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೊ೦ದಣಿ ಆಗಬೇಕಾಗಿರದ ಮರಣ ಶಾಸನದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖವಿದ್ದರೆ, ಈ ಒ೦ದು ಅ೦ಶವನ್ನು ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಲು, ನೊ೦ದಣಿ ಆಗದ ಹಕ್ಕು ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ (ರಿಲೀಸ್) ಅನ್ನು ಹಾಜರು ಪಡಿಸಿ ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಈ ಒ೦ದು ಅ೦ಶಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಬಹುದು. ಹಾಗೂ ಇದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ನಮೂದಿಸಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. Gangamma vs Rangaiah and …
Daksha Legal 