M.F.A. No. 6390/2019 and connected matters. Order dated 22.10.2020 Link to Order: https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/noticeBoard/MFA%206390-2019-and-con.pdf Guidelines Issued: (i) The Registry shall not raise an objection (item no.11 inForm No.14) regarding failure to mention the age of a party inthe cause title so long as the parties are described either as“major” or “minor.” If a party wants to …
Author Archives: rajdakshalegal
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Suit involving a ‘commercial dispute’, valued below the specified value can NOT be referred to commercial court. Twin tests i.e. nature of dispute and valuation – both must be satisfied . Karnataka High Court.
Fine Footwear Private Limited v. Skechers U.S.A. Inc. Writ Petition No. 23009 of 2019 (GM-CPC). Decided on July 15, 2019. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/280393/1/WP23009-19-15-07-2019.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 7. The contention of the respondent side that the commercial dispute is triable by ordinary civil court unless the specified value of its subject matter is not less than three …
Making allegations of unchastity against a woman amounts to bringing down the reputation of the womanhood. Karnataka High Court convicts husband for sending open letters to wife making obscene comments.
Vijayalaxmi Shetty vs Kochu Shetty. Criminal Appeal 1141/2010 decided on 11 November 2020. Justice H.P. Sandesh. Judgement Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348103/1/CRLA1141-10-11-11-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 68. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Subramanian Swamy (supra) in respect of reputation is concerned, is aptly applicable to the case on hand. The …
Civil Procedure Code. Application under Order IX Rule 7 can NOT be filed after the suit is posted for judgment. Law on the point discussed. Karnataka High Court.
Abudl Shukoor vs Samad Pasha and another. Writ Petition 204679/2018 decided on 18 October 2019. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/305024/1/WP204679-18-18-10-2019.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 8. Insofar as the legal contention urged by the petitioner is concerned, the issue is no more res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rasiklal and Manickchand Dhariwal …
Bail. Conditions shall not be onerous. Insisting on a local surety from an outside accused is not proper. Karnataka High Court.
Navid vs The State of Karnataka. Criminal Petition 201277/2019 decided on 16 October 2019. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/302987/1/CRLP201277-19-16-10-2019.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties. However, to furnish a local surety is …
“Lakshminarasimhiah and ors. vs Yalakki Gowda” – One of the celebrated judgments from the Karnataka High Court on injunction – 5:1:1965.
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 …
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 …
Daksha Legal 