rajdakshalegal

Maintenance of a wife can be traced to the ancient Hindu scripture Smritis, Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India. Healthy & educated woman is presumed to be capable of earning. However, this presumption does not extent to conclude that such earning would be sufficient to maintain herself. Karnataka High Court.

Ganesh Rao vs Sumana K and another. RPFC 22/2016 decided on 23 September 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/343536/1/RPFC22-16-23-09-2020.pdf Relevant portion: It is perhaps well to observe that the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is summary in nature. In a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, it is not necessary for the Court to ascertain as …

Continue reading “Maintenance of a wife can be traced to the ancient Hindu scripture Smritis, Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India. Healthy & educated woman is presumed to be capable of earning. However, this presumption does not extent to conclude that such earning would be sufficient to maintain herself. Karnataka High Court.”

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Tribunal has NO power to review its own order. Karnataka High Court.

Anjanappa and another vs United India Insurance Company Ltd and others. Writ Petition 6098/2014 decided on 8 October 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/346289/1/WP6098-14-08-10-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 7. Chapter XII of MV Act, 1988 deals with Claims Tribunals. Section 166 relates to Application for Compensation and Section 173 relates to Appeals. There is no provision of review. Even …

Continue reading “Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Tribunal has NO power to review its own order. Karnataka High Court.”

Specific Relief Act, 1963. Amendment of Section 20 with effect from 1:10:2018, though a ‘substitution’, is prospective in nature. Amendment does NOT apply to pending suits and appeals. Karnataka High Court.

M. Suresh vs Mahadevamma and others. Regular First Appeal 1560/2011 decided on 23 October 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/347178/1/RFA1560-11-23-10-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 20. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (‘Act’ for short) has been amended by the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 by Act No.18 of 2018, whereby Section 20 of the Act has been substituted inter alia …

Continue reading “Specific Relief Act, 1963. Amendment of Section 20 with effect from 1:10:2018, though a ‘substitution’, is prospective in nature. Amendment does NOT apply to pending suits and appeals. Karnataka High Court.”

Writ jurisdiction. “Public policy demands that parties shall not be permitted to bring fresh litigation on the same cause of action in the guise of new grounds which could’ve been urged in the earlier proceeding”. Karnataka High Court.

Arshad Ispat and Others vs Union of India and others. Writ Appeal 395/2020 decided on 10 July 2020. Author Justice M. Nagaprasanna. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/335508/1/WA395-20-10-07-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 13. …..Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is always equitable and discretionary. In this appeal, we are testing an order made in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction …

Continue reading “Writ jurisdiction. “Public policy demands that parties shall not be permitted to bring fresh litigation on the same cause of action in the guise of new grounds which could’ve been urged in the earlier proceeding”. Karnataka High Court.”

Contempt of Court. Ex-parte Interim Order staying removal of an employee cannot be construed as a positive order for reinstatement. Contempt proceedings cannot be initiated for failure to reinstate the employee. Karnataka High Court. 3:11:2020

Shashidhara T.D. vs Dr. G. Vishwanatha. Contempt of Court Case 362/2020 decided on 3 November 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/347023/1/CCC362-20-03-11-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 3. As can be seen from the order dated 4th December 2019, it is an ex parte ad interim order by which, stay was granted to the order dated 17th September 2019. There is …

Continue reading “Contempt of Court. Ex-parte Interim Order staying removal of an employee cannot be construed as a positive order for reinstatement. Contempt proceedings cannot be initiated for failure to reinstate the employee. Karnataka High Court. 3:11:2020”

Service Law. War and Military service in the Armed Forces of India, as qualifying service, shall be reckoned to determine pension. (KPTCL Regulations). A pensioner cannot be denied relief on the ground of delay though entire arrears cannot be granted. Karnataka High Court.

R. Hanumatha Singh vs State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 54571/2018 decided on 23 October 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/347019/1/WP54571-18-23-10-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record, and on analysis thereof the following questions arise …

Continue reading “Service Law. War and Military service in the Armed Forces of India, as qualifying service, shall be reckoned to determine pension. (KPTCL Regulations). A pensioner cannot be denied relief on the ground of delay though entire arrears cannot be granted. Karnataka High Court.”

University education. “Indefinite delay in holding ceremonial convocation shall not result in hardship to students”. Karnataka High Court directs award of provisional degree certificate on par with award of degree. 6:11:2020

Lanson Brijesh Colaco vs Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others. Writ Petition 10935/2020 decided on 6 November 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/346985/1/WP10935-20-04-11-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 3(a) It is a matter of common knowledge that a Degree Certificate at hands is worth ten in the cupboard of the Campus, since gaining entry to portals of higher …

Continue reading “University education. “Indefinite delay in holding ceremonial convocation shall not result in hardship to students”. Karnataka High Court directs award of provisional degree certificate on par with award of degree. 6:11:2020″

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The Designated Committee has NO powers to adjudicate entitlement or otherwise of the declarant. Scheme and impact discussed. Karnataka High Court.

M/s. Jagadish Advertising vs. Designated Committee and others. Writ Petition 7801/2020 decided on 19 August 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/338063/1/WP7801-20-19-08-2020.pdf HELD: The term “verify the correctness””in Section 126 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 and Rule 6 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 cannot be stretched to mean that the Designated Committee …

Continue reading “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The Designated Committee has NO powers to adjudicate entitlement or otherwise of the declarant. Scheme and impact discussed. Karnataka High Court.”

Writ Proceedings. The Limitation Act does not strictly apply to the writ jurisdiction. Rejection of writ petition on the ground of delay is only a rule of discretion by exercise of self-restraint and not a mandatory requirement. Supreme Court 6:11:2020.

VETINDIA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER. CIVIL APPEAL NO.3647 OF 2020 decided on 6 November 2020. Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/5173/5173_2020_35_1501_24640_Judgement_06-Nov-2020.pdf That brings us to the question of delay. There is no doubtthat the High Court in its discretionary jurisdiction may declineto exercise the discretionary writ jurisdiction on ground of delayin approaching the …

Continue reading “Writ Proceedings. The Limitation Act does not strictly apply to the writ jurisdiction. Rejection of writ petition on the ground of delay is only a rule of discretion by exercise of self-restraint and not a mandatory requirement. Supreme Court 6:11:2020.”

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. All insults or intimidations to a person will NOT be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is “on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe”. Supreme Court 5:11:2020.

Hitesh Verma vs The State of Uttarakhand & another. Criminal Appeal 707 of 2020 decided on 5 November 2020. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Ajay Rastogi Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/16256/16256_2020_35_1503_24580_Judgement_05-Nov-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 9. The long title of the Act is to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the …

Continue reading “Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. All insults or intimidations to a person will NOT be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is “on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe”. Supreme Court 5:11:2020.”