V.M. Narayana Swamy and another vs The State of Karnataka and another. Writ Petition 43810/2018 decided on 26 March 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/331592/1/WP43810-18-26-03-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs 8. …following point would arise for our consideration: “Whether the Lokayukta/Upa Lokayukta under the Act has jurisdiction to investigate and hold an enquiry in respect of allegation made in the …
Author Archives: rajdakshalegal
Landmark Judgment on Criminal Law reforms. “Rape is not only a crime against women; it’s a crime against the entire civilized society. Physical scar will heal up but mental scar will remain forever”. Gang rapists to be imposed capital punishment- Karnataka High Court recommends.
Ramu and others vs State and others. Criminal Appeal 246/2014 & connected appeals, decided on 21 October 2020. Justice B. Veerappa and Justice K. Natarajan. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/344930/1/CRLA246-14-21-10-2020.pdf In one of the landmark judgments on Criminal law reforms, the Karnataka High Court expressed anguish over the beastly behaviour of the accused in committing gang rape …
No confidence motion. Right under the Act cannot fail due to non-framing of Rules. Enforcement of rights under plenary legislation cannot depend on subordinate legislation. Karnataka High Court. 27:8:2020
Ratnamma Baramappa Nagara and others vs State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 146835-853/2020 decided on 27 August 2020. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/339068/1/WP146835-20-27-08-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 25. The question that would arise before this Court is, once the members of Zilla Panchayath resolve to initiate no-confidence motion against the fourth respondent-President, whether the …
Election Petition. Tribunal has no power to grant interim order staying election of the returned candidate. Karnataka High Court 16:10:2020
Jayavani vs P. Geetha and others. Writ Petition 52861/2019 decided on 16 October 2020. Justice Krishna S Dixit. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/344729/1/WP52861-19-16-10-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 5. By now, it is well established that democracy and republicanism are the basic features of the Constitution; about half a century ago, this Court in Sri. S Nagangound vs Y. Basy …
Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Ancestral property partitioned and sold prior to 2005 amendment. Suit for partition by daughter is maintainable under the 1994 Karnataka amendment. Plaint cannot be rejected. Karnataka High Court. 14:9:2020
H.P. Chikkarama Reddy and another vs Kanthamma and others. Civil Revision Petition 431/2014 decided on 14 September 2020. Justice M.I. Arun. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/341450/1/CRP431-14-14-09-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 10. Prakash and others vs Phulvati and others. reported in (2016) 2 SCC 36. Paragraphs 14, 17, 18, 22 and 23 of the said judgment referred to. Para 23 …
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Land converted to industrial purpose and falling within Planning Area under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. Powers under under KLR Act are ousted and the Deputy Commissioner has no power to deal with further change of land use. Karnataka High Court 30:7:2020
Kirloskar Electric Company Limited vs The State of Karnataka and another. Writ Petition 106705/2019. Decided on 30 July 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/341844/1/WP106705-19-08-09-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 16.Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, the following questions arise for consideration. i Whether the 2nd respondent- Deputy …
Constitution of India. Articles 341 & 342. Scheduled Castes/Tribes. While insertion of a new entry is prospective, adding synonymous & equivalent name to existing entry is retrospective. Karnataka High Court. 14:9:2020
On Facts. ‘Medar’ is synonym of ‘Meda’ and hence the entry Medar in 2012 is retrospective. Parushuram vs The Deputy Commissioner and others. Writ Petition 65002/2011. Decided on 14 September 2020. Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/341880/1/WP65002-11-14-09-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 4. The following points arise for consideration in this petition: i. Whether a clarificatory, elucidatory, declaratory …
Criminal Procedure Code. Incriminating material can be utilized against the accused only if the same is brought to his attention with opportunity to explain it. Section 313 casts a solemn duty on the trial judge. Karnataka High Court. 15:9:2020
Marilingappa vs The State through C.P.L. Shahapur. Criminal Appeal 200045/2014. Decided on 15 September 2020. Bench Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Krishna P Bhat. Judgment delivered by-Justice Krishna P Bhat Judgement Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/339849/1/CRLA200045-14-15-09-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 16. It is well settled that incriminating material available in the deposition of prosecution witnesses can be utilized against …
“Moral conviction bondering on strong suspicion is not an option with the Courts and cases should be proved beyond reasonable doubt”. Judgment of trial court ‘swayed by emotions’ set aside. Karnataka High Court 16:10:2020
Yankappa and another vs The State of Karnataka. Criminal Appeal 200020/2015. Decided on 16 October 2020. Justice Siddappa Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice P. Krishna Bhat. Judgment link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/344180/1/CRLA200020-15-16-10-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: Moral conviction bondering on strong suspicion is not an option with the Courts and cases should be proved beyond reasonable doubt is a salutary …
D.V. Act. Wife’s right to stay in her in-laws house not indefeasible. Senior Citizens not to be haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter in law. Supreme Court 15:10:2020.
Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ajuja, Civil Appeal 2483/2020. Decided on 15 October 2020. Justice Ashok Bhushan. Justice R. Subhash Reddy Justice M.R. Shah. Judgment link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/689/689_2020_37_1501_24378_Judgement_15-Oct-2020.pdf While holding that “Shared household” in Section 2(s) need not be the joint family household or household or in which husband has a share and that wife can …
Daksha Legal 