Self-acquired property of father inherited by his sons would be Coparcenery property and continues to be so if the succession had opened prior to 1956. Supreme Court.
To Know more click the link below:
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/A3oOEE34NLb3NbWDF6NR2vTp1
Karnataka Municipalities Act. Advance notice to Municipality is not required in a suit for permanent injunction if the very object of filing the suit is defeated by delay. Karnataka High Court.
To know more click the link below:
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/V1yHBSc6rkNy252BgghuGo6pk
Gift is between Donor and Donee. When donor who challenged gift deed withdraws the suit, his children cannot question the gift deed on the ground of fraud etc. Karnataka High Court.
To Know more click the link below:
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/2q91g3Nc709suMufdZKeoYM5x
On 1st June 2024, I was a guest in a Bar Association function at Mysore along with Justice Srinivas Harish Kumar Both we met Dr SL Bhyrappa and spent some valuable time. Justice Srinivas Harish Kumar rushed back to Bangalore in urgency, me staying back.
On the next morning I spent very profitable time with Prof Ajjappa.. Even at 95, he jubilantly discussed about the works of O.W.Holmes (Common Law), Cardozo (Growth of the Law), Aharon Barak of Israel (Judge in a Democracy), Michael Kirby of Australia (On HM Seervai)& Hans Kelson (Pure Theory of Law). Oh, what a brilliant mind indeed !!!.. How time slipped away, astonishes me..
I was an ardent student of Prof Ajjappa in ULC at Dharwad during 1986-1989. In fact it’s he who secured admission for me after blasting VC of KUD for a defective Notification..
Those days, ULC was known as ‘Ajjappa’s College’. He had maintained a huge & well organised Law Library which even Prof Upendra Baxi had praised.. He was a tall personality and a very strict disciplinarian.. He had earned a great reputation for the college..He was ready even to lay down his life for it..
He used to bring great stalwarts like Jethmalani, Tarkunde, Rajiv Dharan, etc to impress young minds. He had brought lawyers of repute like Sri IG Hiregoudar, etc to teach law. He took classes when regular teachers were away..
During UGC Pay Scale strike, he placed students to take classes, and I was one of them.. He had immense admiration for hardworking students and staff.. He used to praise Kotre, who dedicated his life to Library..
Ajjappa was straight forward and a bit short tempered too.. He had slapped a Senator and matter had landed in court.. He was in the forefront in collecting public contributions for the bereaved family of Prof Seshadri who was brutally murdered in 1988 or so..
He had personally paid the hostel/mess fees of some poor students without seeing caste, creed, etc.. When he retired, many shed tears and I was a witness to that..
Post retirement Ajjappa was practising in K-HK and his advocacy was far from satisfactory.. He shortly quit the Bar murmuring ‘It’s better to graze sheep on the hill side than to be in court..’ Perhaps he was quoting Jeremy Bentham..
He served as Principal in SJR Law College; he had appointed me as a part timer though i lacked LLM. He taught in NLSUI Bangalore.. I am told, he too had played a role in founding it..He was also in Raipur & Calcutta.
Ajjappa has authored a few books and contributed many articles to the reputed journals.. His treatise on research methodology makes a good read.. To many his classes were not that impressive.. To a few like me, they were.. Discussions with him however were a treat, to say the least..
Dharwad was fascinating to him.. He remembered every teacher and student.. During visit, we used to see glee in his face.. He loved Mysore too and spent the evening of his life there with the sacred spouse.. Occasionally he would call me over phone and take class on jurisprudence.. At times he would criticise our judgements.. His memory was superb and narration of facts was simply thrilling..He had deep knowledge of Roman law and history.. He had a fair exposure to Indian & western philosophies.. He was absolutely unhappy with courts’ delays..
Often he took names of M. Hiriyanna, Dr Radhakrishnan Immanuel Kant, Schopenhauer, etc.. In the past few years he was a bit unattached to the mundane things.. He donated all his valuable books to institutions as Cardozo gifted all his property to Columbia University..
Our beloved Professor Ajjappa whom I saw only yesterday, has breathed his last, today. An Era has ended creating a big void.. ‘Old order changeth, yielding place to the new…’
When Mahatma Gandhi died, Sarojini Naidu wrote ‘Let his soul not rest in peace’ far the nation needed him.. Can we pay homage to the departed MASTER in the same words ?
– Krishna S. Dixit
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Rai K celebrates his 50th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Rai Kallangala: Born on 01.06.1974. Completed primary education at Kepu & secondary education & PUC at Vitla. Completed Degree from St. Philomina’s College. Completed LL.B., from Vivekananda Law College, Puttur. Enrolled as Advocate in 1999 and practiced in the office of Sri G. Balakrishna Shastri and Sri Younus Ali Khan. Later joined the office of Hon’ble shri Justice John Michael D’Cunha. Worked as Government Pleader for 2 years. Served as Central Government Senior Panel Counsel for 6 years. Functioned as Special Public Prosecutor for Enforcement Directorate, and Narcotics Control Bureau. Served as Panel Advocate for BDA. Practiced mainly on criminal side.
Sworn-in as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 09.02.2023.
Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Rai.
IPC. Section 306. To constitute the offence under Section 306, IPC, the accused must have played an active role by act of instigation or doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ZvfpiM9jgk6KmdCNTV9Sogygi
Application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC can be considered only at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the additional evidence has any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/3yO5iXe0D8fYpw3meBwPR68uZ
Criminal trial. Denying cross-examination violates a person’s life and liberty which are not only fundamental rights but also basic human rights. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qhP62q66ATPHhdLMUcCTX8cxa
Detention order cannot be challenged by seeking a writ of habeas corpus when the order is already confirmed by the Government. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/MnxaiWk0qwtrd7588kKIvraEd
Service law. In the absence of clear proof based on the evidence of witnesses in the enquiry, an adverse presumption cannot be drawn on the guilt of the accused. Karnataka High Court sets aside compulsory retirement on corruption charges.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/7UTihjbQp9moOF1q7nhDYkqB1
Standalone distilleries established for manufacturing ethanol are not governed by the provisions of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/38cSBtPNZ8e30EypvazeF1kaG
”Purpose of acquisition is relevant factor in determining the compensation’’. Karnataka High Court enhances compensation from Rs. 750 to Rs. 2000 for the land acquired for Court complex.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/kIhc3BZ7KVRHEMy33ZERotrxo
Conviction for the offence under Section 366A Procuration of minor girl for illicit sexual intercourse must be fortified by sufficient evidence and reasons when the offence of rape not proved. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/msvpAAACoAfhGd53sXrnirOYr
When the prosecution fails to prove its case, benefit of the acquittal can be extended by the appellate court even to the accused who has not preferred appeal challenging the order of conviction. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qosie13nmYln8Tx9PKcErf0xo
Criminal Law. Though due to passage of time and memory loss, witnesses deviate from their Police Statements, but when such discrepancies make the foundation of the prosecution case shaky, the Court has to take strict note thereof. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/6hF6iROyju8TkYh7k5DLfVSAY
If deposition of the child witness inspires confidence in the mind of the Court and there is no improvement or tutoring, the Court may rely upon the same. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/pQ4LAEHqp44ZJxjFgvFQO2USf
In determining culpable homicide under Section 299 of IPC, mentality of the accused, nature of the act and its effect upon the victim have to be analysed. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/2kZLXZsmtqwqqVeJ0eNGBgnaO
When accused are acquitted for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, conviction for the murder cannot be sustained. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/9wWx3qfq6ccbcDdbHYBTCulVJ
Lack of intention on the part of the accused and commission of the act in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel are the mitigating circumstances. Karnataka High Court reduces sentence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/E1wfv4VGa0TNsLHRVavLwnGmv
Criminal Law. When trial Court misreads the evidence and arrives at a conclusion erroneously to convict the accused, the appellate Court must intervene to prevent miscarriage of justice. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/wy3wl6nZw7LFOxlg7RBhBtPaA
Reference Court while awarding compensation in respect of the sub-soil/minerals underneath the soil of the acquired properties shall take into consideration the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/zH834ahrX6uH119xcWZfZPNRI
Freedom fighters’ pension. The proof required must be as provided in the pension scheme itself. As long as such proof was not available, the benefit cannot be granted. Karnataka High Court, while following the Supreme Court Judgment.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/b10mcMM9yxepJDXmLzrfw5SNp
Criminal law. To impose the extreme punishment, all the three tests; Crime test, Criminal test and Rarest rare test must be satisfied. Karnataka High Court converts imprisonment till last breath of life to life imprisonment.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/D6g80YgX9nWSZCkF8cSdIm4iT
Criminal Law. Subsequent voluntary statement of the accused cannot be admissible in evidence and recovery to that effect amounts to “rediscovery of a fact already disclosed and capable of discovery.” Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/pJvQkJitCHqzCvwPtaXmOQYzs
Cheque issued by vendor to purchaser of property as security towards pending litigation on the property is not ‘legally enforceable debt’. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Na19wjtHeYeDIZflY4Cl9AZoI
Presumption of innocence is a human right. Mere recovery of the tainted money, dehorse the circumstances under which it was found, is not sufficient for conviction under the PC Act when the substantive evidence is not proved. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/U8gDvQNhM5qyiRGF2Ky2mOvX4
Preventive detention under the Goonda Act. Failure to furnish translated copies of the documents to the detenue renders the detention unsustainable. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/SqYR1pzRQxlJKtLyXJ5FfBsvE
MVC Act. Contributory negligence cannot be attributed to victim riding vehicle simply because he did not have driving license and insurance, especially when he was riding on the correct side of the road. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/2SppqqnSJANEF7fniHyixLjMd
MVC Act,1988. Tribunal or Court should not apply the split multiplier in routine course and multiplier should be applied. An injured or the legal representatives of the deceased should not be deprived from getting a just compensation. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/AnlgXgrR6BZ3aTKe2dWZExudZ
MVC Act. Tribble riding on a two-wheeler itself is not a ground to avoid insurance liability unless it is established that the tribble riding was the cause for the accident to attribute contributory negligence. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/MSnVkOoCzTji9yXDPJC8f8aXL
Service Law. Court cannot sit on perceptivity of the State Government in posting a person to a particular post except considering the eligibility of the person to occupy the post. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/1ITxnrAiPLq9XJPQbtrJlKuiE
Failure to furnish legible and translated copies of the documents supporting the preventive detention to the detune vitiates the detention order. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/lAyMSkrkiQSbhIIptCvf9rovD
Income Tax Act. Proceedings regarding escaped assessment and notices under Section 153C solely based on loose sheets and documents which are termed as ‘diaries’ found during the search are unsustainable. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/p5VrCehH28SNNeiS0bZ8KRv6p
It is not always mandatory for the State Government to script the reasons for transfer of public servant when the reasonings are reflected in the records for obtaining prior-approval from the Chief Minister. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/gojWseGhQMnWDawPSZpKG73vX
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik T celebrates his 49th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik Thavaryanaik: Born on 01.06.1975. Native of Chitradurga. Completed B.A.L., L.L.B., from SJM Law College, Chitradurga and secured 3rd Rank. Obtained L.L.M. from Kuvempu University, Shivamogga. Enrolled as Advocate and practiced at Chitradurga. Appointed as District Judge on 02.01.2012. Served as Registrar (Administration) at High Court. Worked at Prl. Secretary to Government, Law Department. Worked as Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Udupi & Bengaluru Rural District.
Sworn-in as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 24.01.2023.
Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik.
“Speedy trial in NIA cases guarantees the fundamental right under Article 21”. Karnataka High Court directs establishment of three more Special to ensure speedy trial and disposal of the NIA cases.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/OmixS2OMoTfqrljhC59QMaM87
Karnataka High Court directs amendment of Section 377 IPC to include Necrophilia on the lines of laws prevalent in UK, Canada, NZ etc. Guidelines issued to install CCTVs in mortuaries and to maintain Mortuary hygiene.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgments/actionRead/G2tTPI5bHvYyZTiETOTGZQLha
Mere act of insulting a person would not satisfy the ingredients of Section 504, IPC. There must be intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ANlWC5PHPu3gpFfmASQ3WZaNd
Abetment to commit suicide. Merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note, one cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that he is an offender under Section 306 of IPC. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/keZ3qqoSRQqgW5vyM6SfGlEY3
Additional accused can be added under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the conviction and sentence is pronounced as otherwise the Court gets divested of its power. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/37Cps6IbF6daKOOPQDXLDoBsC
Criminal complaints cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the allegations made out by the complainant are civil in nature. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aQHSxzvJXo61DwvpyGBpluiTb
Concept of ”reasonable doubt” in criminal cases. Authoritative judgment of the Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/0WFP48GqP5ActPnAhC8lTcqIP
Suit for specific performance. When the defendant neither pleads nor leads evidence on hardship, Court shall decree the suit especially when the plaintiff proves readiness & willingness. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ZYHIFcx04MWCD3uvVPPjBcDAm
Mere expression of words without any intention to cause alarm or cause to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do does not constitute criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/P2eAMjn4QOZTLPewYr616ggyd
Courts must be liberal in allowing applications to record evidence of witnesses by Audio-Video Electronic means. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/EmFyIynuOrK6b8XofVRgK4CUZ
Mere use of words ‘Investigating Officer is directed to conduct the investigation’ without applying the judicious mind, does not amount to permission by the Magistrate to take up the investigation for a non-cognizable offence. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/BecN0Gs6dZ7CCih7C1skDj6UK
Advocates must practice Seven Lamps of Advocacy. Making false allegations against the Presiding Officer cannot be countenanced for transfer of case under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Eq3U7Bl1GRR2QN6cUG6BWbTzl
Mere act of insulting a person would not satisfy the ingredients of Section 504, IPC. There must be intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ANlWC5PHPu3gpFfmASQ3WZaNd
Abetment to commit suicide. Merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note, one cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that he is an offender under Section 306 of IPC. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/keZ3qqoSRQqgW5vyM6SfGlEY3
Additional accused can be added under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the conviction and sentence is pronounced as otherwise the Court gets divested of its power. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/37Cps6IbF6daKOOPQDXLDoBsC
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajendra Badamikar celebrates his 62nd birthday today.
| Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajendra Badamikar: Born on 01.06.1962 in Hubballi to late Sri. Muralidhar Balavant Rao Badamikar and to late Smt. Vijaya Muralidhar Badamikar of Rabkavi in Bagalkot district. Elder brother Ravindra Badamikar is a Retired Manager of Syndicate Bank and the younger brother Sri.Anand is staying in Rabkavi and doing transport business. Sister Smt.Rajashree is working as an Officer in Bank of India in Sangli, Maharashtra State. Studied primary and secondary education in M.V.Pattan Higher Secondary School, Rabkavi in Bagalkot district. Then, PUC was done in R.L.S. Science College at Belagavi. Completed B.Sc. Degree in Karnataka Science College, Dharwad in 1983 and 1 year studied in M.Sc. (zoology) in Karnataka University, Dharwad. Later on in 1984, joined LL.B (Special) Degree in JSS Sakri Law College, Hubballi and obtained degree in 1987 and also obtained III Rank in II-year LL.B from the Karnataka University, Dharwad. Enrolled as an Advocate in Karnataka State Bar Council, Bengaluru on 15.07.1987 and joined the Chambers of Sri. Shreekanth T. Patil, Advocate, Dharwad. Practiced both civil and criminal side in Dharwad and Hubballi. Married to Smt.Vandana D/o Sri.Srivallabharao R. Desai and Smt.Umabai Desai on 27.12.1994, who is also non-practicing Advocate. Son-Chi.Ashwin is studying in BE-III year. Appointed as Civil Judge on 18.10.1993 and worked in Chikkodi at Belagavi District; Chittapur at Kalaburagi District and in Belagavi from 29.11.1993 to 03.09.2002. Promoted as Senior Civil Judge on 04.09.2002 and worked as Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) in Hanagal, Haveri District till May 2006. Then, posted as Deputy Secretary to Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and Member Secretary to the High Court Legal Services Authority and served there till July 2009. Then attended competitive examination conducted by the High Court of Karnataka and promoted as District Judge and served as XII-Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, from July 2009 to May 2010. Then, transferred to Belagavi and served there as IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Lokayuktha Court), Belagavi District, upto May 2013. Then, transferred to Mysuru and served there as V-Additional District and Sessions Judge; III-Additional District and Sessions Judge; and Additional Prl. Family Judge and Prl. Family Judge, Mysuru from May 2013 to February 2015. Then, transferred to Kolar District and served as Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, from 28.02.2015 till 30.11.2016. Then, transferred to Tumakuru as Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru District and served there from 05.12.2016 till 13.09.2019. Then, posted as Registrar (Judicial) in High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru and served there from 16.09.2019 to 09.10.2019. Thereafter, posted as Registrar General and served in the said post from 09.10.2019 till elevation as Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, on 25.03.2021 and Permanent Judge on 30.09.2022. |
Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajendra Badamikar.
Negotiable Instruments. If the payee or holder of the cheque made alteration with the consent of drawer on cheque, such alteration cannot be a ground to resist right of payee or holder thereof. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/kH1vqCHqMdMAlj6SfSaNprNaX
Petition under Section 438 or 439 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable for the offences under KPIDFE Act since appeal is provided under Section 16 of the KPIDFE Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/HXWwsyWH6N64XHFiH3y51olKG
Motor Vehicles Act. Amount received under the Group Insurance Policy cannot be deducted from the compensation when no premium was paid by the employee under the Group Insurance Policy. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aEtzi8AHHAqnpQnzev9k4ZjQU
POCSO Act. Courts cannot impose lesser sentence than the one prescribed under the Act either before or after the amendment. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/WdZTpEr51VieY9uLlIbaPJqmq
Criminal Procedure Code. Section 482. Frustrated litigants who have failed to succeed before the Civil Court initiating criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. Such proceedings are liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/0HCAihfW6KOJHvZI2a8OvkQx3
IPC. Sections 198 and 420. General category candidate securing Scheduled Caster certificate. Allegations prima facie constitute cheating and the accused cannot be discharged. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aOPCPE5LawzoQQZtnnEtQXtHF
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Regular First Appeals filed before the 2007 amendment, whose value is less than Rs.15 lakhs, have to be heard by the Division Bench. Amendment applies only to appeals filed after 28 August 2007. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/PXoK3UOnorXI9fFmo3hRJY72F
Dishonour of cheque issued towards time-barred debt/transaction cannot attract the provisions of Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/LkQPfegqazddmbDA6OlacVNQl
Earning woman is equally responsible for maintaining the children. Such responsibility cannot be fastened solely on the husband. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/iht6HtGJtYFMWP1ZcA3Lwmqzt
Section 138 N.I. Act. If a case based on a private complaint ends in acquittal, it can be challenged only under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C before the High Court. Sessions Court has no jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/hNZz0JcH8D84PfCOKqmjK54Jz
Husband not making any provision for maintenance of the minor children also can be termed as domestic violence. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/SIlHhq3RxMrF2wq9dJbIEZpOa
Domestic Violence Act. Question of awarding maintenance till marriage of daughters does not arise and maintenance can be granted only till attainment of majority. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/WZd1yLTTBFcix2m9m36hBSELc
Succession to property of a Sanyasi. Merely because a person wears cloth ordinarily worn by Sanyasi or by mere declaration, he cannot be termed that he has renounced the world. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/05gTtM5vgphtbnFgBxsqPlVmY
Order XXXI Civil Procedure Code. Suit by or against Public Trust without impleading all the Trustees, Executers and Administers is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/bLjKOCeGbivFPak7kGgjoMEx6
Rider of two-wheeler not possessing driving license. Insurance Company is NOT liable for compensation. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/VtxHqMbCMFBvq62sksg47VJJU
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad celebrates his 58th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harekoppa Thimmana Gowda Narendra Prasad:
Born on 1st June 1966. Studied B.Sc., from D.V.S.College, Shivamoga in the year 1990 and LL.B., from Vidyavardhaka Law College, Mysuru in the year 1993. Enrolled as an Advocate in the High Court of Karnataka in the year 1993. Started Practice in the Chambers of Prof. Ravivarma Kumar. Initially for a period of two years practiced in Trial Courts, Bengaluru. Practiced in the field of Constitutional Law, Service Law, administrative Law, Public Law, Property Law, Arbitration and Conciliation mattes, Environmental Law, Revenue Matters, Company matters, Banking Laws, Civil and Criminal matters before the High Court of Karnataka, Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and Central Administrative Tribunal. Appointed as High Court Government Pleader in the year 2006 till 2013 and as Additional Government Advocate from 2013 till the date of elevation, i.e., 2018. Appointed as an Additional Judge, High Court of Karnataka on 02.06.2018 and as Permanent Judge on 26.02.2020.
Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad.
Issuance of fifteen days notice for moving no confidence motion under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules is mandatory. Karnataka High Court. https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/uFQX1cP0kouUytzJDxeG92Oi3
Election petition cannot be dismissed for making the Returning Officer also a party to the petition. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/8FSysCrnASfkaFoikx4UOigJG
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2002. Right of appeal under Section 16 (1) is conferred on both sides and not confined only to senior citizen and parents. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/p8zO0ZGW7XksPYJpkgHr06w5m
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Order passed under Section 12 can be enforced in the same manner as laid down under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/OJSpKbBliSXbsjgLthOJiIZa9
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 147. Person travelling on mud-guard of a tractor is NOT an authorized passenger. Persons working on ploughing/crushing machines attached to tractor are NOT employees. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/HbBtN5g8ZHicpKA3eaBENJyOJ
Law of precedent. Observations made by the court must be read in context in which they appear to have been stated. The judgments of the courts are not to be construed as statutes. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/tsJQwNGQAsJMkrwaWTO5rSxwG
Tax laws. Interpretation. There is no equity about tax. No presumption as to tax. Nothing to be read in. Nothing to be implied except the actual language used. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/34PhY6MaKnAtiH8EBFGLfxtfx
Technical objection which defeats justice should be discouraged. If infraction of procedural provision does not provide for any consequences such a provision has to be construed as directory and not mandatory.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/NE07HynCfzPiR4fMF9YGwtq4V
Preventive detention. Order of detention can be passed even if detenue is in custody.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/GGaNBZIymHBlGw8bmXOmV9H3W
“Removing minor girl from the lawful custody of parents is clear case of kidnap”. Karnataka High Court convicts the accused while confirming his acquittal for the offence under the POCSO Act.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/z9lwayrdyWmzkfEGYLRyu9IPZ
“Interest of the child is paramount in cases under the POCSO Act and the Court cannot appreciate the evidence on sentimental values.” Karnataka High Court sets aside the acquittal of the sexual offender.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/v4DaRpswmkujb2pDOyNZZ4abK
Motor Vehicles Act. Compensation can be claimed for the death of brother having regard to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ldLx2dGfOBkdQEgNaboqwzYgI
Acquisition of land granted under the Land Grant Rules. The grantee is entitled to compensation. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/tA0rvR03FtH972CpzBtf4cPm5
Civil suit barred by limitation touches the very jurisdiction of the court. Even a compromise decree cannot be passed by the original or appellate court in such a proceeding. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/obIEjepHWhHReM5bg9cIRQJwa
MV Act. When the income declared by a person engaged in a profession or business is not stable, in order to assess the income, the average of the income of the years considered would be appropriate. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/t64ziXCqrqjncXCITtYnngaCB
Hindu Law. Widow who is remarried after the succession opened due to the death of her husband is entitled to a share in her late husband’s properties. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/saIIQO9EDmV2Av47ma0eTkdRE
Purchaser cannot maintain a civil suit against the land acquisition body (BDA) for declaration and injunction when the acquisition proceedings are already completed. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/AMzkGKiVoKG8rNaiAl00nR29v
Civil suit for injunction against acquiring body in respect of property acquired under a statute is not maintainable and is barred under Section 9 of CPC. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/UM4DZHd1M9OGZeWpsmaIiitGa
Unauthorized occupant cannot claim adverse possession in respect of property which belongs to statutory body. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Uo9YSV5zZUp096jAKS7SPQw5D
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act does not apply to lands granted to SC/ST persons under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/2zKA1RXP1DEo521wWVUz8yyz8
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Even the suo motu proceedings for resumption of alienated lands can be initiated only within the reasonable time. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/zLUUx0vjC9A3vh6cNuri5mANd
Karnataka Panchayat Act. Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayats can interfere with an order or resolution of the Grama Panchayat only when the Adhyaksha of the Panchayat makes a reference to him. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/VlE0JoMbpdEjaK4fQWXe0kYWc
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Nawaz celebrates his 59th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Nawaz:
Born on 22nd May 1965. Completed primary education at St. Francis Xavier’s Primary School, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, High School at St. Philomena’s High School, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, Bachelor’s Degree in Science at St. Philomena’s College, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada and LL.B. at Sri Jagadguru Renukacharya Law College, Bengaluru.
Enrolled as Advocate on 20.04.1990.
Appointed as Government Pleader in the year 2003.
Appointed as Special Prosecutor for Lokayukta in the year 2007.
Appointed as Addl. State Public Prosecutor and worked from 2008-2012.
Appointed as State Public Prosecutor in June, 2015.
Represented the Mangalore City Corporation and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.
Appointed as Addl. Judge, High Court of Karnataka on 02.06.2018 and permanent Judge on 26.02.2020.
Important judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammed Nawaz.
Sections 407 & 408 Cr.P.C. Case and counter case have to be tried together by the same court irrespective of the nature of offences involved to avoid conflicting judgments over the same incident. Karnataka High Court.
IPC. Section 498A. General and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. Karnataka High Court.
Owner/driver of private vehicle from which ganja was seized cannot plead absence of ”conscious possession” since the standard of ‘conscious possession’ is different in case of private vehicle with few persons known to one another. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal Law. At the stage of considering discharge application, Court cannot hold mini trial or go deep into probative value of material on record. Karnataka High Court.
Cr.P.C. Section 482. Quashing of non-compoundable cases. Guiding factor is as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, both the ultimate consequences may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. Karnataka High Court.
Arbitrary freezing of bank account by the authorities, unless there is a strong suspicion against the account holder, adversely affects the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.
Cr.P.C. Section 200. Magistrate can not refer complaint for investigation to Police under Section 156, after taking cognizance of the offence. After taking cognizance, he can not revert back. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal Procedure Code. Acceptance of B report can NOT be done mechanically without adverting to the material on the basis of which the said report is filed. Karnataka High Court.
Bail in NDPS cases. Though mere delay in obtaining Forensic Science Lab report is not a ground to grant bail-Prosecution shall secure the report at the earliest to prevent detention of accused for an indefinite period. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal Trial. Expert handwriting opinion can be relied only when it is supported by internal and external evidence. Law on the point discussed. Karnataka High Court.
NDPS Act. Prosecution’s complaint failing to connect accused with seized material. Valid ground to grant bail to the accused.
Preventive detention under the Goonda Act. Failure to furnish translated copies of the documents to the detenue renders the detention unsustainable. Karnataka High Court.
MVC Act. Contributory negligence cannot be attributed to victim riding vehicle simply because he did not have driving license and insurance, especially when he was riding on the correct side of the road. Karnataka High Court.
MVC Act,1988. Tribunal or Court should not apply the split multiplier in routine course and multiplier should be applied. An injured or the legal representatives of the deceased should not be deprived from getting a just compensation. Karnataka High Court.
MVC Act. Tribble riding on a two-wheeler itself is not a ground to avoid insurance liability unless it is established that the tribble riding was the cause for the accident to attribute contributory negligence. Karnataka High Court.
Anticipatory bail can be granted even after cognizance of an offence is taken and the chargesheet is filed. Karnataka High Court.
NDPS. Possession could mean physical possession with animus; exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment; or personal knowledge as to the existence of the contraband and the intention based on such knowledge. Karnataka High Court.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty celebrates his 57th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Savanur Vishwajith Shetty:
Born on 19.05.1967. Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and taken oath on 28.04.2020 and Permanent Judge on 25.09.2021.
Important Judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S Vishwajith Shetty.
Karnataka Police Act. Mere apprehension of the police is not enough to pass an order of externment. There must be grounds and adequate materials to show that there is danger based upon credible materials. Karnataka High Court.
Indian Penal Code. When accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 392 (Robbery), he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property). Karnataka High Court.
Wife demanding separate residence does not always amount to cruelty for grant of divorce. There must be determination to put an end to marital relation and cohabitation. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Excise Act. Compliance of Sections 53 and 54 i.e. securing search warrant or to record the grounds to dispense with the search warrant is mandatory. Non-compliance of the same would vitiate the conviction order. Karnataka High Court.
Judgment of acquittal passed in a complaint case can be challenged before the High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.PC and an appeal under Section 378(2) Cr.PC before the Sessions Court is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.
Rash and negligent driving resulting in death. Leniency can be shown on the sentence that is imposed on the accused in the event if the family members of the deceased receive the compensation from the accused. Karnataka High Court.
When Juvenile Justice Board decides to try the juvenile as an adult, the accused can, apart from appealing against the order, seek bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Karnataka High Court.
Arms Act. When the gun seized from the accused was unloaded and no ammunition was found in possession of the accused, the gun cannot be said to have been used for hunting purposes. Karnataka High Court sets aside conviction.
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Application for restoration filed 25 years after the sale cannot be entertained by the authorities since it is beyond reasonable time. Karnataka High Court.
Judicial estoppel. Person participating in the proceedings despite knowledge of the defect in the jurisdiction of an Authority without any objection is disentitled from questioning the jurisdiction in subsequent proceeding. Karnataka High Court.
“Child cannot be allowed to remain in unhealthy atmosphere”. Karnataka High Court orders custody of the minor child to the father having found the wife to be in immoral relationship.
Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) of CPC applies even to writ proceedings. Withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action does not act as resjudicata. Karnataka High Court.
Order XVIII Rule 3 of CPC. Rebuttal evidence is permissible only in respect of issues casting onus on the other side and the said opportunity cannot be utilized to fill up the lacuna in the evidence of the party leading evidence first. Karnataka High Court.
Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked challenging issuance of caste certificate since alternate remedy of appeal is provided under the Karnataka SC/ST & OBC (Reservation of Appointments, etc.,) Act. Karnataka High Court.
“State has no power to direct reservation in employment in favour of SC, ST and OBCs in Private Schools under the Karnataka Education Act.” Landmark Judgement from the Karnataka High Court.
“State has no power to regulate fee structure in Private Schools under the Karnataka Education Act”. Landmark Judgement from the Karnataka High Court.
Withdrawal of exemption under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act on the ground of financial loss of an establishment for three consecutive years is not unconstitutional. Karnataka High Court.
Prospective beneficiary has no right to question deletion of the land from the acquisition proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
When urgency clause in invoked under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State must act with quite promptitude failing which the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Writ Court cannot direct the Government to frame scheme under Article 162 of the Constitution especially when the parties have alternative remedy for the redressal of their grievances. Karnataka High Court.
When correction of arbitration award is sought, limitation to challenge award commences from the date on which request for correction of award has been disposed of by arbitrator and not from the date of the original award. Karnataka High Court.
”Every order or transaction pursuant to fraudulent act is void ab initio and the same cannot be allowed to stand”. Karnataka High Court, while ordering restoration of khata which was fraudulently changed.
Change of entries in property register by playing fraud. Such fraudulent entry can be set aside in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.
Arbitration award. The date for quantifying the stamp duty payable on the award is the date on which the award was signed. Karnataka High Court.
Nominated members have no right to cast their votes in the election to President and Vice President under the Karnataka Municipalities Act. Karnataka High Court.
Tahsildar has jurisdiction under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to carry out survey work and fix boundaries even in respect lands falling within the limits of Corporation. Karnataka High Court.
Transport vehicle and omnibus, when gross weight does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle. Holder of LMV driving licence is competent to drive such transport vehicle only when the weight does not exceed the limit. Karnataka High Court.
Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations. Time limit of 90 days for passing the order in original under Regulation 17 is directory and not mandatory. Karnataka High Court.
Family pension. Order of priority under the pension Rules prevail over order of priority under the Hindu Succession Act. When wife is alive, no other legal/illegitimate heir can claim family pension. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC-ST (PTCL) Act, 1978. Application for resumption and restoration of granted land filed 10 years after the sale can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC-ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 is NOT applicable in cases of mere agreements of sale without delivery of possession. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC-ST (PTCL) Act, 1978. Delay of 16 years from the date of sale in filing application for resumption and restoration of granted land. Karnataka High Court quashes the entire proceedings.
Service Law. Minimum qualifications for appointments prescribed under the UGC guidelines are for the purpose of maintaining excellence in the higher standards of education. Universities have no power to relax them. Karnataka High Court.
‘Corruption hurts everyone. Corruption erodes trust of a common man in the system. Anti corruption law shall be invoked against persons, who by virtue of their office are discharging public duty’. Karnataka High Court.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Employee of Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, which receives funds from Government, is a ‘public servant’ and liable for prosecution under the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Default bail under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Order extending time to complete investigation without notifying or producing the accused is bad in law. Accused are entitled to default bail in such eventuality. Karnataka High Court.
Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Industry having outdoor catering services for factory canteen cannot claim Cenvit credit post 2011. Court, while dealing with taxing statute, cannot include what is specifically excluded. Karnataka High Court.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Order XXIX Rule 1. Director of company can NOT institute a suit without board resolution or ratification. Temporary injunction can be refused on the ground of maintainability of the suit. Karnataka High Court.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not apply to acquisitions under the Bangalore Development Authority Act. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. Section 38-B. Karnataka High Court declares bulk allotment of acquired land by BDA in favour of BDA Employees’ Welfare Association as illegal. Dismisses PIL for non-joinder of allottes of the sites.
Environment. Declaring forest as non-forest under the Karnataka Forest Act without the prior approval of the Central Government is illegal. Take action against erring officials – Karnataka High Court.
Criminal Procedure Code. Power under Section 311 to summon material witness or examine person present can be invoked by the court suo motu and even at a stage when the case is posted for judgment. Karnataka High Court.
Suo Motu action regarding functioning of the Juvenile Justice Boards in the State. Karnataka High Court issues interim directions.
Criminal Procedure Code. Non-recording or delayed recording or improper recording of statement under Section 161-3 is a serious irregularity which is incurable. Conviction under NDPS Act set aside on this ground. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal Procedure Code. Section 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence cannot be exercised in a casual manner on the basis of a stray statement of the complainant. Karnataka High Court.
Aarogya Setu App. Informed consent of users of the app is must for sharing user data by the Government of India and National Informatics Centre. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka High Court strikes down rule enabling collection of fee from transporter of minor minerals from other States into State of Karnataka.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Additional award under Section 33 forms part of the arbitral award. Remedy appeal and not Writ.
Karnataka High Court directs State Election Commission to hold elections for 198 Wards of BBMP at the earliest.
Properties purchased by husband in the name of his wife are the absolute properties of the wife in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Karnataka High Court.
Daughters born prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are also entitled for coparcenary property under the amended Section 6. Karnataka High Court.
Special statutes prevail over the Limitation Act. Appellate Authority has no power to entertain an appeal beyond the period of one month as stipulated under Section 107(4) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Karnataka High Court.
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In a case of surrender of land by tenant, procedure of taking possession under Section 29 of the Act does not apply. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Trustee is the owner and custodian of Trust property and cannot claim occupancy rights under Section 45 of the Act in respect of the Trust property. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Any action taken by the authorities under the Act beyond a reasonable period cannot be sustained. Karnataka High Court quashes resumption order.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Sub-tenants are entitled to be registered as occupants of the land, only when the sub-tenancy was created prior to 2 October 1965. Karnataka High Court.
High Court under Article 226 cannot interfere with the order of the fact-finding authority like the Land Tribunal especially when the order is based on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to reject the application for conversion of land after the expiry of four months when the deeming clause under Section 95 (5) applies. Karnataka High Court.https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/IuaNAztXVjIOOCC8OSWiU9fCJ
Blocking Input Tax Credit available in Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Post-decisional or remedial hearing shall be granted to the person/assesseeaffected. Karnataka High Court.
Tenancy rights can be adjudicated only before the Land Tribunal. Tahsildar has no right to enter the name of the Government in RTC assuming vesting of the land. Karnataka High Court.
”It is the duty of the Court and the Prosecution to protect the right of informant/victim to oppose bail application of the accused for the rape offence under IPC or under POCSO Act.” Karnataka High Court issues exhaustive guidelines.
Bail application of an accused for the offences punishable under Section 376(3), 376-AB, 376DA or 376-DB of IPC or under POCSO Act cannot be heard without giving opportunity of being heard to the informant/victim. Karnataka High Court.
POCSO Act being later prevails over the SC/ST Atrocities Act. Where accused is charged with both SC/ST Atrocities Act and POCSO Act, petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C can be filed before High Court. Karnataka High Court.
There is no need for the Court order appointing guardian in respect of minor’s undivided interest in joint family. Parents can sell undivided interest of minor in joint family property. Karnataka High Court.
Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans(Abolition) Act. Re-grant in favour of the Watandar/Inamadar would enure to the benefit of the purchaser if the sale was made prior to the last date of filing an application for re-grant. Karnataka High Court.
Prosecution has no right to apply for modification of the chargesheet under Section 216 and 217 of the Cr.P.C. Only the trial Court can suo motu exercise power to alter the chargesheet. Karnataka High Court.
Daksha Legal