Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh M. Adiga celebrates his 62nd birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh Manjunath Bhat Adiga: Born on 09.01.1964. Native of Gadag. Enrolled as Advocate and practiced at Gadag. Appointed as Munsiff on 08.02.1995. Appointed as District Judge on 06.07.2009. Served as Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of Karnataka, Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, Dharwad and as Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. Sworn-in as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 16.08.2022.
Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh M Adiga.
Service Law. Person ineligible for the post cannot question the appointment of another person to the post since Public Interest Litigation is impermissible in Service matters. Karnataka High Court.
When proceedings are initiated under the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, the authorities are bound to examine whether the grant comes within the purview of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Competent authority has discretion to reduce the percentage of damages under Section 14B and the same is justiciable. Karnataka High Court.
Mere payment of premium amount before occurrence of accident will not cover liability if the insurance policy is issued with effect from the time after the accident. Karnataka High Court.
Mere existence of Arbitration Clause does not bar jurisdiction of the Civil Court unless the party exercises his right under Section 8 of the A & C Act. Karnataka High Court.
Where driver of vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence, the insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the same from owner of the vehicle. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
MVC Act. Amputation of leg need not always result in 100% disability for the purpose of awarding compensation when the claimant can do the work which is not strenuous in nature. Karnataka High Court.
Borrower of motor vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and hence the borrower of the vehicle or his legal heirs are not entitled for compensation. Karnataka High Court.
“Coparcenary system continues even after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.” Karnataka High Court explains the principles behind succession and survivorship.
Income Tax Act. Exemption from restriction on cash transaction can be claimed only for special exigencies the burden of proving is on the assessee. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Succession Act. When a person with a living daughter is adopted into another family, the daughter remains a part of her natural family and retains her right to inherit a share of her natural family’s ancestral property. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act. Assessment of the notional income for a minor must be based on the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. Burden of furnishing the applicable minimum wage data rests on the insurance company if the claimant fails to produce it. Karnataka High Court.
Labour Law. When a reinstatement award is passed in favor of a workman, and the implementation of that award is subsequently stayed by an appellate court upon the employer’s challenge, the principle of ‘no work no pay’ will not apply for the period the stay order was in operation, as the workman was prevented from working due to the employer’s legal challenge. Karnataka High Court.
Mohammedan Law. The mere registration of a gift deed does not, by itself, establish compliance with all legal requirements. A valid gift must be supported by three essential elements: a clear declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and contemporaneous as well as continuous delivery of possession to the donee. Unless these elements are proved, the donor remains entitled to subsequently alienate the property, and the donee cannot rely on an earlier, unproven gift to challenge the validity of later transactions. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act (unamended). The Insurer is liable to indemnify the owner for an accident that occurs within the 30 days grace period after expiry of the license period as the driver is deemed to possess a valid licence. Absence of a driving licence does not per se establish contributory negligence unless a direct link is proved between the lack of the licence and the occurrence of the accident. Karnataka High Court.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad celebrates his 55th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhotanhosur Mallikarjuna Shyam Prasad: Born on 8th January 1971. Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and took oath on 14.02.2018 and Permanent Judge on 07.01.2020.
Important Judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad.
Property inherited by a female from her parents reverts back to heirs of her father on she dying intestate and without issues. Suit for declaration by husband claiming such property ought to be rejected under Order 7 rule 11. Karnataka High Court.
Once parties acknowledge existence of arbitration clause, Court can appoint arbitrator even if stamp duty is insufficiently paid. Karnataka High Court.
When the prosecution fails to prove major offence, the minor and related offence falls into insignificance and the accused will be entitled to acquittal. Karnataka High Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. When arbitrator withdraws from the office, substitute arbitrator can be appointed only under Section 11 read with Section 15 and under Section 29A(4) thereof. Karnataka High Court.
Appeal court should not allow amendment unless there is an error in the decree of the trial court and when the amendment relieves the party who lost the case from the consequences of a decision rendered on merits. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Suit for cancellation of sale deed in respect of agricultural land. Valuation is based on the land revenue and not on the amount shown in the sale deed. Karnataka High Court.
Property inherited by a female from her parents reverts back to heirs of her father on she dying intestate and without issues. Suit for declaration by husband claiming such property ought to be rejected under Order 7 rule 11. Karnataka High Court.
Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watan Abolition Act. Watan property belongs to the entire family, with all family members having hereditary interests eligible for a share. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Stamp Act. Civil court cannot delegate its power to the District Registrar of Stamps to decide on the nature of the document and to determine the deficit duty. Karnataka High Court.
Petition for Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. Karnataka High Court.
Wife with good educational qualification who quit salaried employment without any reason cannot demand maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court.
BBMP Act. Improvement expenses can be collected in instalments for transfer of khata. Non-payment of instalment cannot be a reason to deny benefit of revenue entry since the amount can be recovered in accordance with law. Karnataka High Court.
Inter-State transmission of electricity under Section 11 of the Electricity Act 2003 can be regulated only by the Central Government. Karnataka High Court nullifies order of the State Government.
Pious obligation under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act arises only if the plaintiff is able to demonstrate that the defendant has inherited some asset or estate from the deceased debtor. Karnataka High Court.
Once a property is brought under BBMP limits, the Karnataka Land Revenue Act ceases to apply. Denial of a consolidated Khatha on the ground of non-conversion of the land is not sustainable. Karnataka High Court.
Writ jurisdiction. The State is not exempt from the application of the doctrine of delay and laches, as an unexplained delay is fatal and prevents the re-opening of a finality attained by an order of the Tribunal. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Marriage Act. The right of a spouse to receive permanent alimony under Section 25 is not only available at the time of passing of a decree but any time subsequent thereto on an application. Karnataka High Court.
Family Courts should liberally allow an amendment to include a prayer for permanent alimony in a matrimonial petition, even at a later stage, as permanent alimony is a relief incidental to the main prayer for dissolution of marriage. Karnataka High Court.
Payment of Gratuity Act. The Controlling Authority has the discretion to decide whether to levy compound interest on delayed gratuity payments under Section 8, after providing the employer a reasonable opportunity to present its case. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act. If a Grama Panchayat does not communicate its decision on an application for a building license or trade license within 60 days, the licenses are deemed to have been granted by operation of law. The authority cannot later invalidate the deemed approval. Karnataka High Court.
When a development has been approved under a prevailing Interim Master Plan, the subsequent notification of a final Master Plan that alters the land use designation does not revoke the prior development approval. The validity of the prior approval persists, especially where the developer has acted in accordance with it and third-party rights have been created. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Rent Act. Carpet area and the area covered by the walls of the premises, constitutes ‘plinth area’, which is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of application of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok S. Kinagi celebrates his 56th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok S. Kinagi: Born on 01.01.1970. Enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1995. Practiced in High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench from 2008 to till date.
Practiced in the field of Civil, Land Acquisition and Service Matters etc,.
Panel Advocate – Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society, Gulbarga, Khaja Banda Nawaj Education Society, Gulbarga, Alstom Project India Limited, Shahabad, ACC, Wadi, Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Karnataka State Industrial and Development Board, Ganesh Co-Operative Bank, Gulbarga, Punjab National Bank, Gulbarga, Hutti Goldmines, Hutti, Dist. Raichur, The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited.
Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and taken oath on 23.09.2019 and Permanent Judge on 01.03.2021.
Important judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok S. Kinagi.
Resumption under the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act cannot be ordered when grantee obtained conversion of land for non-agricultural purposes before the alienation. Karnataka High Court.
Stay of suit under Section 10 CPC is permissible only if the whole subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical and not incidentally or collaterally in issue. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. When earlier suo-motu proceedings were dropped by the Assistant Commissioner, fresh proceedings cannot be initiated by the grantee without challenging the said order. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. The Civil Court must record a clear finding about land grabbing in order to transfer the case to Special Court. Karnataka High Court.
Land restored under SC/ST (PTCL) Act to original grantees cannot be construed as Government land to invoke the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act. Karnataka High Court.
Constitution of India. Article 226. In a writ petition challenging the interim order passed by a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, refusal to interfere is a rule and interference is an exception. Karnataka High Court.
Intra-court appeal under the Karnataka High Court Act is not maintainable against an order passed by the Single Judge assailing an award passed by the Labour Court. Karnataka High Court.
Even an earlier registered sale deed does not confer right over property declared subsequently as Wakf property as long as the declaration is not set aside. Karnataka High Court.
Application for amendment of pleadings cannot be entertained after the commencement of trial, unless the party could not raise the issue before commencement of trial. Karnataka High Court.
Corporation cannot demand tax in respect of an industrial plot unless the industrial area is included within the Corporation limits. Karnataka High Court.
KMMC Rules. When the order of Competent Authority is approved by the Controlling Authority, who is also the Revision authority, Revision can only be filed before the State Government. Karnataka High Court.
Committees under Article 194(3) of the Constitution are not vested with adjudicatory jurisdiction which belongs to judicature under the constitutional scheme. Karnataka High Court.
Allotment of industrial plot cannot be cancelled on the ground of delay in implementing the project when the delay is attributable to reasons beyond the capacity of the allottee. Karnataka High Court.
Transfer of Property Act. Upon valid transfer of property, attornment of tenancy takes place and the tenant cannot question such derivative title. Karnataka High Court.
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.
Resumption under the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act cannot be ordered when grantee obtained conversion of land for non-agricultural purposes before the alienation. Karnataka High Court.
Mohammedan law. Though a written document recording a gift (Hiba) is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the validity of such a gift is contingent upon the donor’s clear intention to divest title and the actual delivery of possession. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. When Inam lands are re-granted by the government to the senior-most male member of the family, such re-grant is presumed to enure to the benefit of all the members of the joint family. Karnataka High Court.
A registered partition deed, where a minor’s father has accepted cash in lieu of share, cannot be reopened as unequal or unjust unless the minor, on attaining majority, proves it was prejudicial to their interests. The burden lies on the plaintiff, and mere oral claims are insufficient to set aside a legally executed partition. Karnataka High Court.
Even an earlier registered sale deed does not confer right over property declared subsequently as Wakf property as long as the declaration is not set aside. Karnataka High Court.
A Second Appeal under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable to challenge a part of a trial court’s decree if that part was not contested by way of an appeal or a cross-objection before the first appellate court. Karnataka High Court.
A suit for declaration of a right, including a challenge to a registered Will, is barred by limitation if it is not filed within three years from the date when the plaintiffs had knowledge of the document. Karnataka High Court.
Civil court has no jurisdiction to determine the validity of an order passed by the Land Tribunal due to the bar under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Any order by a Civil Court setting aside a Land Tribunal’s decision would be void and without legal effect. Karnataka High Court.
“Status of husband and wife for the purpose of Section 24 has been achieved by the spouses by the solemnization” In proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, it is the legal duty of the husband to maintain the wife, especially when the wife has no independent source of income. Karnataka High Court.
An amendment to pleadings should generally be allowed before the commencement of trial if it is necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute and does not alter the nature of the suit. Mere delay in seeking an amendment is not a valid ground for rejection, and any prejudice to the opposing party can be compensated with costs. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Succession Act. When a person with a living daughter is adopted into another family, the daughter remains a part of her natural family and retains her right to inherit a share of her natural family’s ancestral property. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Law. Alienation of an undivided share in joint family property by a coparcener is valid only to the extent of his share and is not binding on the shares of the non-alienating coparceners. The purchaser must seek to have the alienated property allotted to the vendor’s share during the final decree proceedings of the partition suit. Karnataka High Court.
A suit for partition based on the continued existence of joint family property is liable to be dismissed when the evidence demonstrates that the family’s joint status was severed by prior partial partitions and by the subsequent division of the remaining properties under a Will executed by the propositus. Karnataka High Court.
A claim for adverse possession fails when party making the claim asserts title through a sale agreement and, in the written statement, denies the title of the true owner. Such stand prevents the establishment of a hostile possession required for a claim of adverse possession. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Tahsildar has no power to invite applications from landless persons unless a prior order has been passed by the Land Tribunal under Section 67 of the Act which determines that the land is in excess of the ceiling area and is to be surrendered to the State Government. Karnataka High Court.
Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide an ejectment suit when a claim for occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act has been rejected by the Land Tribunal, and that order has achieved finality. Karnataka High Court.
A suit for perpetual injunction is not maintainable when the plaintiff admits the defendant’s possession. Withdrawal of a prior suit with liberty to file a fresh one does not automatically validate a subsequent suit. Karnataka High Court.
Civil suit against Forest Officers who act under the color of duty to preserve forest land is not maintainable without sanction of the State Government under Section 114-A of the Karnataka Forest Act. Karnataka High Court.
Issue regarding valuation and Court fees cannot be tried as a preliminary issue in a suit and shall be tried along with other issues. Karnataka High Court.
Specific performance. Agreement executed within the prohibited period under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act cannot be specifically enforced. Karnataka High Court.
Violation of condition in land grant order will not result in automatic cancellation of the grant unless the Government initiates proceedings for resumption of the land. Karnataka High Court.
Court Fee. When agricultural land falls within the Corporation limit, the market value has to be taken into consideration even though the land continues to be shown as agricultural in the revenue records. Karnataka High Court.
“Dependency on daughter does not end with her marriage”. Parents can seek compensation for the death of their daughter in a motor vehicle accident. Karnataka High Court.
Power of attorney executed in favour of blood relatives as mentioned in the Karnataka Stamp Act need not be stamped as a document of conveyance. Karnataka High Court.
Sale of ancestral property. Recitals in the sale deed of legal necessity do not by themselves prove the legal necessity though they are admissible in evidence. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Land converted for non-agricultural purposes no longer remains ‘granted land’ and hence there is no requirement of prior permission to sell such land. Karnataka High Court.
Persons who purchased suit schedule property during the pendency of suit for specific performance can be added as additional defendant. Karnataka High Court.
Delay in completion of the project on the industrial site allotted by the KIADB. Allotment cannot be straightaway cancelled by the authority without giving opportunity to the allottee. Karnataka High Court.
In a suit for declaration, the plaintiff is expected to prove his title to a high degree of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. Karnataka High Court.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muralidhara Pai celebrates his 59th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muralidhara Pai: Born on 31.12.1966. Native of Borkatte in Karkala Taluk, Udupi District. Enrolled as Advocate and practiced at Bengaluru. Appointed as Civil Judge on 11.02.1997. Served as Senior Faculty Member of Karnataka Judicial Academy, Additional Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka – Kalaburagi Bench, Principal District & Sessions Judge at Mangaluru and Belagavi, The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and Principal City Civil and Seesions Judge, Bengaluru.
Appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 30.09.2025
Important Judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muralidhara Pai.
Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Partial rejection of a plaint is impermissible. Even in a partition suit where certain properties are alleged to be unavailable, the court’s power extends only to rejecting the plaint in its entirety, as the expression “plaint” denotes the whole pleading. This power is distinct from the striking out of portions of the plaint. Karnataka High Court.
Preventive detention. If the detaining authority fails to provide the detenue with legible copies of all relied-upon documents, the same constitutes a fundamental violation of the right to make an effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Strict compliance with all constitutional and statutory safeguards is mandatory for the exercise of the draconian power of preventive detention. Karnataka High Court.
Victim Compensation Scheme. Power to award compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. is not ancillary to other sentences. In criminal cases resulting in death, courts have a mandatory duty to judiciously apply their mind to ensure suitable compensation is recommended for the dependent victims, such as minor children. Karnataka High Court.
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice K. S. Mudagal celebrates her 62nd birthday today.
Hon’ble Justice Kottravva Somappa Mudagal: Born on December 22, 1963. Obtained B’Com, LL.B. from Karnataka University, Dharwad. Joined legal profession on 6th July, 1988 as an Advocate at Dharwad and Bangalore. Appointed as District Judge on 17.06.1998. Sworn in as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 14th November, 2016 and Permanent Judge on 03.11.2018.
Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Justice K.S. Mudagal.
Prima facie case includes maintainability of the suit. When maintainability of the suit is doubtful or the suit is prima facie vexatious, it cannot be said that the applicant has prima facie case. Karnataka High Court.
Civil Procedure Code. Order 39 Rule 2A. Dismissal of the main suit does NOT absolve the defendants of their liability for breach of injunction order. Karnataka High Court.
Civil Procedure Code. Order 39 Rule 2A. Party knowingly violating injunction order cannot contend that the order is null and void or irregular and hence need not be obeyed. Karnataka High Court.
Rejection of Plaint. When plaint is sought to be rejected on a pure question of law, the application cannot be dismissed on the ground that the same shall be considered on a full-fledged trial. Karnataka High Court.
Daily waged employees working in the local bodies like Zilla Panchayats, on their regularization, are entitled for payment of gratuity from the date of their initial appointment. Karnataka High Court.
Delay and laches in filing Writ Petition. Where respondents/authorities are themselves guilty of delay and latches, they cannot raise such plea against petitioner. Karnataka High Court.
UAP Act. Informal body of individuals ‘concerned’ with the terrorist act, though not actually involved in terrorist act, is also covered under the definition of ‘terrorist gang’. Karnataka High Court.
Guardians and Wards Act. The custody of a minor child should be with the natural parents unless they are found unfit. While the child’s preference is a factor, the paramount consideration is their long-term welfare, emotional stability, financial security, and sibling bonding. Prior custody agreements can be revised based on changing circumstances. Karnataka High Court.
Proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which are brought before a Family Court, are civil in nature. The Court has the discretion to accept evidence via affidavit. Karnataka High Court.
‘Criminal Law. Investigation agencies dishing out charge sheet under public pressure only to quench and quell the public angst resuling in perfunctory and lopsided investigation requires introspection’. Karnataka High Court, while acquitting the accused in triple murder case.
Review Petition by non-party to the proceedings. Court can review compromise decree recorded in Regular Second Appeal if there was suppression of facts affecting the rights of third party. Karnataka High Court.
Civil suit questioning attachment of property under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules is not maintainable without exhausting the remedy provided under Section 101 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Karnataka High Court.
For the lands falling within Corporation limits, there is no need to obtain conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Karnataka High Court.
Native Christians of Coorg province. Pending suit for partition based on the Shasthric Hindu Law is not maintainable after the issuance of 2015 notification making Indian Succession Applicable to them. Karnataka High Court.
Prima facie case includes maintainability of the suit. When maintainability of the suit is doubtful or the suit is prima facie vexatious, it cannot be said that the applicant has prima facie case. Karnataka High Court.
Occupancy rights granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in favour of one of the member of the family enure to the benefit of the members of the joint family. Karnataka High Court.
Industry showing payment of overtime wages as conveyance charges to evade the ESI contribution. Karnataka High Court imposes exemplary cost on the appellant industry.
Defense of ouster in a suit for possession. The adverse possession pleaded must be open, express or implied repudiation of the rights of the true owner and the hostility must be within the knowledge of true owner. Karnataka High Court.
Irrespective of a party not filing appeal against dismissal of the suit for partition and separate possession, Court can grant relief in appeal invoking Order XLI Rule 33 of C.P.C. Karnataka High Court.
Court cannot refer a case relating to non-compoundable offence to Lok Adalat and Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to determine such case. Karnataka High Court.
Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138 not only includes the cheques issued towards the discharge of any debt, but other liability also. Karnataka High Court.
When a document is admitted in evidence at the instance of a party, entire contents of the document shall be accepted. Party producing the document cannot contend that only portion of the document shall be accepted. Karnataka High Court.
Though Christian law does not recognize adoption, it does not prohibit adoption. Adopted children of Christian parents have right of inheritance. Karnataka High Court.
When minor’s property is sold without Court permission, the minor on attaining majority need not seek cancellation of the sale deed. He can simply repudiate the sale and validly transfer the property. Karnataka High Court.
Rejection of Plaint. When plaint is sought to be rejected on a pure question of law, the application cannot be dismissed on the ground that the same shall be considered on a full-fledged trial. Karnataka High Court.
Prima facie case includes maintainability of the suit. When maintainability of the suit is doubtful or the suit is prima facie vexatious, it cannot be said that the applicant has prima facie case. Karnataka High Court.
Civil Procedure Code. Order 39 Rule 2A. Dismissal of the main suit does NOT absolve the defendants of their liability for breach of injunction order. Karnataka High Court.
Civil Procedure Code. Order 39 Rule 2A. Party knowingly violating injunction order cannot contend that the order is null and void or irregular and hence need not be obeyed. Karnataka High Court.
ಬಸವರಾಜ್. ಎಸ್. ಹಿರಿಯ ವಕೀಲರು. ಸದಸ್ಯರು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್.
ವಕೀಲರಿಗೋಸ್ಕರ 1983ರ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ ನಿಧಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಅಡಿ ಸ್ಥಾಪಿಸಲಾದ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ ನಿಧಿಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿವರಣೆ ನೀಡುವ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿರುವುದರಿ0ದ ಈ ಸಣ್ಣ ಲೇಖನ. ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ ನಿಧಿ ಈಗ ಇರುವ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾತ್ರ ವಿವರಣೆ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಹಳೆಯ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿವರಣೆ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ.ವಕೀಲರು ಹಣ ಸ0ದಾಯದ ವಿವರ. ನೊ0ದಣಿಯಾಗುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ರೂ. 1,000 ಗಳನ್ನು ವಕೀಲರ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ ನಿಧಿಗೆ ನೀಡಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ನ0ತರ ಪ್ರತಿ ವರ್ಷ ರೂ. 1,000 ಗಳನ್ನು ವಕೀಲರ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ ನಿಧಿಗೆ ಸ0ದಾಯ ಮಾಡಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. 15 ವರ್ಷ ವಕೀಲ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ವಕೀಲರು ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ ನಿಧಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿ ವರ್ಷ ರೂ. 2,000 ಸ0ದಾಯ ಮಾಡಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಮು0ದುವರೆದು, 15 ವರ್ಷ ವಕೀಲ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ವಕೀಲರು ಒಮ್ಮೆ ರೂ. 25,000 ಅಜೀವ ಸದಸ್ಯತ್ವ ಸ0ದಾಯ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ಪ್ರತಿ ವರ್ಷ ಹಣ ಕಟ್ಟುವ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ. ಪದಾ0ಕಿತ ಹಿರಿಯ ವಕೀಲರು ಪ್ರತಿ ವರ್ಷ ರೂ. 10,000 ರೂಗಳನ್ನು ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ ನಿಧಿಗೆ ಸ0ದಾಯ ಮಾಡಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದು ರೂ. 25,000 ಸ0ದಾಯ ಅಜೀವ ಸದಸ್ಯತ್ವ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರೂ ಕೂಡ ಕಟ್ಟಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದರ ಕಾರಣ ಹಿರಿಯ ವಕೀಲರು ಚೀಟಿಯನ್ನು (ಸ್ಟಾ0ಪ್) ಹಾಕುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಮರಣ ಪರಿಹಾರ. ವಕೀಲರ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ ನಿಧಿಯಿ0ದ ಈ ಕೆಳಕ0ಡ0ತೆ ಪರಿಹಾರ ನೀಡಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ನೊ0ದಣಿಯಾದ 15 ವರ್ಷದೊಳಗೆ ಮರಣ ಹೊ0ದಿದರೆ ರೂ. 4 ಲಕ್ಷ. ನೊ0ದಣಿಯಾದ 15 ರಿ0ದ 35 ವರ್ಷದೊಳಗೆ ಮರಣ ಹೊ0ದಿದರೆ ರೂ. 6 ಲಕ್ಷ. ನೊ0ದಣಿಯಾದ 35 ವರ್ಷದ ನ0ತರ ಮರಣ ಹೊ0ದಿದರೆ ರೂ. 8 ಲಕ್ಷ. ಗಮನಿಸಿ. 40 ನೆ ವಯಸ್ಸಿನ ನ0ತರ ವಕೀಲ ವೃತ್ತಿಗೆ ನೊ0ದಣಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ 6:8:2010 ರ ನ0ತರ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ ನಿಧಿ ಸದಸ್ಯತ್ವ ಹೊ0ದಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವ0ತ ಇಚ್ಚೆಯಿ0ದ ಸನದ್ದನ್ನು ಅಮಾನತುಗೊಳಿಸಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ 1:8:2000 ರ ನ0ತರ ಸದಸ್ಯತ್ವ ಹೊ0ದಿ 60 ವರ್ಷ ವಯಸ್ಸಾಗಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರತಿ ವರ್ಷ ರೂ. 10,000 ದ0ತೆ ಗರಿಷ್ಠ ರೂ 3 ಲಕ್ಷ ನೀಡಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದು ವಿವೃತ್ತಿಗೂ ಅನ್ವಯಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ನಿವೃತ್ತಿ ಪರಿಹಾರ. ಈ ವರ್ಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಪರಿಹಾರ ಕೋರುವ ವಕೀಲರು ನೊ0ದಣಿಯಾದ ದಿನದಿ0ದ 50 ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಕಾಲ ವಕೀಲ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಬೇಕಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಅಥವಾ 75 ವರ್ಷ ವಯಸ್ಸಾಗಿರಬೇಕು. ತಡವಾಗಿ ನೊ0ದಣಿಯಾದ ವಕೀಲರು 75 ನೇ ವಯಸ್ಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನಿವೃತ್ತಿ ಕೋರಿದರೆ ಹಣದ ಮೊತ್ತ ಬದಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಅ0ದರೆ; ಅವರ 75 ನೆ ವಯಸ್ಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ 15 ವರ್ಷ ಮಾತ್ರ ವಕೀಲ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರೆ ರೂ. 4 ಲಕ್ಷ, 75 ನೆ ವಯಸ್ಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ 35 ವರ್ಷ ಮಾತ್ರ ವಕೀಲ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರೆ ರೂ. 6 ಲಕ್ಷ, 75 ನೆ ವಯಸ್ಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ 35 ವರ್ಷಕ್ಕಿ0ತ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ವಕೀಲ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರೆ ರೂ. 8 ಲಕ್ಷ. ಆಸ್ಪತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಾಖಲಾದ 3 ತಿ0ಗಳೊಳಗಾಗಿ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಬೇಕು. ವಕೀಲರು 75 ವಯಸ್ಸಿಗಿ0ತ ಕಿರಿಯ ವಯಸ್ಸಿನಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ನಿವೃತ್ತಿ ಪರಿಹಾರ ಕೋರಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಶಾಸ್ವತ ಊನತೆ ಉ0ಟಾಗಿ ವಕೀಲ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಮು0ದುವರೆಸಲು ಸಾದ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ ಎ0ಬ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ವೈದ್ಯಕೀಯ ಸರ್ಜನ್ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ ಹಾಜರು ಪಡಿಸಬೇಕು. ಖಾಯಿಲೆ ಪರಿಹಾರ. 5 ವರ್ಷ ವಕೀಲ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ವಕೀಲರು ಈ ವರ್ಗದಲ್ಲಿ ರೂ. 1,50,000 ದವರೆಗೆ ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದು. ಇದು ಒ0ದು ಬಾರಿ ಮಾತ್ರ. ಈ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಅ0ತಿಮವಾಗಿ ನೀಡುವ ಹಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಡಿತಗೊಳಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದಲ್ಲದೆ ಭಾರತೀಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ರೂ. 50,000 ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದು. ಇದು ಒ0ದು ಬಾರಿ ಮಾತ್ರ. ಈ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕಡಿತಗೊಳಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಯಾವ ಖಾಯಿಲೆಗಳಿಗೆಹಣ ನೀಡಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ?. ಕ್ಯಾನ್ಸರ್, ಏಡ್ಸ್, ಬ್ರೇನ್ ಟೂಮರ್, ಮಾನಸಿಕ ರೋಗ, (Mental disorder), ನಡೆದಾಡಲು ಮತ್ತು ಮಾತನಾಡಲು ಆಗದ ಪಾರ್ಶ್ವವಾಯು (Paralysis). ಇತರೆ ಖಾಯಿಲೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಮಿತಿ ನೀಡಬೇಕೆ0ದರೆ ವೈದ್ಯಕೀಯ ತಜ್ಞರ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ ಪಡೆಯಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಹಣಕಾಸಿನ ತೊ0ದರೆ ಪರಿಹಾರ. ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಪರಿಸ್ತಿತಿ ಬಿಗಡಾಯಿಸಿದಾಗ ವಕೀಲರು ವಕೀಲರು ರೂ. 1,50,000 ದವರೆಗೆ ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದು. ಇದು ಒ0ದು ಬಾರಿ ಮಾತ್ರ. ಈ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಅ0ತಿಮವಾಗಿ ನೀಡುವ ಹಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಡಿತಗೊಳಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ವರ್ಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾರತೀಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನಿ0ದ ಯಾವುದೆ ಹಣ ನೀಡಲಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಈ ವರ್ಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಣ ಪಡೆಯಬೇಕಾದಲ್ಲಿ (1) ವಕೀಲರಿಗೆ 65 ವರ್ಷ ವಯಸ್ಸಾಗಿರಬೇಕು (2) ಹಾಗೂ 20 ವರ್ಷ ವಕೀಲ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಮಾಡಿರಬೇಕು (3) ಹಾಗೂ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ ನಿಧಿಗೆ 12 ವರ್ಷ ಸದಸ್ಯರಾಗಿರಬೇಕು. ಈ ಎಲ್ಲ ಮೂರು ಅ0ಶಗಳೂ ಇರಬೇಕು.
ಬಸವರಾಜ್. ಎಸ್. ಹಿರಿಯ ವಕೀಲರು. ಸದಸ್ಯರು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh celebrates his 61st birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hethur Puttaswamygowda Sandesh: Born on December 2nd 1964, at Hethur in Sakaleshpur Taluk, Hassan District to Late Sri. Puttaswamy Gowda and Late Smt. Kaveramma as a second son. He had his Primary Education at Hethur and Sakaleshpur. Secondary Education at Pre-University Government College, Sakaleshpur.
Thereafter, obtained 5 years Law Degree from M. Krishna Law College, Mysuru University from 1987 to 1992 and started practice with Sri.K. Anantharamaiah, Senior Advocate on both Civil and Criminal Law at Hassan. Thereafter, shifted his practice to Bengaluru in 1994. He has practiced both on Civil and Criminal side in High Court and District Judiciary in Bengaluru.
Thereafter, directly selected as District & Sessions Judge in 2002 and worked as I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandya and Mangaluru, Principal Secretary to Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Registrar (Administration) in High Court of Karnataka, Principal District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru and Haveri, Registrar (Infrastructure), Registrar (Administration), Secretary to Hon’ble The Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Karnataka and elevated as Additional Judge, High Court of Karnataka on 03.11.2018 and permanent Judge on 26.02.2020.
Got married to Smt. Hemavathi and has two daughters by name Kum. Sahana Sandesh, who is an Engineering graduate and Kum. Sneha Sandesh, who is pursuing her MBBS., and now doing her internship in M.S.Ramaiah Medical College, Bengaluru.
Important judgments delivered by Hon’ble Justice H.P. Sandesh.
Criminal Procedure Code. Section 482. Mere pendency of civil suit on the issue is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings when serious allegations are made in chargesheet. Karnataka High Court.
Negotiable Instruments Act. Whether a cheque is issued in respect of a time barred debt is a matter for trial. Proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal Procedure Code. Section 482. When prosecution prima facie establishes receipt of huge money by son relatable to crime of corruption by the father defence of private transaction cannot be accepted to quash proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138. Non mentioning of transaction date in the complaint is not fatal to the case when evidence is led to corroborate the transaction details. Karnataka High Court.
Negotiable Instruments Act. Imprisonment ordered in default of fine in different and independent transactions. Sentence will run consecutively and NOT concurrently. Karnataka High Court.
Cr.P.C. Section 482. Though a transaction is civil in nature, if the complaint specifically avers dishonest and fraudulent acts inducing complainant to part with money, the criminal proceedings can NOT be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Rape. Alleged bad character of a woman does not justify sexual assault on her. Karnataka High Court condemns the police machinery which tried to protect the rapist police officer.
Motor Vehicles Act. Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation under personal accident claim benefit even when the borrower of the vehicle met with personal accident. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act. After 1994 amendment, in case of goods vehicle, owner or his authorised representative are covered and entitled for compensation even though policy was issued earlier to 1994. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act. Vehicle covered under valid insurance policy driven by person without a driving licence at the time of accident. Insurance company has to pay compensation and recover the same from the owner. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act. Comprehensive policy covers employee of owner of vehicle involved in accident. Insurance company is liable to pay compensation for death of such employee. Karnataka High Court.
Negotiable Instruments Act. Against the order of acquittal passed by the first appellate court, appeal to High Court under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C is maintainable. Karnataka High Court.
Forgery of document produced before the Court. If the document was already tampered before its production before the Court, bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) for prosecution will not apply. Karnataka High Court.
Complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act filed without application to condone delay. Limitation issue raised for the first time in appeal. Appellate Court can send matter back to trial court by permitting complainant to file necessary application. Karnataka High Court.
Review. An error, which is not self-evident and to be detected by the process of reasoning, can not be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the Court to exercise the power of review. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. When entire sale consideration is paid and possession of the property is also delivered to the agreement holder, the readiness and willingness issue becomes illusory. Karnataka High Court.
Defamation. Onus of proving two ingredients; truth of the imputation and the publication of the imputation for the public good, is on the accused. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Court cannot frame charge for ‘adulteration’ when prosecution case is ‘misbranding’. Judgement based on such charge liable to be set aside. Karnataka High Court.
Make sure that men of integrity are posted to Anti Corruption Bureau which is established to prevent corruption. Karnataka High Court directs the Chief Secretary to Government.
”Financial dependency is not the Ark of The Covenant”. Even the married sons and daughters are also entitled to compensation under the MVC Act. Karnataka High Court.
Workmen’s Compensation Act. There is no bar to enhance compensation invoking Order XLI Rule 33 of the CPC even in the absence of an appeal by the claimants. Karnataka High Court.
Death of driver due to heart attack while taking rest in parked vehicle shall also be construed as death during the course of employment. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicle Act. Karnataka High Court exercises power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC to enhance compensation from 11 lakhs to 44 lakhs in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
MVC Act. Insurance Company cannot escape its liability by merely branding driving license as fake without actually proving the same. Karnataka High Court.
After collecting premium for one year, Insurance Company cannot disown its liability on the ground that the registration of the vehicle expired in the meanwhile. Karnataka High Court.
Workmen Compensation Act. When the employer has not maintained the register, the salary claim of the claimant has to be accepted. Karnataka High Court.
After issuing the policy, Insurance Company cannot avoid liability if the cheque towards premium is dishonoured unless the Insurer cancels the policy and intimates the insured. Karnataka High Court.
Failure to conclude criminal trial expeditiously cannot be a ground to grant bail when the involvement in serious offences is made out. Karnataka High Court.
Rejection of earlier bail petition does not bar the Court from considering further developments on different considerations in a successive bail petition subject to gravity of the offence. Karnataka High Court.
Order rejecting bail petition does not preclude another petition on a later occasion giving more materials, further developments and different considerations. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
Order 41 Rule 33 CPC can be invoked to enhance compensation even in an appeal filed by the insured as well as Insurance Company in the absence of appeal filed by the claimant. Karnataka High Court.
Bail. Merely because another accused who was granted bail was armed with similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether bail can be granted on the basis of parity. 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.
Petition for anticipatory bail is NOT maintainable once accused appears through his Advocate and gets exemption from appearance. He can seek only regular bail. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Succession Act. Grant of occupancy rights in favour of a woman member of the joint family under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act cannot be considered as her absolute property under Section 14. Karnataka High Court.
Permissive possession cannot be claimed as adverse possession unless the possession is adequate in continuity, adequate in publicity and adverse to a competitor. Karnataka High Court.
Limitation for suit for comprehensive relief of declaration and possession is 12 years under Article 65 and not 3 years under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. When suit is filed after non-alienation period is over, the suit cannot be said to be barred by time especially when entire sale consideration is paid under the agreement of sale. Karnataka High Court.
Disposition property in unnatural, improbable or unfair manner and exclusion of or absence of adequate provisions for the natural heirs without any reason is a ground to doubt the execution of a Will. Karnataka High Court.
Though sale in violation of non-alienation clause is voidable, if no action is taken against the purchaser or the sale for long time, by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, the purchaser gets his title perfected. Karnataka High Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Limitation under Section 34(3) commences only from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party applying for setting it aside. Mere knowledge of the award is not enough. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for partition filed several years after the property was sold by the karta or the mother is hit by the doctrine of acquiescence and the same is liable to be dismissed. Karnataka High Court.
Suit seeking direction to conduct prayers/mass prayers in Church in a particular language invoking fundamental right under Article 25 does not involve Canon Law. Plaint cannot be rejected on this ground. Karnataka High Court.
Suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor, can be filed only before the Family Court and the District Court has no jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for partition filed three years after the minor coparcener attaining majority merely pleading that alienation of ancestral properties by karta is not binding on him is barred by law of limitation. Karnataka High Court.
Counter claim need not be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court. When counter claim exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction, the Court shall return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC to be presented before the proper Court. Karnataka High Court.
When the rent and the leased area are within the prescribed limit under the Rent Act, the Court must reject the plaint for ejection filed under the Transfer of Property Act. Karnataka High Court.
If the premises used for commercial purpose is more than fourteen square meters, it is excluded from the applicability of the Karnataka Rent Act. This can’t be defeated on the ground that its rent is less than the amount stipulated. Karnataka High Court.
Indian Succession Act. Jurisdiction of the court to grant Succession Certificate is based on the ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of death with an intention to stay at that place for a considerable length. Karnataka High Court.
Mere pendency of second appeal against dismissal of suit for specific performance of sale agreement between landlord and tenant is not a ground to postpone the eviction proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
Suit by purchaser of property during pendency of civil suit, seeking declaration that the decree passed in the suit is not binding on him, is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected. Karnataka High Court.
Plaintiff not signing every page of the plaint is not a ground to reject the plaint when the verification column is duly signed by the plaintiff. Karnataka High Court.
Cheque Bounce cases. Moratorium contained in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code applies only to Corporate Debtors. Directors are liable under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Karnataka High Court.
Resjudicata is a mixed question of fact and law. Plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. without holding full fledged trial. Karnataka High Court.
Attachment under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC. Even where the defendant is removing or disposing his assets, attachment before judgment will not be issued if the plaintiff is not able establish prima facie case. Karnataka High Court.
Appeal against grant/refusal to grant temporary injunction. Appellate Court can mould the relief taking note of the relief sought in the Trial Court as on the date of suit. Karnataka High Court.
Sale cannot be set aside under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC unless there is material irregularity which has resulted substantial injury to the judgment-debtor. Karnataka High Court.
Grant of temporary injunction in suit based on defamation. Issue regarding territorial jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and the Court must consider this issue before considering other aspects. Karnataka High Court.
Judgment of the foreign Court is not executable in India if the same is not on merits. Even when the defendant is placed exparte, the judgment ought to be the one based on evidence led by the plaintiff. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act is not a bar for the public authority to file for eviction against a dismissed employee seeking possession of the service quarters. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Second revision petition under Section 115 of CPC is maintainable as against the revisional order passed by the District Court under Section 46. Karnataka High Court.
An independent suit questioning the compromise decree is not maintainable. Parties must approach the very same Court if any fraud or misrepresentation is alleged while obtaining the compromise decree. Karnataka High Court.
Bar of Civil Court jurisdiction in a statute. Before considering the application for temporary injunction, the court must first consider the issue regarding jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
Judgment on admissions. It is not permissible for the Court to make roving enquiry for disposal of the application filed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Rent Act. Date of filing eviction petition governs the jurisdiction of the Court. Subsequent conduct of the parties will not oust the jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
When appeal against dismissal of suit for injunction is pending, the same does not give right to the defendant to seek injunction by way of fresh suit on same the cause of action pleaded by him. Karnataka High Court.
Successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained when the case diary and the status report clearly indicates that the accused is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. Karnataka High Court.
Preventing bank from exercising its right under the SARFAESI Act in the guise of partition suit among family members with prayer for injunction is hit by Sections 35 and 36. Karnataka High Court.
Second suit for partition, instead of enforcing the earlier decree for partition within the period of limitation, is not maintainable. Plaint is liable to be rejected. Karnataka High Court.
Revocation of probate under the Indian Succession Act. Delay in applying for revocation cannot be considered when the service of notice and publication of citation was defective. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Succession Act. Mother as class-I heir is entitled to a share in her deceased son’s property. Her death during the suit/appeal will not alter the situation since Section 15 gets attracted. Karnataka High Court.
Counter claim for possession based on dispossession/trespass. Trial Court is bound to raise the issue of limitation even in the absence of any pleadings with regard to limitation. Karnataka High Court.
Sale deed registered outside the State in respect of property situated within the State of Karnataka is a void document and does not confer any right. Karnataka High Court.
When one party seriously disputes biological relationship with another in a civil suit, the court shall allow the application for DNA test at the instance of the person claiming such a relation. Karnataka High Court.
Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. Only person with independent right has the right to record resistance and not a party who is tracing his right through judgment debtor. Karnataka High Court.
Public or ex-servicemen cannot claim right of way through Class A1 land exclusively belonging to military invoking Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for partition without including all the joint family properties and without impleading all the co-sharers is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.
A third party can institute separate suit challenging compromise award passed by the Lok-Adalat on the ground of fraud and undue influence. Karnataka High Court.
Indian Railways Act. Death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding train falls within the meaning of ‘’untoward incident’’. Victim is entitled to compensation. Karnataka High Court.
Specific Relief Act. A registered sale deed cannot be cancelled by another deed of cancellation even by the consent of the parties. The only mode is to re-transfer the property. Karnataka High Court.
Violation of Principles of Natural Justice itself is an independent ground for review of Judgment/order under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Karnataka High Court.
Compact Disk containing telephonically recorded conversation with Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is admissible as secondary evidence. Karnataka High Court.
Incidental finding on title in earlier suit for injunction will not act as resjudicata in a later suit unless the relief for injunction was founded or based on the finding on title. Karnataka High Court.
In a suit for injunction, valuation need not be split separately for Court fee and jurisdiction. It shall be valued only under Section 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Karnataka High Court.
Even in the absence of declaratory relief, Court can grant the relief of perpetual injunction with regard to the exercise of easementary right over the property. Karnataka High Court.
Order releasing the amount deposited under Section 148(3) N.I. Act does not amount to intermediate order since it is an interlocutory order. Revision before the High Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.
Purchase of land and constructions put up subsequent to acquisition proceedings do not confer any right over the purchaser. Such person cannot maintain a suit for injunction against the acquiring body. Karnataka High Court.
When plaintiff’s suit for specific performance is barred by time, the defendant’s counter claim for possession can be granted by the Court. Karnataka High Court.
Purchaser of undivided share from a coparcener cannot insist on allotment of a particular developed portion in the partition when the construction was without the consent of the other coparceners. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Women’s Rights Act. In the absence of an express prohibition in writing by the husband his widow had authority to make an adoption and such authority need not be proclaimed to anyone. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Succession Act. Succession under Section 15 (2) is intended only to change the order of succession specified in sub-section (1) and not to completely eliminate other categories of heirs set out in sub-section (1). Karnataka High Court.
Arbitration agreement entered into after the 1996 Act came into force but making a reference to Indian Arbitration Act or the 1940 Act shall be governed only under the provisions of the 1996 Act. Karnataka High Court.
Indian Succession Act. Apart from the executor named in the Will, even other persons can seek for a probate under Section 276 depending on the circumstances. Karnataka High Court.
Statements in autobiography. Unless a full-fledged trial establishes defamatory nature of the statements, which are allegedly based on true facts, injunction cannot be granted restraining circulation of the book. Karnataka High Court.
Where title to property is not disputed, suit for possession and consequential injunction is maintainable without seeking declaration of title. Karnataka High Court.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.G. Pandit celebrates his 60th birthday today. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shankar Ganapathi Pandit: Born on 16th November 1965. Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and took oath on 14.02.2018 and Permanent Judge on 07.01.2020.
Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S G Pandit.
Divorce. When the allegations of cruelty are consistent and specific which are not refuted by making available for cross-examination and in the absence of any contrary evidence on record, the court shall dissolve the marriage. Karnataka High Court.
Property Tax. Assessing authority must furnish document or report on which it relies on to determine the tax liability to the assessee failing which assessment becomes illegal. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Order of attachment of property before award or order passed by the Registrar under Section 103 is appealable to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 105. Karnataka High Court.
KIADB Act. Though no time limit is prescribed for publication of the final notification after the preliminary notification, if the final notification is not issued within two years, the acquisition will lapse. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act. Power of the Tribunal or the High Court to award just and fair compensation to the victim is not taken away because of prayer for a lesser amount. Karnataka High Court.
Education. ”On account of the pandemic, one cannot give up maintaining standards of education”. Karnataka High Court while rejecting plea of law students to dispense with exams.
Caste Certificate and Creamy Layer Certificate cannot be treated alike. Caste Certificate status is permanent whereas Creamy Layer Certificate status varies from time to time depending on income. Karnataka High Court.
When the statutory body fails to honor its commitment to allot industrial plot, it is bound to refund the entire amount paid by the prospective allottee. Karnataka High Court.
Writ Petition challenging provisional seizure order under Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Maintenance Act cannot be entertained since it is subject to confirmation of the Competent Authority. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Civil Services Rules. No enquiry can be initiated against a retired person in respect of an event which had taken place more than four years prior to the enquiry. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Initiation of proceedings 7 years after the sale that too after receiving the entire sale consideration is hit by doctrine of unreasonable delay. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Marriage Act. Mere inability of the wife to obey decree for restitution of conjugal rights is not a ground to dismiss her petition for divorce. Karnataka High Court.
Obtaining approval or sanction from the Government is not mandatory while issuing Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of lands in favour of the Karnataka Housing Board. Karnataka High Court.
When the State takes over private land of a person who has undisputed title over it, the owner cannot be asked to approach the civil court for compensation. Refusal to pay compensation violates constitutional mandate. Karnataka High Court.
Divorce. When the allegations of cruelty are consistent and specific which are not refuted by making available for cross-examination and in the absence of any contrary evidence on record, the court shall dissolve the marriage. Karnataka High Court.
Property Tax. Assessing authority must furnish document or report on which it relies on to determine the tax liability to the assessee failing which assessment becomes illegal. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Order of attachment of property before award or order passed by the Registrar under Section 103 is appealable to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 105. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. Third parties or strangers to the contract cannot be made parties to the suit, even if they claim to be joint family members and assert title over the property. Karnataka High Court.
When defendant raises a genuine dispute regarding title, thereby casting a cloud on the plaintiff’s title, the plaintiff cannot pursue a suit for mere injunction either preventive or mandatory. Karnataka High Court.
Service Law. Corruption cases warrant severe penalties. Tribunal cannot replace dismissal order with compulsory retirement solely based on sympathy. Karnataka High Court.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Even statutory dues owed to Government get extinguished if such claims are not part of the insolvency resolution plan. Karnataka High Court.
Legal representative of deceased defendant can file additional written statement setting up his own independent title to the plaint schedule property. Karnataka High Court.
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act does not apply to transactions which have taken place prior to coming into force of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Commercial Courts Act. Loan or dispute with regard to loan not based on any mercantile document cannot be considered as ‘commercial dispute’ simply because the amount involved is above the specified value. Karnataka High Court.
Expiry of arbitration mandate. For the purpose of calculating the period of twelve months, time during which arbitration proceedings were stayed by the Court has to be excluded. Karnataka High Court.
Expiry of the arbitration. When parties file claim, defence, counter-claim, rejoinder and surrejoinder, the last of the pleadings shall be taken as the starting point to calculate twelve months. Karnataka High Court.
Review order by the Commissioner under Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. The Standing Committee cannot interfere with the order since it has no appeal power. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. Attachment of property in civil suit cannot be a ground not to sanction building plan for putting up construction on the property. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Non-alienation clause operates from the date of final order passed by the Tribunal and not from the date of issuance of Form-10 to the tenant. Karnataka High Court.
Telegraphs Act. When a high-tension wire is erected over the land, definitely value of the land diminishes. While arriving at diminutive value, all factors such as crops grown, etc., is to be taken note of. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. Random scrutiny of the property tax returns can be undertaken by the Commissioner only after prior notice to the owner and inspection/measurement/survey of the property. Karnataka High Court.
KIADB cannot unilaterally cancel allotment of industrial plot for non-implementation of the project in time when the delay is attributable to reasons beyond the control of the allottee. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Initiation of proceedings 7 years after the sale that too after receiving the entire sale consideration is hit by doctrine of unreasonable delay. Karnataka High Court.
Compensation for drawing high-tension lines. Since possession of land remains with owners and growing agricultural crops permitted, diminutive value cannot exceed 30% of the market value. Karnataka High Court.
Indian Registration Act. When a General Power of Attorney holder vested with full powers executes a sale deed, he is deemed to be the ‘person executing’ the document under Section 32(a). In such a case, authentication of the GPA by the Sub-Registrar is not required. Authentication is necessary only when an agent merely presents the document on behalf of the principal. Karnataka High Court.
Service Law. A transfer of a government employee, even if it is premature and based on a recommendation from a Member of Legislative Assembly is not invalid if it is done to address public grievances and is approved by the Chief Minister as per the guidelines for transfers. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Government has the authority to refer a departmental inquiry to the Upa-Lokayukta, even if a separate disciplinary inquiry has already been initiated and the same is at an advanced stage. Karnataka High Court.
A subordinate court order based on a submission or concession made by the petitioner’s counsel cannot be questioned in a writ petition since the appropriate course is to seek modification of the order before the same court. Karnataka High Court.
A disciplinary enquiry and criminal proceedings against a government employee cannot proceed when the foundational report and FIR on which they are based have been quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Mere allegations of fraud against the purchaser and illiteracy on the part of the original grantee, without specific details, are insufficient to invalidate the transaction, particularly when the application for resumption is filed after an inordinate delay. Karnataka High Court.
The regularization of unauthorized land occupation and the subsequent issuance of a Saguvali Chit are invalid if the granting committee’s order lacks a reasoned basis and fails to follow the prescribed legal procedures. Karnataka High Court.
The High Court, under Article 226, should not adjudicate property title disputes, especially when a civil suit on the same matter is pending. While a land designation in a master plan may lapse if not acquired or utilized within five years, any subsequent action on a change of land use application depends on the outcome of the title dispute in the civil court. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Lokayukta Act. An order entrusting a disciplinary enquiry to the Lokayukta based merely on its report under Section 12(3), without independent application of mind or establishment of a prima facie case, and merely reproducing the report despite contrary departmental findings, is liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
When a court grants a legal benefit to certain individuals, the principle of treating similarly situated persons equally requires that the same benefit be extended to all others in identical circumstances, without necessitating separate litigation. Authorities are duty-bound to apply such decisions uniformly to all comparable cases. Karnataka High Court.
Where no proper notice is served on all parties after a prior remand, and the Land Tribunal fails to record who was in actual cultivation as tenant on the relevant date, a fresh remand is justified. Delay in challenge does not bar such relief if the petitioners were unaware of the proceedings due to lack of notice. Karnataka High Court.
Consumer Protection Act. Complaints against banks alleging deficiency in service, particularly those arising from marital disputes or involving criminal allegations, are not suitable for adjudication through the summary procedure of consumer forums. Such complaints are liable to be dismissed, especially where the complainant had prior knowledge of the transactions in question. Karnataka High Court.
Land Acquisition Act. When determining enhanced compensation for acquired land, particularly land with potential for non-agricultural use but not yet converted, the market value can be calculated based on the Sub-Registrar’s rate for residential property in the vicinity, subject to a deduction for development charges. Karnataka High Court.
Land acquisition. Strict pleading rules do not apply in reference cases for enhancement of compensation. The court’s priority is to determine the true market value, and claims for enhanced compensation should not be dismissed due to minor discrepancies between pleadings and evidence. Karnataka High Court.
Industrial land allotment by KIADB. When there is enormous delay in issuing final notification forcing the allottee to cancel the project, the KIADB cannot forfeit portion of the upfront payment made by the allottee. Karnataka High Court.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Limitation period for a Section 34 application to set aside an arbitral award commences from the date a party receives the signed award. If formal service is not proven, the date of applying for a certified copy can be deemed the start of the limitation period. Karnataka High Court.
Commercial Courts Act. Suit for ejection in respect of a commercial premises with prayer for award of mesne profit falls within the jurisdiction of commercial court under Section 2(1)(c)(vii). Karnataka High Court.
Service Law. Courts and tribunals can intervene with an order imposing penalty or punishment when the order is issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction; when the decision is unsupported by evidence and when there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Karnataka High Court.
Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC. In a suit for permanent injunction/possession, commissioner cannot be appointed to find out location, boundaries and details of the property. The plaintiff must be definite about the suit schedule property. Karnataka High Court.
Contract Act. When fixed deposits are offered as collateral security towards loan, Bank can exercise its general lien over the fixed deposits. Karnataka High Court.
Freedom Fighters pension. Care has to be taken to see that real freedom fighters do not suffer, at the same time, fictitious claims have to be sternly dealt with on merits. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for specific performance. Third parties or strangers to the contract cannot be made parties to the suit, even if they claim to be joint family members and assert title over the property. Karnataka High Court.
ಎಸ್. ಬಸವರಾಜ್. ಹಿರಿಯ ವಕೀಲರು. ಸದಸ್ಯರು. ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು.
ವಕೀಲರ ವಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಕೇಳುವ ಒಂದು ಮಾತು ಇದೆ: “ಮೊದಲ 1 ರಿಂದ 5 ವರ್ಷ: ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾತ್ರ, ಹಣ ಇಲ್ಲ. 5 ರಿಂದ 15 ವರ್ಷ: ಕೆಲಸ ಮತ್ತು ಹಣ. 15 ವರ್ಷಗಳ ನಂತರ: ಹಣ ಮಾತ್ರ, ಕೆಲಸ ಇಲ್ಲ.” 1. ಇದು ಪ್ರೋತ್ಸಾಹದಂತೆ ಅಥವಾ ಗುರಿ ಸಾಧಿಸುವ ಮಾತಿನಂತೆ ತೋರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದರೆ ವಾಸ್ತವದಲ್ಲಿ, ಇದು ಬಹುಪಾಲು ಮಿಥ್ಯೆ. ವಕೀಲ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಒಂದು ಹಂತ ತಲುಪಿದ ಮೇಲೆ ಸುಲಭವಾಗಿ ಸಾಗುವ ವ್ಯವಹಾರವಲ್ಲ. ಕಾನೂನು ವೃತ್ತಿ ಗಂಭೀರ, ಶ್ರಮಯುತ, ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗೊಳಗಾಗುವ ವೃತ್ತಿ. ಇದರ ಯಶಸ್ಸು ಜೀವನಪೂರ್ತಿ ನಿರಂತರ ಪರಿಶ್ರಮ, ಶಿಸ್ತು ಮತ್ತು ಬೌದ್ಧಿಕ ತೀಕ್ಷ್ಣತೆಗೆ ಅವಲಂಬಿತ. ವಕೀಲರು ಎಷ್ಟೇ ಹಿರಿಯರಾಗಲಿ, ನಿರ್ಲಕ್ಷ್ಯ ವೃತ್ತಿಗೆ ಹಾನಿಕರ. ಸತ್ಯವೇನೆಂದರೆ ವಕೀಲರು ಶ್ರಮಪೂರ್ವಕವಾಗಿ, ನಿರಂತರವಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತು ನಿಷ್ಟೆಯಿ0ದ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡದಿದ್ದರೆ, ಅವರಿಗೆ ಕೆಲಸವೂ ಬರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ, ಹಣವೂ ಬರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. 2. ಪ್ರತಿಷ್ಠಿತ ಹಿರಿಯ ವಕೀಲರು ಇಂದಿಗೂ ದಿನಕ್ಕೆ 14 ರಿಂದ 18 ಗಂಟೆಗಳು ದುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ: ಸಂಶೋಧನೆ, ವಾದ ಸಿದ್ಧತೆ, ಓದುವುದು ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ. ಅವರ ಯಶಸ್ಸು ಸುಮ್ಮನೆ ಬಂದದ್ದಲ್ಲ; ಅದು ದಶಕಗಳ ಕಾಲದ ನಿರಂತರ ಪರಿಶ್ರಮದ ಫಲ. 3. ಒಮ್ಮೆ ವೃತ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಲಸ್ಯ, ಆರಾಮ ಅಥವಾ ನಿರ್ಲಕ್ಷ್ಯ ಪ್ರವೇಶಿಸಿದರೆ, ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿಯ ದಿಕ್ಕು ನಿಧಾನವಾಗಿ ಕುಸಿಯಲು ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಪ್ರತಿಭೆ ಮೊದಲ ಬಾಗಿಲು ತೆರೆಯಬಹುದು, ಆದರೆ ದೀರ್ಘಕಾಲದ ಪರಿಶ್ರಮವೇ ಆ ಬಾಗಿಲನ್ನು ತೆರೆದಿಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಶ್ರಮ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸಾಕಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಿರಂತರ ಅಧ್ಯಯನದ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಖ0ಡಿತ ಬೇಕು. 4. ಕಾನೂನು ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರ ನಿರಂತರವಾಗಿ ಬದಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಇದರ ಮೇಲೆ ಪರಿಣಾಮ ಬೀರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳು: ಹೊಸ ನ್ಯಾಯನಿರ್ಣಯಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಕಾನೂನು ಕಾನೂನು ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂವಿಧಾನ ಪರಿಷ್ಕರಣೆ ವೇಗವಾದ ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ಪ್ರಗತಿ ವ್ಯಾಪಾರ, ಸಮಾಜ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂವಿಧಾನದ ಮೌಲ್ಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಬದಲಾವಣೆ 5. ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ ವಕೀಲರು ನಿಧಾನವಾಗಿ ಹಿನ್ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆದರೆ ನಿರಂತರವಾಗಿ ತಮ್ಮ ಜ್ಞಾನ ವಿಸ್ತರಿಸುವವರು ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಕ್ರಮ, ಕಾನೂನು, ಸೈಬರ್ ಕಾನೂನು, AI ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣೆ, ಡೇಟಾ ಸಂರಕ್ಷಣಾ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳಂತಹ ಹೊಸ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಜಗತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಂಚೂಣಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುತ್ತಾರೆ. 6. ಮೂರು ದಶಕಗಳ ಹಿಂದಿನ ಕಾನೂನು ವೃತ್ತಿ ಇಂದಿನಂತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗಳಿಗೆ ವಿರೋಧ ತೋರಿದವರು ಹಂತಹಂತವಾಗಿ ಹಿಂದಕ್ಕೆ ಸರಿದರು. ಆದರೆ ಬದಲಾವಣೆ ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಂಡವರು, ಕಲಿತು ಮುಂದುವರೆದವರು, ಇಂದು ಅತ್ಯುತ್ತಮ ಸ್ಥಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದಾರೆ. 7. ಜಾಗತೀಕರಣ ಮತ್ತು ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆಯ ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗಳ ಪರಿಣಾಮ ಲಿಬರಲೈಸೇಶನ್, ಗ್ಲೋಬಲೈಸೇಶನ್ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರೈವೇಟೈಸೇಶನ್ (LPG) ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ಕಾನೂನು ವೃತ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕ್ರಾಂತಿ ಸಂಭವಿಸಿತು. ಅಂತರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ಕಂಪನಿಗಳ ಪ್ರವೇಶದಿಂದಾಗಿ: ವೃತ್ತಿಪರ ನೈತಿಕತೆ ಸ್ಪರ್ಧಾತ್ಮಕತೆ ಬಿಲ್ಲಿಂಗ್ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಗ್ರಾಹಕ ನಿರ್ವಹಣಾ ಮಾನದಂಡಗಳು ಎಲ್ಲವೂ ಬದಲಾಗಿವೆ. 8. ಇಂದಿನ ಕಾನೂನು ವೃತ್ತಿ ಕೇವಲ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸೀಮಿತವಾಗಿಲ್ಲ. ಕಾನೂನು ವೃತ್ತಿಯ ಅವಕಾಶ, ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರತಿಷ್ಠೆ ಇತಿಹಾಸದಲ್ಲೇ ಅತಿ ಉನ್ನತ ಮಟ್ಟಕ್ಕೆ ಏರಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಅದರ ಜವಾಬ್ದಾರಿ, ಕಠಿಣತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ಪರ್ಧೆಯ ಮಟ್ಟವೂ ಅದೇ ತಾಳಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಹೆಚ್ಚಾಗಿದೆ. 9. ಕಾನೂನು ವೃತ್ತಿ ಕೇವಲ ಉದ್ಯೋಗವಲ್ಲ; ಅದು ಜ್ಞಾನ, ಕೌಶಲ್ಯ, ಶಿಸ್ತು ಮತ್ತು ನೈತಿಕತೆಯ ಜೀವನಮೂಲಕ ಪ್ರಯಾಣ. ವಕೀಲರಿಗೆ ಹೊಸದೇ ಕಲಿಯದೇ ಇರುವ ಹಂತವೇ ಇಲ್ಲ.
ಯಶಸ್ಸು ವರ್ಷಗಟ್ಟಲೆ ಕಾಯುವವರಿಗೆ ಅಲ್ಲ; ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ಷಣ ಬೆಳೆಯುವವರಿಗೆ ಸಿಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಪರಿಶ್ರಮಕ್ಕೆ ಪರ್ಯಾಯವಿಲ್ಲ. ಗೌರವಕ್ಕೆ ಅವಧಿ ಪರವಾನಗಿ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಕಲಿಕೆಗೆ ನಿವೃತ್ತಿ ಇಲ್ಲ. ವಕೀಲರು ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳು — ಐದು ವರ್ಷಗಳವರೆಗೆ ಅಲ್ಲ, ಹದಿನೈದು ವರ್ಷಗಳವರೆಗೆ ಅಲ್ಲ — ಜೀವನಪೂರ್ತಿ.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Natarajan celebrates his 61st birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Natarajan: Born on 05.11.1964 at Bengaluru City. Studied in Primary Education at Government Primary School, Shamanna Bungalow, Sultanpet, Bengaluru and Higher Primary Education at Government Boys’ Middle School, Mamulpet, Bengaluru; Secondary Education at Central High School, K.G. Road, Bengaluru; Pre-University Education at P.U. College, Magadi Road, Bengaluru; B.Com. Degree at Acharya Patashala Evening College, Bengaluru; and, LL.B. Degree at V.V. Puram Law College, K.R. Road, Bengaluru.
Enrolled as an Advocate on 14.02.1992; Started practice under the guidance of Sri V. Jagadish Gowda, learned Advocate, Gandhinagar, in Magistrate Courts and Sessions Courts, Bengaluru.
Started independent practice from January 1995, both in the field of civil and criminal sides, at Bengaluru and other districts of the State of Karnataka. Appointed as a panel Advocate for New India Assurance Company, Bengaluru.
Selected as the District and Sessions Judge and took charge as the District and Sessions Judge on 27.05.2002. Worked as IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi from 01.07.2002 till 2005; As an Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru from 2005 to 2008; As Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru between 2008 and 2009; As Principal District and Sessions Judge at Bellary and Dharwad Districts between 2009 and 2013; As Registrar (Review and Statistics) and Registrar (Recruitment) at High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru from 2013 to 2015; As Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Law Department, Bengaluru between 2015 and 2016; As Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru from 2016 to 2018; As Principal District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga District from 31.05.2018 till elevation as the Judge of the High Court of Karnataka.
Appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 03.11.2018 and as Permanent Judge on 26.02.2020.
Presently Appointed as Judge of Kerala High Court.
Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice K Natarajan.
Advocate making defamatory statement in pleadings without obtaining signature of his clients cannot plead exception to Section 499 IPC. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal proceeding against Notary Public in respect of their official work without prior permission of the Central Government or the State Government is impermissible and is liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Failure to disburse dividend under the Companies Act, 1956 is a continuing offence. Recurring limitation extends until the payment is made. Karnataka High Court.
Unlike Company, if an offence is committed by Partnership Firm, it is an offence committed by its partners. There is no need to make Partnership Firm an accused in criminal case. Karnataka High Court.
Taking cognizance by the criminal Court cannot be set aside on the ground of defective or illegal investigation, unless illegality in investigation can be shown to have brought about miscarriage of justice. Karnataka High Court.
Magistrate cannot condone delay in filing private complaint, under Section 473 Cr.P.C. without issuing notice to accused/respondent. Karnataka High Court.
“Bhang is a traditional drink and the same is neither a narcotic drug nor a psychotropic substance unless it is prepared out of the substance of Ganja’. – Karnataka High Court.
Land Acquisition Act. In respect of the awards passed after 2013 Act, appeal is maintainable only under Section 74 of the 2013 Act and not under Section 54 of the 1894 Act. Karnataka High Court.
Appointment of eminent Senior Advocate under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 is a special measure to safeguard the interest of the victims. The same cannot be questioned on technical grounds. Karnataka High Court.
Matka gambling. Owner of the premises is also liable under the Karnataka Police Act though he was not present when the Police conducted the raid. Karnataka High Court.
Physically preventing public servant from discharging duties cannot be construed as part of fundamental right to assemble under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. Karnataka High Court.
When a partner commits criminal breach of trust in his individual capacity, the partnership firm need not be made party in the criminal proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be questioned under Section 482 Cr.P.C when appeal remedy is available. Karnataka High Court.
Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138. Once NBW is issued against accused, the complainant need NOT take any further steps till NBW is executed or returned. Complaint can NOT be dismissed for not taking steps. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal trial. In appropriate cases, the Court shall suo moto summon the document which is in possession of any of the parties under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court.
Proceedings under PMLA initiated and seized properties forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority situated outside the State. Karnataka High Court rejects the challenge for want of territorial jurisdiction.
POCSO Act. Though victim shall not be called frequently for cross examination, fair trial being a fundamental right, the court shall not deny sufficient opportunity to the accused. Karnataka High Court.
Matka and OC gambling fall under Section 78(3) of the Karnataka Police Act which are non cognizable offences. Without seeking permission of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, the police have no authority to register FIR and file the charge.
Negotiable Instruments Act. When accused is convicted and in appeal deposits 20% of the cheque amount as per the Court direction, the complainant is entitled for release of the amount in his favour. Karnataka High Court.
Section 125 Cr.P.C. Step mother can claim maintenance from the income of the property of her husband when she is incapable of supporting herself. Karnataka High Court.
Investigation agencies must communicate final report prepared by them to the first informant as per Section 173(2)(ii) of Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court directs DG and IGP of the State to issue necessary instructions.
Registering FIR for non-cognizable offences without taking permission from the Magistrate and filing charge sheet without obtaining sanction is not sustainable under the law. Karnataka High Court.
Police adding cognizable offence along with non-cognizable offence in FIR and later dropping cognizable offence from the chargesheet. The same will not cure mandatory requirement of Sanction under 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court.
Though CCB is not a Police Station, CCB Police Officers appointed or identified as Investigating Officers can file the final report / charge sheet under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court.
Prevention of Corruption Act. Court cannot act as chartered accountant or hold mini-trial while considering the challenge to the prosecution under Section 13(1)(e). Karnataka High Court.
Suit for possession based on illegal dispossession shall be filed within six months from the date of dispossession. Subsequent amendment for possession in a pending suit for injunction will not cure the defect. Karnataka High Court.
Rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 cannot be resorted to at belated stage when the issues are framed and the suit is already posted for evidence. Karnataka High Court.
When agreement was entered in Gujarat and the work was executed in Kerala, Police/Magistrate at Bangalore do not have jurisdiction over the dispute simply because the complainant’s office is situated at Bangalore. Karnataka High Court.
Adverse Possession as Sword. Plea of adverse possession can be raised by the plaintiff by filing a suit for declaration to perfect his title. Karnataka High Court.
Negotiable Instruments Act. Maximum 20% that can be ordered by the Magistrate to deposit as interim compensation under Section 143-A may be also below 20%. Karnataka High Court.
Land granted by way of public auction on upset price to SC/ST persons cannot be considered as “granted land’’ within meaning of Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Karnataka High Court.
Wife cannot initiate prosecution against husband’s girlfriend for allegedly abetting the husband to commit offence under Section 498A, IPC. Karnataka High Court.
’Entire complaint reads like autobiography with no offence made out’. Karnataka High Court quashes criminal proceedings initiated by wife against her in-laws and husband’s relatives u/s 498A, IPC.
Negotiable Instruments Act. When cause of action is same resulting in issuance of common notice, single complaint is maintainable for multiple cheques issued by the respondent/accused. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. When violation of the Act is alleged and resumption is sought by way of an application, it is the duty of the Assistant Commissioner to consider the application. Karnataka High Court.
Matka/gambling. Police officer shall obtain search warrant/permission before going to search and seize. Obtaining subsequent permission does not cure the illegality. Karnataka High Court.
A person out of possession cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter without claiming the relief of possession though his title to the property is not disputed. Karnataka High Court.
Specific Relief Act. Section 41(h). Agreement holder cannot file a suit for bare injunction without suing for specific performance. Karnataka High Court.
Mere failure to sell the property as per the agreement of sale or refusal to return advance money does not constitute criminal offence. Karnataka High Court.
When accident is caused by tractor, insurance company is liable to pay compensation even though the trailer is not separately insured. Karnataka High Court.
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. Against rejection of an application for renewal of licence, appeal to High Court under 31(2) is not maintainable having regard to the revision provided under Section 32 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Constructive Resjudicata under Order II Rule 2 CPC. A prior suit for eviction and rent arrears does not preclude the filing of a fresh suit seeking damages for use of the premises following termination of the tenancy. Karnataka High Court.
A plaint in a partition suit cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation since a co-parcener’s right to seek partition of ancestral property cannot be barred by limitation unless exclusion is proved. Karnataka High Court.
A wife who is proven to be living in adultery or has voluntarily refused to live with her husband without sufficient cause is not entitled to maintenance under Sections 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Karnataka High Court.
No mandamus can be issued to direct banks to accept payments after the OTS scheme’s deadline, as it would be equivalent to rewriting the contract. Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are generally not maintainable if there is an effective alternative remedy available, especially in cases involving recovery of dues by banks and financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act. Karnataka High Court.
In suits for specific performance concerning land granted to SC/ST individuals, courts may grant injunctions to prevent alienation or creation of third-party interests in the property, pending government permission to alienate the property. Karnataka High Court.
Magistrate has the authority to grant interim maintenance to a wife under the Domestic Violence Act, even after the respondent has appeared and filed objections and pending consideration of the main matter. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against family members of the husband, such as parents-in-law and aunts, are liable to be quashed if the complaint does not contain specific allegations or claims for relief against them, and continuing such proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law. Karnataka High Court.
Daksha Legal 