Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rangaswamy Nataraj celebrates his 54th Birthday today.
Born on 14.03.1970. Enrolled as an Advocate on 08.09.1992.
Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and taken oath on 11.11.2019 and Permanent Judge on 08.09.2021.
Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice R Nataraj.
Town Planning. Illegal and unauthorized constructions not only violate the municipal laws and concept of land development of particular area but also affect fundamental and constitutional rights of other persons. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. Section 7(2-A). When Lokayukta conducts inquiry and submits report to Government, it is NOT necessary to give opportunity of being heard to persons named in the report. Karnataka High Court.
Once layout plan is sanctioned after verifying water course, pathway etc, Planning Authority must inspect formation of layout as per the sanctioned plan. Karnataka High Court.
When construction of building is unauthorised and without license, action of the Municipal authorities to remove the same cannot be found fault with. Karnataka High Court.
Advocate avoids execution of decree passed in 1966 by adopting unprofessional tactics. Karnataka High Court imposes cost of Rs. 5 lakhs, initiates contempt proceedings and refers the matter to Bar Council.
Merely because special warrant to search premises is lawful, prosecution cannot be launched without complying Section 155(2) of Cr.PC. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Pendency of the Master Plan under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act for Government approval can NOT be a ground for rejecting conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural. Karnataka High Court.
Purchase of granted land in public auction conducted by a co-operative Bank in execution proceedings does not attract the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for cancellation of a document. ‘’Value of the property for which the document was executed’’ has to be considered to determine the court fee payable and not the “market value of the property”. Karnataka High Court.
Land reserved in the Master Plan for parks and open spaces shall be acquired within a period of five years and compensation be paid failing which the landowner is entitled to use the same. Karnataka High Court.
When the authorities repeatedly fail to perform statutory function and to follow the law declared by Courts, the Writ Court can itself grant relief instead of remanding the matter. Karnataka High Court.
Relinquishment of Special Economic Zone. Government cannot impose interest on the stamp duty where exemption was granted earlier. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. Purchaser of lands from the holder of the village office is entitled to contest the order of the land Tribunal. Karnataka High Court.
Claim for occupancy rights under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act cannot be considered without impleading the Temple or the endowment officer as party respondents. Karnataka High Court.
Agreement to sell does not amount to concluded transfer. Such agreement cannot be construed as void under Section 33 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act. Karnataka High Court.
Ancestral property fallen to the share of father in a family partition among his father and brothers cannot be claimed by his son since the property so allocated to his share becomes his exclusive property. Karnataka High Court.
Alienation of the re-granted ‘Service Inam Land’ from the period 1:2:1963 to 7:8:1978 is valid and permission for sale is only a formality since the Deputy Commissioner is bound to give permission. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
Criminal Trial. Wife cannot be dragged into criminal case simply because she is signatory to cheques along with her husband who is involved in illegal business transactions. Such practice should be curtailed. Karnataka High Court.
Both “A” and “B” Kharab lands belong to owner of the land. Landowner is entitled for compensation in case of acquisition of kharab land. Karnataka High Court.
Land acquisition. Kharab lands falling under category ‘A’ of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules belong to landowners and not to Government. Landowners are entitled to compensation. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act. Revenue Inspector is not competent to take possession of the excess land. Violation results in restoration of land to the owners. Karnataka High Court.
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act. Even after exemption granted under the Act, Deputy Commissioner has the authority to proceed if owners of land violate the order of exemption passed by the State Government. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Period of non-alienation for tenanted lands commences from the final order of the Land Tribunal and not from the date of issuance of Form-10. Karnataka High Court.
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Makkimane Ganeshaiah Uma celebrates her 60th Birthday today.
Born on 10th March 1964. Had early education at Government Primary School, Sringeri and Government Higher Primary School, Sringeri. Secured B.Com degree from J.C.B.M College, Sringeri. Obtained degree in Law from Vaikunta Baliga College of Law, Udupi and LL.M. from Kuvempu University, Shivamogga.
Enrolled as an Advocate in the Karnataka State Bar Council on 16th August 1988. Practiced and served in different branches like Civil and Criminal at Udupi, Gadag and at High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru etc.
Appointed as District Judge at Mysuru on 25th February 2008 and as Principal District and Sessions Judge on 23rd May 2011 and served at Bellary, Mangaluru and Ramanagara.
Served as Member Secretary of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru on OOD during the year 2016.
Appointed as Additional Judge of High Court of Karnataka on 4th May 2020 and Permanent Judge on 25th September 2021.
Imposition of realistic, punitive cost is necessary to prevent abuse of process of court. Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 50,000 cost on husband who filed frivolous Habeas Corpus petition seeking custody of child from wife.
Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable only against Director of Company unless the Company is also made party to the proceedings. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
Negotiable Instruments Act. Dishonour of cheque issued by outgoing/retired partner does NOT bind the partnership firm or other partners. Karnataka High Court.
Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant temporary injunction restraining change of mutation entries under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Karnataka High Court.
Accused, after obtaining bail absconds and proclaimed by Court as ‘absconding accused’. He is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Karnataka High Court.
Renouncants married under French Civil Code can not apply for divorce under Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872 or the Special Marriage Act 1954. Only the French Civil Code governs them. Karnataka High Court.
POSCO Act. Statement recorded under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code can NOT be considered to be evidence under Section 35 of the POCSO Act. Karnataka High Court.
POSCO Act. Failure to record evidence of the child within thirty days of cognizance and to complete the trial within one year, will NOT entitle accused for default bail. Karnataka High Court.
POCSO. Apart from rendering justice to child victims, concomitant support service systems have also to be provided, as the child victim faces physical injury and psychological trauma. Karnataka High Court issues directions for system overhaul.
Disposal of immovable property by Will would not amount to transfer within the meaning of Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act and hence the prohibition under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act also does not apply. Karnataka High Court.
Bequeathing granted land by Will to non-SC/ST person by original grantee does not attract the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 since Will does not amount to transfer of property. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for injunction. Where issue is framed regarding title of the plaintiff to the property, court fee is payable on the market value under Section 26(c)(ii) of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. Karnataka High Court.
Proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC for violation of court order is maintainable even against third parties who are bound by the order. Karnataka High Court.
”It’s time to restore confidence of the people in independent judiciary”. Karnataka High Court charges Tahshildar for contempt of Court for not entering name of the farmer in revenue records despite court orders.
Property inherited by woman from her father will revert to her father’s heirs if she dies issueless. Hence the woman’s husband is not a necessary party in the suit for partition of the said property. Karnataka High Court.
Daksha Legal 