Samaj Parivarthan Samudaya has filed a Writ Petition (PIL) seeking directions to the Government of Karnataka to appoint second Upa-Lokayutka. The division bench of the Karnataka High Court consisting the Chief Justice and Justice Ashok S Kinagi has ordered notice to the Government. Writ Petition 3139/2023, Samaj Parivarthan Sumudaya vs State of Karnataka.

Mr. A R Goutham, Advocate, Daksha Legal made submissions before the bench.

Hitherto two Upa-Lokayuktas were appointed to the institution of Lokayukta. After Justice Ananda retired, the second Upa-Lokayukta post is vacant. At present, there is only one Upa-Lokayukta i.e. Justice K N Phanindra who has taken up huge responsibility travelling all over the State of Karnataka.

Bipin Hegde, Advocate, Bangalore.

The recent judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Clarence Pais and others vs The State of Karnataka and another, upholds the validity of Karnataka Conferment of Ownership on Mulageni or Volamulageni Tenants Act, 2011. (Mulageni Act).

Similar to other land tenancy laws, the Mulageni Act confers full ownership on the tenants and the sub-tenants on payment of normative compensation.

This brief article deals with the history of Mulageni tenancy.

Mulageni tenancy is mainly prevalent in Dakshina Kannada district. Mula connotes ‘root’. Muladar is the landlord or owner of the land. Geni in Kannada means is the rental amount payable to Muladar either in cash or kind. Normally the tenant would pay geni in the form of produce every year.

A unique feature of Mulageni tenancy is that a Mulageni is permanent lease or a lease in perpetuity. The Mulagenidar can also transfer the land to another Mulagenidar for a consideration. The transfer can be without the permission of the Muladar. However, the new Mulagenidar has to pay the rental to the Muladar.

The right of eviction is conferred on the Muladar only if the Mulagenidar fails to pay the rent. One more feature is that the rental amount is nominal since the land was developed by the Mulagenidar.

After Tippu Sultan was killed in the Mysore War of 1799 the entire areas which were ruled by Tippu came under the administration of East India Company. The British Company demanded huge revenue from the landowners in the form of Shamil in addition to Kist amount. Later, these two collections were merged and ‘Sarasari Geni’ was fixed. However Mulageni tenancy as such was not abolished by the British. It was continued even after the independence.

The revolutionary reforms in the agricultural tenancy occurred in 1973 with the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act of 1973. This legislative reforms helped many Mulagenidars to buy cheaply their full ownership and abandon the Muladars system.

Thus the revolutionary Land Reforms Act of 1973 did not abolish the Mulageni system although there was much dilution in the number of those households coming under the Mulageni system. The Mulagenidars were considered permanent tenants and the ownership of the land to Muladars was in perpetuity.

Karnataka Conferment of Ownership on Mulageni or Volamulageni Tenants Act, 2011.

The preamble to the Act states that the Act is to provide for conferment of ownership on mulagenidars or volamulagenidars. The Act takes note of the the huge investments made by the Mulagenidars by putting up structures, and improvements to the property either residential or commercial and the practical difficulty of the tenants to enjoy the holding to its full extent. The Act considers it in the public interest to provide for conferment of ownership on mulgenidars and volamulgenidars.

Section 3 of the Act deals with conferment of ownership right on Mulagenidar and Volamulagenidar and says that every mulagenidar or volamulagenidar who, on the date of commencement of the Act, is in possession and enjoyment of the holding shall be entitled to be conferred with ownership of the holding, on his fulfilling the conditions specified in the succeeding sections and on conferring such ownership right on him. The Section saves mortgages or charges created in respect of such holding.

Section 4 deals with conditions for eligibility of conferment of ownership. Mulgenidar or volamulagenidar shall be eligible for conferment of ownership right on him under the Act if he pays to the mulgar or intermediary an amount as may be determined by the Competent Authority by taking into consideration such guidelines as may be prescribed. Section 7 empowers the Competent Authority to determine the amount payable to the mulgar. The amount payable is 500 times of the lease rental as is evidenced in the records. However, where the Mulageni lease is conditional requiring the permission of the Mulgar for alienation of the property the amount payable shall be calculated at 1000 times of the lease rent.

Section 8 provides for issuance of Certificate of ownership. Section 9 provides for appeal and Section 10 bar jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to settle, decide or deal with any question which falls under the Act.

Challenge to the Mulageni Act. The constitutional validity of the Mulageni Act was questioned on the following grounds. (1) State legislature lacks competence to enact the Act. (2) Want of proper Presidential Assent to the Act under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. (3) Presidential Assent to the impugned Act does not extend to the protective Proviso to Article 31C. (4) The Act is discriminatory. (5) The Act is manifestly arbitrary & massively unjust. (6) The Act lacks public purpose and therefore is violative of Articles 26 & 300A of the Constitution. (7) The compensation payable to the muldars is illusory so as to render the impugned Act void under Article 300A of the Constitution.

The Karnataka High Court considers each one of these questions meticulously. One of the interesting arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the constitutional amendment to Article 31C vide 42nd Amendment Act 1976 which extended protection to the statutes made to give effect to any of the Directive Principles in Part IV
having been struck down in Minerva Mills case the original position therein is restored and that does not extend protection to the impugned Act under Article 31C.

Let me simply this argument. Relevant portion of Article 31C in its original form read as follows. (please see the highlighted portion)

31C. Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles.—
Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of article 39 shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by article 14, article 19 or article 31.

Provided that where such law is made by the Legislature of a State, the
provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent.

The constitutional validity of Article 31C in its original form was upheld by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharti case. However the Parliament amended Article 31C. The relevant portion reads as follows. (please see the highlighted portion) .

31C. Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles.—
Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by article 14 or article 19

Provided that where such law is made by the Legislature of a State, the
provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent.

Thus, the Parliament expanded the scope of Article 31C to include all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV instead of clause (b) or clause (c) of article 39.

This amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case primarily on the ground that primacy of Part IV could not be given over Part III.

The argument of the petitioners was that with the Supreme Court striking down the amendment to Article 31C, the original position i.e. reference to clause (b) or clause (c) of article 39 got restored. Since the Mulageni Act is not enacted to give effect to Articles 39 (b) or (C), the same is unconstitutional.

The High Court deals with this question in paragraph IX as follows.

Firstly the impugned Act is made to give effect to the Directive Principles in Articles 39(b) & (c) which figured in the original text of Article 31C and continue till date; if that be so, one need not see what happened to 42nd Amendment of 1976 in Minerva Mills; Secondly, whether such a protection extends to the laws made to give effect to all other Directive Principles contained in Part IV is being examined by a Bench of Nine Judges in Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra; Thirdly, as already discussed above, no Assent of the President is secured to the impugned Act in terms ofnproviso to Article 31C. Fourthly, Sanjeev Coke having adverted to Minerva Mills extends protection to the statutes that are made to give effect to any of the Directive Principles in Part IV of the Constitution, of course
subject to Assent under the Proviso to Article 31C.

 Whether Minerva Mills case has the effect of restricting the scope of Article 31C only to Articles 39 (b) and (c) or it extends to all the provisions of Part IV is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. But the fact remains that provisions similar Mulageni Act have already been upheld.

The hitherto continued confusion, lack of ownership and the related eternal problems have been finally put to rest by the Judgement of the Karnataka High Court.

This assures dignity and the human right to property to many Mulagenidars for sure.

    

Justice Venkatesh Naik celebrates his 48th birthday today.
Justice Venkatesh Naik Thavaryanaik was born on 01.06.1975. Native of Chitradurga. He completed B.A.L., L.L.B., from SJM Law College, Chitradurga and secured 3rd Rank. He obtained L.L.M. from Kuvempu University, Shivamogga.

Justice Venkatesh Naik enrolled as Advocate and practiced at Chitradurga. He was appointed as District Judge on 02.01.2012. He served as Registrar (Administration) at High Court of Karnataka. He worked at Prl. Secretary to Government, Law Department. He worked as Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Udupi & Bengaluru Rural District.

Justice Venkatesh Naik was sworn-in as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 24.01.2023.

Important Judgements delivered by Justice Venkatesh Naik T
“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. (DB)
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. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgments/actionRead/G2tTPI5bHvYyZTiETOTGZQLha

To be continued…..

Justice Rajesh Rai celebrates his 49th birthday today.

Justice Rajesh Rai Kallangala was born on 01.06.1974. He completed primary education at Kepu & secondary education & PUC at Vitla. He completed Degree from St. Philomina’s College. Completed LL.B., from Vivekananda Law College, Puttur.

Justice Rajesh Rai enrolled as Advocate in 1999 and practiced in the office of Sri G. Balakrishna Shastri and Sri Younus Ali Khan. Later, he joined the office of Hon’ble shri Justice John Michael D’Cunha.

He 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.
Justice Rajesh Rai was sworn-in as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 09.02.2023.

Important Judgements delivered by 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.(DB)
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.(DB)
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. (DB)
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. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/38cSBtPNZ8e30EypvazeF1kaG

Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad celebrates his 57^th birthday today.

Justice Harekoppa Thimmana Gowda Narendra Prasad was born on 1 June 1966. He 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.

He enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1993. He started practice in the Chambers of Prof.Ravivarma Kumar, former Advocate General of Karnataka.

He initially for a period of two years practiced in Trial Courts, Bengaluru. He 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.

He was 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.

H.T. Narendra Prasad was appointed as an Additional Judge, High Court of Karnataka on 02.06.2018 and as Permanent Judge on 26.02.2020.

Important Judgements delivered by 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. (Full Bench). (DB)
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. (DB)
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. (DB)
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. (DB)
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. (DB)
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. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/v4DaRpswmkujb2pDOyNZZ4abK

Justice Rajendra Badamikar celebrates his 61^st birthday today.
Justice Rajendra Badamikar was 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.

Justice Badamikar 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.

He 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.

He was 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. Later, he was 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.

Later he was 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.

Some of the important Judgements delivered by Justice 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

Justice Veerappa retires today. (Born on 1 June 1961)

It is with great admiration and respect that we reflect upon the remarkable career of this honest, bold, and hardworking individual. Throughout his tenure on the bench, Justice Veerappa has consistently exemplified the virtues of integrity, courage, and diligence, leaving an indelible mark on the judicial system.

First and foremost, Justice Veerappa has been a paragon of honesty. His unwavering commitment to upholding the principles of truth, fairness, and justice has been a guiding light for all who have appeared before them. His ethical conduct and transparent approach to each case have earned him the trust and confidence of the legal community and the public at large.

He has exhibited boldness in his decisions, fearlessly tackling complex legal issues and making tough choices that were in the best interest of justice. With an unyielding dedication to the law and a deep understanding of its nuances, he has demonstrated the courage to stand up for what is right, even in the face of adversity.

Justice Veerappa has also been an epitome of hard work throughout his career. His tireless efforts in meticulously examining the factual and legal position, researching legal precedents, and hearing arguments have ensured that every case received the utmost attention and consideration. His commitment to thoroughness and a fair trial has set a high standard for his colleagues and inspired many aspiring legal professionals.

Beyond his individual qualities, Justice Veerappa has played a pivotal role in promoting the values of honesty, boldness, and hard work within the legal community. His mentorship and guidance have positively influenced countless junior lawyers, encouraging them to uphold the highest ethical standards and strive for excellence in their practice.

As we bid farewell to Justice Veerappa on this momentous occasion, we express our profound gratitude for his invaluable contributions to the judiciary. His legacy of honesty, boldness, and hard work will undoubtedly endure, serving as a testament to his exceptional career and inspiring future generations of legal professionals.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.Veerappa: Born on 1st June, 1961. Studied in Primary Education at Government Primary School, Nagadenahalli, Srinivasapura: Secondary Education at Government Higher Primary School, High School and Pre-University Education at Government High School, Composite Junior College, Srinivasapura, Kolar; Degree at Government College, Kolar and LL.B., at Renukacharya Law College, Bengaluru.

He started practice in the High Court of Karnataka in the year 1988 in the office of Prof. M.S.Gopal, Senior Advocate at Bengaluru
Appointment as Government pleader on 01.07.1995 and worked upto 15.09.2000 and as Additional Government Advocate on 25.05.2005 and continued as such till 1.1.2015 by conducting various cases. worked as Government Advocate for more than 15 years in all successive Governments.

Ministry of Education & Social Welfare, Government of India has awarded “Three Stars” Merit Certificate for Completion of the National Physical Efficiency Tests (Seniors) COnducted in the year 1979 in the state of Karnataka on 16.06.1979.

He has passed National cadet Corps (N.C.C.) ‘B’ Certificate on 11.5.1985 (CPL) and National Cadet Corps (N.C.C.) ‘C’ Certificate during Feb 1983 (SGT) under the authority of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India.

He has represented the Bengaluru University in Wrestling in the year 1984-85. Won first place in Kabaddi in Inter College Competition during the year 1984-85

Appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 02-01-2015 and Permanent Judge on 30.12.2016.

Some of the Important Judgements delivered by Justice Veerappa.

Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Deputy Commissioner has no power under the Act to stop construction on agricultural lands. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/tdWZHaALRnuGz0MEYzQreD2RN

“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. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/OmixS2OMoTfqrljhC59QMaM87
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. Transfer must have been made subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor. Karnataka High Court reiterates. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aUu8uX7bmkOYVriDpbGom08vE

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. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qhP62q66ATPHhdLMUcCTX8cxa
“It is the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of the Courts and Majesty of the law”. Karnataka High Court sends the contemnor to jail for selling property in gross violation of interim order. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/l99JHmqInDCZZT8yj3E6xS8KR
“Remove encroachments and provide burial grounds to all the villages and towns”. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/cxScGAAjYuRJ9J4La5kIUXT92
Muslim couple enter into agreement to adopt unborn child of Hindu couple to overcome Muslim Law barrier. Karnataka High Court expresses shock while nixing the agreement. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/LdDURFb0oyUCI1CKzs6Ht8viF
Willful disobedience of the Court order to survey land of the aged/poor farmer. Karnataka High Court imposes cost of Rs. 3 lakhs recoverable from the Tahsildars responsible for the inaction. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/P7L8xsJ9Ftn31Xi5EUxzRyYxU
“Unborn child has a right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” Karnataka High Court while nixing the agreement to adopt unborn child. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qGDWkrXKEkdkSbStLTgzVGWCn
Judiciary. ”Woodpeckers inside pose a larger threat than the storm outside”. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/iKrP4EJTE9wLjwLPA8bTTJ1h4
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. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/yYoD3YlUODtHxWYw0ay4VJtmq
Karnataka High Court deprecates speculative litigation by colleges harming educational prospects of the students. Imposes exemplary costs. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/e66BRxeHwkda3cRTpaVBQyuGB
Preventive detention. Detaining authority cannot plead ignorance of representation by detainee. Non-consideration of the representation renders the detention illegal. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/uxfPpO5NbKzlgJJNkXJeDDXOq
Judges cannot maintain angelic silence when the court orders are violated with impunity. Karnataka High Court convicts husband who failed to pay maintenance to wife despite repeated court orders. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/mKaVg1ZSlU8WdCiGY8MwkT9yr
Karnataka High Court declares creation of the Anti Corruption Bureau unconstitutional.(DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/lNoCjEnpODYsV9A3ZmnPaOSz7
”Love should be from heart to heart and not mere external attraction” – Youngsters should act responsibly while choosing life-partners against parents’ will. Karnataka High Court implores. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/XG50sf1GzdmcSl3YRXz1GA3zD
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. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/lNWIWXA1XFG7LLXZll95CNEVi
Appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is maintainable before division bench of the High Court only against an interlocutory order granting or refusing to grant bail passed by the Special Court. Karnataka High Court (FB). (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/FBwebZL0wC2MnokDaoCb4OK49
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. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/tUb8VMk0OUlI4MUexYADa0FL7
”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. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/68Ry1ZQTYW7LuskFG7vt3HiqJ

”Sambhavami Yuge Yuge”. Court has to act as ‘Societal Parent’ to protect Dharma as preached by Bhagvan Sri Krishna in Bhagavadgeetha. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/yzLLxFh4BQCmdZueaT5akDbQb
Frivolous litigation against Azim Premji and Forum Shopping. Karnataka High Court convicts office bearers of India Awake for Transparency for contempt of court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/JCzaV462tXkaXCkBwNyNTSS7w
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. District court has no jurisdiction to decide child custody issue unless the child resides within its jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Qljk50exXNJtcZkjOoEPfSanH
”Stop treating the child as chattel since such conduct violates child’s right under Article 21”. Karnataka High Court advises parents while rejecting claim of wife for sole custody of the child. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/UcmuS1Yl1eOIVdbdQQrPcNyI4
In-service employee tendering technical resignation on being appointed to new post in new department on direct basis. His past service shall be counted for consequential benefits when discharged from new post. Karnataka High Court.(DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/RyQiAk99LWBdTrsyYv5MwMguk
”Classic case where the political parties and the police tried to bury the truth”. Karnataka High Court upholds CBI investigation against former Minister Vinay Kulkarni and others in a murder case. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/v7Pa2mpJs6qZQ5R0lCXbOIVex
‘Acid attack is not only a crime against victim, but a crime against the entire civilized society. It is high time to deal with the acid attackers with iron hand.’ Karnataka High Court upholds life sentence to acid attacker. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/0YkRvJRrnLkrok11ekMO10wLD
Criminal Law. Testimony of a witness who identified the accused for the first time in Court without knowing him before, and in the absence of any Test Identification Parade, would be valueless and unreliable. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/mY1PIXZM0ajyiKOSeJpO8YW8q
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
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Death of employee. Amount received by dependents under group insurance scheme is NOT a pecuniary advantage and can NOT be deducted from the MVC compensation. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/rDJ9RaN3TSSjBom75EJF8zhJg
Criminal Law. Life imprisonment means imprisonment for complete span of life. Consecutive sentences in case of conviction for several offences at one trial does not arise. Application for clarification of sentence is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/k0E96nReluOkSg9gvuq8PnrHW
Specific Relief Act. Where specific performance of oral agreement is sought for heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that there was consensus ad idem between the parties for a concluded oral agreement for sale of immovable property. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/WcXQuo01BGv85t9aR6QAVPC3s
It is high time for the government to introspect and take stringent measures to protect forest and government lands. Karnataka High Court expresses deep concern over encroachment of forest and government lands. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/CIurCR0mz9fwk3ZUF4Xk1IKRe
Cr.P.C. Appeal by victim under Section 372 will not abate if victim dies during the appeal proceedings. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/E1RWZHZuQd17PLnJMsG4bHc1u
Adverse possession. Person occupying forest land in violation of Karnataka Forest Act 1963 cannot claim adverse possession against the government. Government directed to take possession. Karnataka High Court. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/YZeQthlxjR67yFQhFtjjjXUIm
Civil Procedure Code. Order XII Rule 6. Judgment on admissions. Admission must be absolute and not interlinked with issues to be determined after evidence. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Le6a9YKgzpF48JYpGTwqi17ww
Cruelty by husband falling short of gravity under Section 304B. He can still be convicted under Section 498A. (DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/amW5VPpUJkCTM9ZoDa7y7rJ0K
Suit for specific performance. Question of readiness and willingness becomes immaterial when the agreement itself is doubtful.(DB)
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/FchTA38UTeybKIbK3M8hfOIwa

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 13-10-2022 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in G & WC No.288 of 2018 whereby the concerned Court rejects Interlocutory Application No.XX and has further sought for a direction seeking custody of minor child in equal proportion between him and his wife.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner is the husband and respondent his wife. The two get married on 19-08-2005. From the wedlock a girl child is born on 04-01-2014. The child is now 9 years old. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent/wife turns sour and the allegation is that the wife began to live separately along with the minor daughter. Owing to such dispute between the husband and the wife, the husband institutes proceedings before the Family Court in M.C.No.5570 of 2018 seeking judicial separation from the wife. The petitioner also files a petition invoking Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (‘the Act’ for short) before the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in G & WC 288 of 2018 seeking an order for appointing him to be the guardian of minor child. The respondent/wife contested the matter by filing her objections in the aforesaid proceedings before the concerned Court in G & WC No.288 of 2018.

9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship between the couple flounder. The petitioner and the respondent are before the concerned Court in two proceedings – one in M.C.No.5570 of 2018 and the other in G & WC No.288 of 2018. The first of the case filed by the husband was on 15-10-2018. The Family Court granted an ex-parte interim order in favour of the husband restraining the wife from interfering with the peaceful custody of the minor child by the husband reserving liberty in the wife to seek visitation rights. It is then the wife files application I.A.No.VI under Order 39 Rule 4 seeking vacation of the interim order dated 15-10-2018 and I.A.No.VII under Section 12 read with Section 25 of the Act seeking restoration of custody of the minor child to her. This was partly allowed by the concerned Court granting visitation rights to the wife on every alternative Saturday and Sunday with effect from 27-04-2019 and custody on every alternate Saturday and Sunday from 5.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.

13. The petitioner has himself appended several photographs to the petition seeking to demonstrate that the girl child/daughter has a good relation with the father to buttress his claim for custody of the child. Those photographs apparently are clicked by a stranger which the wife narrates in detail the manner in which the photographs are taken. It is a fact that there is nobody to take care of the child when the father is not around and the child is handed over to a male stranger by name Vijay who is also alleged to have been sleeping in the same bed while the father and the daughter would sleep only to take photographs. The mother narrates that on several occasions the child had expressed her anguish getting too anxious about a stranger continuously photographing and videographing the child. If these facts are noticed, it becomes unmistakably clear that the father has not created a congenial atmosphere to the girl child, who is now 9 years old, he cannot therefore be heard to contend that he has a right to claim custody of the child, despite the afore-noted glaring facts. The girl child, in her best interest, prefers to be with her mother and psychologically it is presumed that bond between the child and mother is the finest. In cases of this nature, where the parents are wrangling on their egos, wound is inflicted on the child. The Apex Court has cautioned such parents in the case of RAJESWARI CHANDRASEKAR GANESH. It would be apt to quote the paragraphs, which read as follows:-

“120. Before we close this matter, we would like to convey to the parties that their two minor children are watching them very closely. Showing the children that their parents can respect each other and resolve the conflict respectfully will give them a good foundation for the conflict that may, God forbid, arise in their own lives. The parties should try to do their best to remain relaxed and focused. It is critical to maintain boundaries between the adult problems and children. It is of utmost interest to protect the innocence of children and allow them to remain children. They must not be burdened by any adult problem. Minor children do not have the coping skills or the intellectual ability to understand any issues like the financial constraints, adult relationship issues or their parents unhappiness.

121. We find the observations made by the Delhi High Court, in the case of K.G. v. State of Delhi, dated 16.11.2017 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 374/2017 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2007/2017, quite commendable, that the best welfare of the child, normally, would lie in living with both his/her parents in a happy, loving and caring environment, where the parents contribute to the upbringing of the child in all spheres of life, and the child receives emotional, social, physical and material support – to name a few. In a disturbed marriage, unfortunately, there is bound to be impairment of some of the inputs which are, ideally, essential for the best interest of the child.”

The Apex Court observes that the minor children are watching the parents closely. Showing the children that their parents can respect each other and resolve the conflict with respect will give such children, a good foundation. The parties – husband and wife should try to do their best to remain relaxed and focused. It is critical to maintain boundaries between the adult problems and children and it is of utmost interest to protect the innocence of children and allow them to remain children.

14. Even in the case at hand, for the last five years the husband and the wife have been in constant squabble. The minor girl child has been watching parents right from her tender age of 4 years. The minor child does not have the coping skills or the intellectual ability to understand the issues between the adult relationship or the parents unhappiness. The parents have to contribute to the upbringing of the child on all emotions, be it social, physical, mental or material support inter alia. In a disturbed marriage, there is bound to be impairment. Therefore, in the best interest of the girl child, in the case at hand and owing to the facts as narrated hereinabove, I do not find any warrant to interfere with the order passed by the concerned Court in declining to grant custody and permitting grant of visitation rights only.

15. In the result, the petition lacking in merits stands dismissed.

Justice Mohammad Nawaz celebrates his 58^th birthday today.

Justice Mohammad Nawaz was born on 22^nd May 1965. He completed primary education at St. Francis Xavier’s Primary School, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada; High School at St. Philomena’s High School, Puttur, Bachelor’s Degree in Science at St. Philomena’s College, Puttur, and LL.B. at Sri Jagadguru Renukacharya Law College, Bengaluru.

Justice Mohammad Nawaz enrolled as Advocate on 20.04.1990 and served as;
Government Pleader in the year 2003.
Special Prosecutor for Lokayukta in the year 2007.
Additional. State Public Prosecutor from 2008-2012.
State Public Prosecutor in June, 2015.

He represented the Mangalore City Corporation and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.

Justice Mohammad Nawaz was appointed as Additional Judge, High Court of Karnataka on 02.06.2018 and permanent Judge on 26.02.2020.

Some of the latest and important judgements delivered by Justice Mohammad 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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/2nBSFssodnx6VdEEbck9AaVYB
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.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/YGOo6Ur5M74NoYHBEyFjkG57Z
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.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/o6j5vxZbba8KO7DFrRIhrAYGe

Criminal Law. At the stage of considering discharge application, Court can not hold mini trial or go deep into probative value of material on record. Karnataka High Court.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/0BedL5TnHUGCUd3ud6rHANMWB

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.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/myJXvAa2CGULJoV3HE6SWU0tQ
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.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/aRP34CHXgCX6mQorQVYKVa6uK

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.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/1vX6GNA5qsicQk5qbsDzCzTIG
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.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ihAgIBlmClJH7vOoZhnF0YzHq
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.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/WyMMD5aSd7lapW5xSEUfqXDrN
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.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/J4jI29DiZNawbI3m0ZWp1UZ0U
NDPS Act. Prosecution’s complaint failing to connect accused with seized material. Valid ground to grant bail to the accused.
https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/LOb8I4qCjvnSgPAlXVpAEuluJ

Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty celebrates his 56th birthday today.

Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and taken oath on 28.04.2020 and Permanent Judge on 25.09.2021.

Mr. Justice Savanur Vishwajith Shetty, was born on 19^th May 1967 in an agricultural family. He completed his schooling from St. Victor’s Primary School, Puttur, and High School from St. Philomina High School, Puttur. He obtained law degree from Vaikunta Baliga law college, Udupi.

Justice Vishwajith Shetty enrolled as an advocate in the Karnataka State Bar Council on 3^rd of August 1990. After the enrolment on the roles of  Karnataka State Bar Council, he joined the chambers of Mr. P. Vishwanath Shetty, who became the Judge of the Karnataka High Court. He practiced in civil, criminal and writ petitions. You started your independence practice in the year 1995.

As lawyer, Justice Vishwajith Shetty served as a panel advocate for Mangalore City Corporation and Davanagere City Corporation.

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/RoyFyKpPp7rcOKBWYaz8MwnTj

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/2zaiOHjUKw8tQUebjmSSGAmD0

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/TW2RUNUQzj7KeRGkWWcSztyJ3

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/FZfTeCzrbxckO5C7i0BZQNoQe

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/00l4CcLmCGmUMpAH29LiAwyGa

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/fZuzUP23nmcktNYJR9i5TABXv

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/doCHE8UpmBfrnj8L83Bv15LK6

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/L2Y7UMbm3xKGwOvAead7Om1DU

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/IbeNgWc5n37N1mEGACvxJVVLa

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.(DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/F6RCbDXX7fUpl5HN2VNYEHYtK

“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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/YVaqoaF6m5s1yAvjGec82DeFP

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/1MLGplP6hSb2ZDQQzIK2V6xAQ

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/51BDLqY6lcXmkjfgQkC83YQsH

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/N0kbQlmGT4OAkX3qSIUMlhUB1

“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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/SHJ62TCdEAKfrNPzvjOQ5xl4q

“State has no power to regulate fee structure in Private Schools under the Karnataka Education Act”. Landmark Judgement from the Karnataka High Court.(DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/QFd2LkHBjJQqLSuwRP9W1M6tO

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.(DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/HxFBnA4oSzJyQXI9KqeWxOtJl

Prospective beneficiary has no right to question deletion of the land from the acquisition proceedings. Karnataka High Court. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/S7BR7LYhqKZ2euyVXLv8fVFei

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.(DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/PzgqR1tbpNmwi8CIZxEa258sG

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/oX1BbykGxh0fOqwDVvm5BFxww

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/UuMNTUrB5ZsSTXC7DE2t82tMz

”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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ffjuTSZwYXEaVRve9o07HhAnz

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/SGQRILm4kMHZ4IEUZEUzQNYE2

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Lx8lj50C1IXdryWHiZhNIaK3m

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/gWJfk63ub1aPOMc26KMOBtp7m

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/AxsTUYclEAPZi8GESmWIvAIgD

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/2eaqBZz4Qc1Qgn6tvFVplDMFH

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/FXr07SrhysNBw4tIi48p5J20Z

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/vWvc3onLBn2Fnziqly0Pg9p4U

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/AHXr5G4vEv1PtGL2SSa7XyqoG

Karnataka SC-ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 is NOT applicable in cases of mere agreements of sale without delivery of possession. Karnataka High Court. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/XDkLLggCxnCwO5G8TuzD21Ikr

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/10XANl323jyev5EmxkCZeDmC1

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/oJAlgVofPTJKdU458odhBk0ul

‘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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/qRvZrwRUqh2M0EAJYcMHMDmnR

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/inj8EJemeP93vhrMgtrU7wEzo

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/mVPCCaRlT8PdeFnkGEV4cY9UW

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/lINWlRI30v0P3zA1KqN7pbP4R

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/m3jYQjL0DfgPTbakGtbmNgKsu

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/jqeR8lN26Y9Xh2F0n8zHydU5y

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/BW4eQM9cvxcpaJNZeAsytLDiN

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/CdgFkNFijKU88Vtf8WSe7dzCd

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/nMwBXlQH144vnMtnLw2cCOoBB

Suo Motu action regarding functioning of the Juvenile Justice Boards in the State. Karnataka High Court issues interim directions. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/PZT7jLduDMFQCKiMc6ABsNYyf

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Dhm4fVsZ66BPKe1xTgkIBp1oD

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.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/GpdDtxYcUApQkcgyqjGhZEhIG

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. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ArY99nUgv48XJJGsX2mqPXruY

Karnataka High Court strikes down rule enabling collection of fee from transporter of minor minerals from other States into State of Karnataka. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/DRNd5Oym2n1DeFTyvtkMPXZOt

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Additional award under Section 33 forms part of the arbitral award. Remedy appeal and not Writ.

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/FGfnbLga0BF7IozN2WXiK1bo1

Karnataka High Court directs State Election Commission to hold elections for 198 Wards of BBMP at the earliest. (DB)

https://dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Hj5pfiWj0SFSwLpjky0v5rnvH