Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Natarajan celebrates his 60th 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 PatashalaEvening 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.
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.Cwhen 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.
NDPS Act. Special Court/Magistrate has power to release the vehicle in question for interim custody under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court.
The Sessions Judge Koppal Hon’ble Shri. C. Chandrashekar convicted 101 persons in a decade old case of atrocity against members of the Scheduled Caste community at Marakumbi village. (Judgement enclsoed)
The Hon’ble Judge observed, “To show mercy in a case like this would be travesty of justice. Considering the fact that the injured victims, male and female, belong to Scheduled Caste and that accused have violated the modesty of women folk, assaulted the victims with sticks, stones and brick pieces causing injuries, I am of the opinion that the Accused deserve to be sentenced for more period than the prescribed minimum period of punishment.”
The Court sentenced 98 accused to life imprisonment under Section 3(2)(iv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The remaining were sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment.
FIR was lodged in August 2014 alleging that the accused assaulted the persons belonging to SC community while purchasing cinema tickets. The accused entered the colony of Madigas community, abused and assaulted the community members and lit fire to their houses.
A total of 117 individuals were charged in the case, facing allegations under:
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act: intentional insult or intimidation of SC/ST community members (more severe than IPC Sections 504 and 506).
Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act: assault on SC/ST women with intent to outrage modesty (more severe than IPC Section 354).
Section 3(2)(iv) SC/ST Act: arson targeting SC/ST dwellings (more severe than IPC Section 436).
These sections of the SC/ST Act prescribe aggravated penalties for offenses against SC/ST individuals.”
These offenses carry enhanced penalties compared to IPC Sections 504, 506, 354, and 436.
The Court documented statements from primarily injured, child, and female witnesses, observing consistent testimony despite a three-year examination gap. Their accounts were substantiated by additional evidence. Notably:
35 of 38 witnesses supported the prosecution’s case.
Only three injured witnesses disagreed with the prosecution.
No allegations of witness tampering were made.
Witnesses recounted their traumatic experiences, showing consistency despite variations in detail.
The Sessions Judge Koppal Hon’ble Shri. C. Chandrashekar convicted 101 persons in a decade old case of atrocity against members of the Scheduled Caste community at Marakumbi village. (Judgement enclsoed)
The Hon’ble Judge observed, “To show mercy in a case like this would be travesty of justice. Considering the fact that the injured victims, male and female, belong to Scheduled Caste and that accused have violated the modesty of women folk, assaulted the victims with sticks, stones and brick pieces causing injuries, I am of the opinion that the Accused deserve to be sentenced for more period than the prescribed minimum period of punishment.”
The Court sentenced 98 accused to life imprisonment under Section 3(2)(iv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The remaining were sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment.
FIR was lodged in August 2014 alleging that the accused assaulted the persons belonging to SC community while purchasing cinema tickets. The accused entered the colony of Madigas community, abused and assaulted the community members and lit fire to their houses.
A total of 117 individuals were charged in the case, facing allegations under:
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act: intentional insult or intimidation of SC/ST community members (more severe than IPC Sections 504 and 506).
Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act: assault on SC/ST women with intent to outrage modesty (more severe than IPC Section 354).
Section 3(2)(iv) SC/ST Act: arson targeting SC/ST dwellings (more severe than IPC Section 436).
These sections of the SC/ST Act prescribe aggravated penalties for offenses against SC/ST individuals.”
These offenses carry enhanced penalties compared to IPC Sections 504, 506, 354, and 436.
The Court documented statements from primarily injured, child, and female witnesses, observing consistent testimony despite a three-year examination gap. Their accounts were substantiated by additional evidence. Notably:
35 of 38 witnesses supported the prosecution’s case.
Only three injured witnesses disagreed with the prosecution.
No allegations of witness tampering were made.
Witnesses recounted their traumatic experiences, showing consistency despite variations in detail.
S. Basavaraj, Senior Advocate & Member, Karnataka State Bar Council. Bengaluru.
The recent order of the Karnataka High Court is sought to be sensationalised and criticised for the reasons which are completely unacceptable.
In the order, the division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil referred couples whose marriage in trouble for mediation through Shri Abhinava Gavisiddeshwara Swamiji of Shri Gavisiddeshwara Mutt, Koppal, Karnataka.
The order is criticised on social media platforms and blogs alleging that the order “blurs secular boundaries” and such religious endorsement is a peril in constitutional courts.
At the outset, those who are criticising lack knowledge about the historical significance of religious mutts and swamijis acting as non-judicial mediators in Karnataka.
With permission, I quote from the book “Iterations of Law: Legal Histories from India” by Aparna Balachandran, Rashmi Pant, and Bhavani Raman. The learned authors say;
“The increasing attraction of non-state legal institutions as courts of appeal for a quick and summary justice bears scrutiny. How have sectarian religious institutions, which formerly patrolled the boundaries of caste and gender, been adapted in the present to exert an influence far beyond the specific circle of adherents to offer the possibility of justice to a wide range of groups and causes? The matha court at Sirigere, Karnataka, is a far cry from its late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century predecessor, both in its performance of the law, and in its ambitious reach…
There is a pronounced visibility of the Lingayat mathas in contemporary Karnataka as the meaning and spread of their engagements change. Among the most important is the Taralabalu Jagadguru Brihan Matha at Sirigere, a small village in Chitradurga taluk, Karnataka. A visible sign of the changing relation between the matha and its adherents on the one hand and the matha and state on the other is the Saddharma Nyaya Peetha (Seat of Justice) of the current Jagadguru of the Sirigere matha, Shivamurthy Shivacharya Swamiji. Throughout the twentieth century, and at least since the 1940s—for which records are available—the Sirigere swamijis have adjudicated cases pertaining to caste transgressions of the matha’s adherents (and in some cases, other castes from the areas around the mula [or root] matha). They dealt not only with questions relating to inter-dining, sexuality, and marks and modes of respect, but also with more ‘secular’ issues of property disputes and family tangles. Since 2000, the court has taken a more formal shape to become an increasingly popular site for conciliation/adjudication on a wide range of problems and issues.
…. Principally, there were three kinds of cases with which the Lingayat mathas (Muruga matha of Chitradurga and Taralabalu matha at Sirigere) dealt: (a) disputes relating to infringements of caste honour, notably chappal beating, slander, and other forms of contempt by members of the same or two different castes; (b) those that referred to questions of sexuality, notably the sexuality of widows, and also cases of adultery, by both men and women; and finally, (c) cases related to the division of property..”
The learned authors give statistics of the disputes resolved by the mutt. The dispute resolution at Shri. Dharmasthala has been equally efficacious.
In his article “The Role of Religious Institutions for Conflict Management: Experience of National Conflict Management: Experience of National Council of Churches of Kenya” Mr. Aemro Tenaw, Lecturer at Debre Markos University, Ethiopia speaks about the role of religious institutions in conflict management. Under the heading RELIGION AS SOURCE OF CONFLICT AND PEACE BUILDING IN AFRICA, the learned author explains how “religion can both encourage conflict and build peace, reflecting growing evidence that religious forces can play a constructive role in helping to resolve conflicts. Brief case studies of religious peacemakers – from Mozambique, Nigeria– demonstrate attempts, characteristically partially successful, to reconcile previously warring communities, thereby helping to achieve greater social cohesion, and providing a crucial foundation for progress in enhancing human development Jeffrey (Haynes,2009). So, in one hand as cases described illustrate the creative contributions that religion can make to peace in places like Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Macedonia, Nigeria, and Sudan. As these cases illustrate, religious approaches to peacemaking do not provide a panacea, but can complement secular peacemaking productively (Smock. 2006). In addition, in many settings religious organizations and their leaders, due to the trust and moral authority they hold from broad-based constituencies, are uniquely positioned to facilitate post conflict reconstruction and reconciliation efforts (USID, 2009). For instance, in West Africa, in response to civil wars in Sierra Leone and Guinea, and ongoing violence in Liberia, interreligious councils—composed of representatives from Muslim, Protestant, and Catholic groups—provided leadership and resources to rebuild communities, and advocated for refugees. These networks attempt to maintain requisites for building peace across national and regional boundaries.”
In their paper “Experiences of Dispute Resolution in Non-Court Forums: Justice Sans Rule of Law” learned authors Shruti Vidyasagar and Shruthi Naik extensively discuss the role of non-court forums in dispute resolution. “Dispute resolution in India involves several actors and institutions – not only courts but also various other forums for alternative means of dispute resolution. While the judiciary is the sole authority responsible for redressing rights’ violations, the problems plaguing the judicial system contribute significantly to parties opting to settle disputes out of court” the learned authors argue. They also argue that “the perception of local and customary forums as providing quick, effective, and flexible means of dispute resolution is well-documented, and these traits are even considered desirable.”
The role of religious heads and Swamijis in dispute resolution is a historically proven and accepted factor. It is absolutely necessary to understand such historical factors in State like Karnataka before taking up the misadventure of attacking the court order.
The Indian media’s thirst for ratings has led to a disturbing trend of sensationalizing court cases, compromising the integrity of the judicial process. Similar is with legal blogs and websites. The consequences of bad reporting are easy to perceive. Sensationalized reporting can influence public perception, making it challenging for the judges to perform. By delivering their own verdicts, the media and the websites undermines the authority of the judiciary and the rule of law .
It’s time for the media and the websites to rethink its approach and prioritize responsible reporting over ratings. The public deserves accurate, unbiased information, not sensationalized storytelling.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijaykumar A Patil celebrates his 49th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijaykumar Adagouda Patil :
Born on 14.10.1975. Native of Shedbal, Kagawad , Kagawad Tq, Belgaum District. Completed primary & secondary education at native place. Obtained B.A. degree from ShivanandaCollege, Kagawad. Graduated in Law from University Law College, Dharwad. Completed LL.M. from Post Graduate Department of Studies in Law, Karnataka University, Dharwad & secured 2nd rank. Enrolled as Advocate on 16.07.1999 and practiced at Bengaluru, joined the chambers of Hon’ble Shri Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri. Practiced in various branches of Law. Worked as High Court Government Pleader & Addl. Government Advocate for a period of 11 years. During the practice, represented as Standing Council for KIADB, Karnataka Slum Development Board, Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Corporation & Mysore Urban Development Authority. Worked as Honorary Lecturer at Sheshadripuram Law College and KLE Society’s Law College, Bengaluru.
Sworn-in as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 09.02.2023.
Important judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijaykumar A Patil.
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.
Land grabbing. If the possession over land is traceable to a registered sale deed, the Special Court has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint. Karnataka High Court.
Interpretation of statutes. Where a discretion is conferred on a authority coupled with an obligation the word ‘may’ which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command. Karnataka High Court.
“Political rallies have some elements of dissemination of knowledge & information to the public at large and they generate lot of political awareness in the voting masses”. Karnataka High Court on PM Modi’s Road Show.
Karnataka High Court upholds NEET of National Medical Commissioner and counselling process seat matrix stipulating quotas for admission in private Homeopathic Medical Colleges.
Wife wilfully abandoning husband cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. especially when husband has not refused or neglected to maintain her. Karnataka High Court.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Special Court has jurisdiction to deal with the order of extension of remand as well as the applications seeking default bail. 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.
Employees Compensation Act. Commissioner is bound to consider the aspect of penalty in accordance with statutory provision when there is delay in payment of even the partial liability. Karnataka High Court.
‘’Article 21 cannot be stretched too long to afford protection to persons who have least concern for the rule of law and pose threat to sovereignty and integrity of the nation.’’ Karnataka High Court while rejecting bail plea of terror accused.
Section 33 of the Evidence Act. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated. Absolute reliance cannot be placed on the previous evidence given by such witness. Karnataka High Court.
In a proceeding under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation. Karnataka High Court.
Application for extension of time to file chargesheet takes priority over an application for default bail when both the applications are filed on the same day. Karnataka High Court.
Lokayukta being watch dog of public administration has locus standi to question the order of service Tribunal when there is inaction on the part of Government/Competent Authority. Karnataka High Court.
A religious Mutt has a fundamental right to own and manage its property. Unless there is determination of excess land holding by appropriate authority, property of Mutt cannot be appropriated. Karnataka High Court.
Compassionate appointment. Court has no power to expand the definition of ‘family’ to include daughter-in-law. Doctrine of reading down may be invoked and applied only when the statute is silent, ambiguous or admits more than one interpretation. Karnataka High Court.
Hon’ble Ms. Justice J. M. Khazi celebrates her 61st birthday today.
Hon’ble Ms. Justice J. M. Khazi:
Born on October 8th 1963, at Indi the then Bijapur (now Vijayapura) District to Late Smt. Rashida Begum & Late Sri. M.A. Kazi as their eldest daughter. She is having an elder brother and 3 younger sisters. Her Father Late Sri. M.A. Kazi served throughout Karnataka and retired as Public Prosecutor. She had her Education upto PUC at Badami, Gadag, Navalgund, Ballari and Mandya. She did her B.Sc. and LL.B at Shivamogga and LL.M. through Kuvempu University (Distance Education).
She started practice at Vijayapura and Bengaluru on both Civil and Criminal side. At Bengaluru practiced in the office of Sri.Ashok R.Kalyanshetty. She was selected as Civil Judge & JMFC during October 1993 and worked at Tumakuru, Somwarpet, Mandya, Bengaluru and Nelamangala. Promoted as Senior Civil Judge during 2003 and worked at Bengaluru and Sagar.
Promoted as District & Sessions Judge during July 2009 and worked as District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and Tumakuru, Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, Registrar (Administration) and Secretary to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, Presiding Officer, Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Bengaluru, KSTAT, Bengaluru and now working as Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Karnataka.
Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and taken oath on 25.03.2021 and Permanent Judge on 30.09.2022.
Hobbies: Reading, gardening and listening to music.
Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Miss. Justice J M Khazi.
Reference and incorporation in a contract. Mere reference to another document in a contract will not incorporate terms of the document into the contract. Karnataka High Court.
Essential Commodities Act. Initiation of criminal proceedings without making company an accused are not maintainable and are liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Civil dispute being converted into criminal case amounts to abuse of process of law. Karnataka High Court quashes criminal proceedings initiated by apartment owner against the office bearers for disconnecting electricity supply.
Pendency of civil case is not a ground to dismiss criminal proceeding. Criminal case regarding forgery of Will cannot be dismissed on the ground that the finding in criminal case will have a binding effect in pending civil suit. Karnataka High Court.
Re-Compensate forest land taken four decades ago for Harangi Reservoir Project. Karnataka High Court directs the State Government to handover 11,722 hectares of Revenue lands to Forest Department.
Hindu Law. Separated son has No right in ancestral property left by kartha. He can claim share as Class-I heir after death of Kartha in notional partition. Karnataka High Court.
Appellate Court cannot decide criminal appeal before it by taking into account evidence recorded in another case even though it might be a cross-case or a counter case. Karnataka High Court issues exhaustive guidelines.
Grant of benefit by statutory authority inadvertently or by mistake to few persons does not create right to other similarly situated persons to claim such benefit. Karnataka High Court.
Reference and incorporation in a contract. Mere reference to another document in a contract will not incorporate terms of the document into the contract. Karnataka High Court.
Essential Commodities Act. Initiation of criminal proceedings without making company an accused are not maintainable and are liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Civil dispute being converted into criminal case amounts to abuse of process of law. Karnataka High Court quashes criminal proceedings initiated by apartment owner against the office bearers for disconnecting electricity supply.
Pendency of civil case is not a ground to dismiss criminal proceeding. Criminal case regarding forgery of Will cannot be dismissed on the ground that the finding in criminal case will have a binding effect in pending civil suit. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Societies Registration Act. Prosecution for not conducting annual general body meeting cannot launched after six months from the date of the alleged offence. Karnataka High Court.
If land falls within Corporation limits, there is no requirement to obtain permission under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for diverting agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose. Karnataka High Court.
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.
N.I. Act. Section 138. When cheque is delivered for collection within the territorial jurisdiction of a Court where the payee maintains the account, proceedings cannot be initiated in other place. Karnataka High Court.
When a Company nominates a Director under Section 49(2) of the Legal Meteorology Act, 2009, initiation of penal proceedings against other Directors is not permissible. Karnataka High Court.
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.
Customary divorce among PanchamasaliLingayats, though recognised under Section 29-2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the same is required to be proved strictly in accordance with Section 60 of the Evidence Act. Karnataka High Court.
Attornment of tenancy in favour of purchaser is not required to initiate eviction proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Tenancy created under registered lease deed by grandfather during minority of grandson. Same is binding unless the lease is challenged within three years after grandson attains majority. Karnataka High Court.
Land Acquisition. Challenge to land acquisition can be rejected by courts on the ground constructive resjudicata and res judicata. Issue regarding fraud already adjudicated binds subsequent proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
Undue influence, unless specifically pleaded in the plaint, cannot be assumed by the court based on evidence during trial. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
RTC entries in revenue records. Deputy Commissioner exercising power under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot sit over the validity of registered title deed. Karnataka High Court.
FIR for the offence under Section 498-A IPC cannot be registered against woman alleged to be in illicit relationship with complainant’s husband unless essential ingredients of the offence are made out. Karnataka High Court.
Defamation. When a class of persons are mentioned to have been defamed and if such a class is indefinite, the complaint cannot be entertained. Karnataka High Court.
Offence by Companies. A person cannot be prosecuted unless he is shown to be in-charge of the Company as Managing director or Director. Karnataka High Court.
Vendor committing breach of agreement to sell his property and returning the advance amount to purchaser does not constitute criminal breach of trust. Karnataka High Court.
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. ”Pre-existing civil disputes cannot be converted into offences under the Act”. Karnataka High Court while quashing criminal proceedings under the Act.
Negotiable Instruments Act. Directors of a company cannot be held vicariously guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 when the company is not arrayed as an accused in the complaint. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
Mahazar drawn contrary to Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. is only irregular. Same cannot be termed as illegal if seizure can be proved upon search conducted. Karnataka High Court.
Person who gifted immovable property to Municipality on the assurance of alternative site is entitled to receive market value compensation if there is no provision for allotment of alternate site. Karnataka High Court.
Obtaining power of attorney from property owner and selling the property to third party does not by itself amount to cheating unless obtaining the power of attorney was with an intention to deceive the owner. Karnataka High Court.
Mere inducement to invest in money doubling scheme in the absence of dishonest intention to cheat the investor from the inception does not constitute either cheating or criminal breach of trust. Karnataka High Court.
FIR lodged during pendency of civil suit between parties giving criminal texture to civil dispute and to wreak vengeance is liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
Bar under Article 363 of the Constitution to enquire into disputes arising out of merger agreement or instrument of accession between Ruler of an Indian State and the Government applies even to Revenue proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Serving Government analyst report on accused after expiration of drug’s shelf life deprives valuable right of the accused to get the drug re-analysed. Criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed Karnataka High.
Range Forest Officer cannot register FIR in respect non-cognizable offences under the Karnataka Forest Act without obtaining prior permission from the Magistrate. Karnataka High Court.
Director of a company who resigned by submitting required Form before the Registrar of Companies cannot be held liable for bouncing of cheque issued after his retirement. Karnataka High Court.
Private complaint in respect of a cognizable offence without complying with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
Conscious possession of live cartridges fully knowing the consequences is essential to constitute offence under Sections 3 and 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. Karnataka High Court.
When there is no clause prescribing minimum quantity of electricity to be purchased by Govt Electricity Company under Power Purchase Agreement, licensee cannot be restrained from injecting power generator into the grid. Karnataka High Court.
To constitute offence under Section 3(1)(j) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the accused must have employed the person for manual scavenging knowing fully well that he belongs to SC & ST community. Karnataka High Court.
Persons who had ceased to be directors of company cannot be arrayed as accused in proceedings under the NI Act in respect of cheque issued by the Company. Karnataka High Court reiterates.
Instigating Police personnel to go on mass leave and to participate in the strike seeking redressal of grievances do not constitute the offence of Sedition. Karnataka High Court.
Employee working under contractor sustaining injuries does not fall under the definition of ‘worker’ as defined under Section 2(l) of the Factory Act. Karnataka High Court.
BBMP Act 2020. Whenever transfer of property comes to the knowledge of the Chief Commissioner through notice under Section 149, he is bound to enter the name of the transferee in the property tax register. Karnataka High Court.
Permission to demolish dilapidated building. Though issuance of notice to adjacent owner is not necessary, it is incumbent to notify when demolition poses threat. Karnataka High Court.
Person who relinquishes land in favour of Corporation is entitled to maximum Transferable Development Rights as per the amendment to KTCP Act. Karnataka High Court.
President of a Gram Panchayat has no power under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 to cancel khata registered in favour of a person. Karnataka High Court.
BBMP cannot refuse to change khata of property duly purchased under a registered sale deed only on the ground of third-party objection. Karnataka High Court.
Gram Panchayat preventing licensed persons from carrying on business by introducing public auction without authority of law violates fundamental right under Article 19. Karnataka High Court.
Rejection of restoration application under the PTCL Act filed after 32 years. Remand of the proceedings on the ground of procedural irregularity cannot be ordered when fresh consideration is a futile exercise. Karnataka High Court.
Delimitation of wards based on the population is flexible clothing the Government with power to meet difficult situation since scale of representation may not be always uniform. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka SC-ST – PTCL Act. Delay of seven years in applying for restoration of the granted land without any explanation for the delay. Application is liable to be rejected. Karnataka High Court.
”Elections are the essence of democracy”. Karnataka High Court directs the Govt to provide reservation for women in the wards having greater women population and to hold elections at the earliest.
When a statutory appeal is rejected as not maintainable, the appellate authority cannot make observations on merits touching the rights of the parties. Karnataka High Court.
Even the delay of 25 years cannot be a ground to reject application for restoration of deleted entry in revenue records when the applicant acquired the title by registered sale deed which remains unchallenged. Karnataka High Court.
Limitation to apply for cancellation of khata under Section 114A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act is three years from the date of the order and not from the date of knowledge of the order. Karnataka High Court.
Cheque bounce case. Partnership firm cannot be held liable for dishonour of the cheque issued by a partner in his individual capacity. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal proceedings under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007 cannot be initiated except on a complaint in writing by the authorized officer. Karnataka High Court.
Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated only against manager of company without arraying the company as accused. Karnataka High Court.
Insecticides Act, 1968. Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated only against director of company without arraying the company as accused. Karnataka High Court.
When agricultural land falling within local planning area is designated for residential purpose, the permission shall be deemed to have been granted subject to payment of fine prescribed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Karnataka High Court.
Essential Commodities Act. Manager of a company cannot be prosecuted for substandard goods unless the manufacturer/company is arraigned as an accused. Karnataka High Court.
Post-dated cheque presented beyond the period of three months from the date the cheque bears will not attract the provisions of Section 138 of the N I Act. Karnataka High Court.
Before initiating criminal proceedings under the Factories Act, the authorities should pass an order on the reply submitted by the occupier or the factory manager to the show cause notice. Karnataka High Court.
Persons nominated under Section 352(1)(b) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 are not eligible to be included in the electoral roll of the Local Authorities Constituency. Karnataka High Court.
When quality supervisor is appointed by a Company under the Fertilizer (Control Order), director of Company cannot be prosecuted for the offences under the Essential commodities Act. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal prosecution launched under the Insecticides Act against director of company without arraigning the Company as an accused is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.
When company is alleged to have committed offence under the Karnataka Forest Act, prosecution cannot be launched only against the directors without making the company an accused. Karnataka High Court.
Proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act cannot be initiated against a person who ceased to be director of a Company as on the date of issuance of the cheque. Karnataka High Court.
Legal Metrology Act. Common complaint in respect of several distinct offences based on different causes of action on different facts and different nature is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. Police conducting raid without registering FIR at the first instance is illegal. Karnataka High Court.
While considering the application to engage private Prosecutor under Section 302 Cr.P.C, the Magistrate must form an opinion as to whether cause of justice would be subserved. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Excise Act. Police Officer entering and conducting search without search warrant or without recording the reasons for dispensing with obtaining search warrant is impermissible. Karnataka High Court.
Death of employee due to the negligence of the owner/occupier of the factory. Simultaneous prosecution under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 92 of the Factories Act is not permissible. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act. Denatured spirit and ethyl alcohol are two different products. Clarification cannot run counter to the Tax Entries to levy entry tax. Karnataka High Court.
Insecticides Act. Prior written consent by the State Government or a person authorized by it is mandatory before initiating the criminal prosecution for an offence under the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Insecticides Act. Criminal prosecution only against employee of Company cannot be launched without arraigning the Company also as an accused. Karnataka High Court.
Prosecution for obtaining false caste certificate can be launched only if the certificate is cancelled by the Competent Authority. Magistrate cannot decide the validity of the Caste certificate. Karnataka High Court.
Registration of the FIR under Sections 30 and 35 of the Arms Act which are non- cognizable cases without the order of a Magistrate is illegal. Karnataka High Court.
Sale of property pursuant to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act for the default committed by the borrower cannot be given the colour of criminal offences. Karnataka High Court.
Failure to pay fashion event organiser does not amount to fraud under Section 420 IPC unless there are clear allegations of intention to defraud from the inception. Karnataka High Court.
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Cognizance cannot be taken merely on the basis of the final report submitted by the Range Forest Officer. Karnataka High Court.
When the purpose of land acquisition is same and lands are similar, same amount of compensation shall be paid to owners, though the lands are lying in different villages. Karnataka High Court.
Registration of multiple FIR by same person against the same accused based on the same set of facts and the same cause of action is impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.
Wild Life (Protection) Act. Magistrate cannot take cognizance merely on the basis of final report by the police unless there is a complaint made by a person prescribed under Section 55A of the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Before taking cognizance of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act against out of station accused, preliminary enquiry must be conducted as contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court.
Removal and transportation of sand after obtaining prior permission of the Government does not attract penal provision of Section 379 of IPC since the Section implies removal of the property belonging to another person without consent. Karnataka High Court.
Investigation of non-cognizable offences. Mere endorsement by the Magistrate ‘permitted’ on the requisition cannot be construed as order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court.
Prevention of Corruption Act. Competent authority to grant sanction to prosecute head of the Department is the Cabinet. Minister in-charge has no power to grant such sanction. Karnataka High Court.
No criminal proceedings can be initiated against Notary Public except by an officer authorised by the Central or State Government by general or special order in this behalf. Karnataka High Court.
Tax cannot be levied on telecommunication towers erected by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Government of India undertaking) on the immovable property belongs to it, or the Union of India save as the parliament may by law provide. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for partition by woman coparcener is not maintainable if the ancestral property was sold before coming into force of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. Karnataka High Court.
Companies Act, 1956. Offence under Section 217 is not a continuing offence. No criminal prosecution can be launched beyond six months in view of Section 468(2)(a) and (b) of Cr.PC. Karnataka High Court.
Labour Court awarding partial backwagesfor proven unauthorised absence of workman for a long period runs contrary to the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ and cannot be justified under Section 11-A of the I D Act. Karnataka High Court.
“Prohibition of outdoor advertisement on non-residential private properties violates Articles 14 & 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution of India” declares Karnataka High Court. Directions issued to take strict action against unauthorised hoardings.
No estoppel against statute. Landowners cannot be deprived of compensation for the Road Margin Area even though they accepted condition and derived benefit under the approved plan. Karnataka High Court.
Suit for permanent injunction. Pendency of tenancy dispute under Land Reforms before Tribunal does NOT prevent civil court to deal with issue of possession and to grant temporary/permanent injunction. Karnataka High Court.
Industrial Disputes Act. Labour Court must quantify monetary value payable to the Workman before directing the employer to implement the award under Section 33 (2) (c). Karnataka High Court.
Microbreweries also fall under the Karnataka Excise (Brewery) Rules and are entitled for refund/adjustment of unutilised excise duty and additional excise duty. Karnataka High Court.
Offence under Section 78 (3) of the Karnataka Police Act is non-cognizable. Police officer cannot investigate the offence without obtaining orders from the Magistrate. Karnataka High Court.
Word ‘permitted’ is not an order under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. Registration of FIR, in the absence of valid order as specified under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. stands vitiated. Karnataka High Court.
Deputy Commissioner need not follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 while renewing the license. Karnataka High Court.
Religious Institution (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. Election campaign in the temple premises by person who is not in-charge of the affair of the Temple does not attract the Act. Karnataka High Court.
Income Tax Act. Magistrate can take cognizance for the offences under Sections 277 and 278 only on the basis of complaint by the authorized officer with prior sanction from the competent Authority. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Police Act. Playing ‘’AndharBahar” in private house does not attract Common Gaming-House under the Act. Prosecution cannot launched in such a scenario. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Excise Act. Conducting search without obtaining order from the Magistrate and without recording the grounds for its dispensation under Section 54 is illegal. Karnataka High Court.
Mere pendency of litigation, in the absence of any restraint order, cannot be a ground for the Corporation not to enter the name of the purchaser in the khata. Karnataka High Court.
Special Court established under Section 435 of the Companies Act, 2013, cannot take cognizance of an offence committed under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Karnataka High Court.
Transfer of undivided interest by landowner in respect of apartment allotted to developer under Joint Development Agreement. Apartment value cannot be included for stamp duty calculation. Karnataka High Court.
NDPS Act. Importing drugs via consignment. When the ‘Controlled Delivery’ technique fails, proceeding with the criminal prosecution based solely on the voluntary statement amounts to abuse of process of law. Karnataka High Court.
Motor Vehicles Act. Transport schemes depend on various factors and play a pivotal role in ensuring connectivity, mobility and quality of life. Such schemes cannot be interfered with, unless it is arbitrary and discriminatory. Karnataka High Court.
Registered sale deed executed by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee cannot be unilaterally cancelled under the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing (Regulation of Allotment of Property in Market yards) Rules 2004. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal prosecution under the Companies Act 2013 cannot be launched for the actions which were valid under the Companies Act 1956. Karnataka High Court.
Sub-division of converted land without obtaining permission under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act cannot be a ground to reject transfer of khata by the Municipality. Karnataka High Court.
Planning Authority cannot ask landowner to relinquish land designated for road widening in the Master plan free of cost as a condition precedent for sanctioning the layout plan. Karnataka High Court.
Commissioner of Municipal Corporation cannot give a finding on the title of a person over the property while ordering cancellation of the khata. Karnataka High Court.
Land acquisition. Urgency clause can be invoked only for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. Delay on the part of the acquiring body invalidates the proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
Market value for the excess lands utilized for widening of National Highway has to be determined in commensurate with the market value determined in respect of the acquired land. Karnataka High Court.
Doctrine of res judicata cannot be used to reject a plaint, as its determination necessitates an examination of pleadings, issues, and decisions in prior suits. Karnataka High Court.
Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. Revenue Inspector has no power to take possession of excess land. Karnataka High Court restores land to the owners after 30 years.
Criteria for exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash FIR is the situs of the authority who has registered the case and not the place of commission of the crime either in full or part. Karnataka High Court.
Obtaining Succession Certificate by producing fabricated relinquishment deed. Cognizance of such offence can be taken only upon a complaint in writing of that Court or by any person authorized as stated under Section 195 of Cr.PC. Karnataka High Court.
Commission earned by payment aggregator, without the knowledge of the criminality, cannot be termed as facilitating illegal money transfer to invoke Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Karnataka High Court.
Earnest money in sale transaction represents guarantee that purchaser will perform his part of the contract. It can be forfeited only when the transaction fails by reasons of the default or failure of the purchaser and not otherwise. Karnataka High Court.
Negotiable Instruments Act. Power of Courts to order interim compensation under Section 143(A) can be only in respect of the offences committed after the introduction of the Section in the statute book. Karnataka High Court.
Change of use under Section 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act is not a condition precedent for conversion of land for non-agricultural purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Karnataka High Court.
Plaint can be rejected on the ground of resjudicata if the claim in the subsequent suit is based on the status of a person (adoption) already negatived in the earlier suit. Karnataka High Court.
Accused who is not charged with the predicate offence can still be prosecuted for the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Karnataka High Court.
Land Acquisition Act. Delay in issuing preliminary and final notification has material bearing on the question of invocation of urgency power. Karnataka High Court.
Hon’ble Mr .Justice K. Somashekar celebrates his 61st birthday today.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Somashekar: Born on 15.09.1963. Enrolled as an advocate on 27.01.1990 and practiced in Mysore and Chamarajanagar Districts on both Civil and Criminal sides. Directly appointed as District and Sessions Judge on 17.06.1998 and served as Additional Districts and Sessions Judge at Bijapur(Vijayapura); and City Civil Court, Bangalore and Principal District and Sessions Judge at Uttara Kannada, Karwar District; Hassan; Bangalore Rural District, Chitradurga and Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and also served as Registrar Judicial and Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka. Appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 14.11.2016 and Permanent Judge on 03.11.2018.
Important judgments delivered by Justice K. Somashekar.
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.
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.
“Victim compensation is the social philosophy and legislative implication. Failure on the part of the prosecution to secure a conviction is not a ground to deny compensation”. Karnataka High Court orders compensation to minor girl orphaned due to crime.
Presentation of undated cheque after three years from the date of the transaction by adding the date. Proceeding under Section 138 NI Act will be clearly barred by limitation. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal trial. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, motive plays a crucial role. Motive is a double-edged weapon, which will cut either side of the case. Karnataka High Court.
“Case of the prosecution in entirety is found to be doubtful and is full of inconsistencies”. Karnataka High Court acquits the accused in RTI activist Lingaraju murder case.
An order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and hence the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order. Karnataka High Court.
Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Wife roping in entire family members of husband with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance. Such proceedings are liable to be quashed. Karnataka High Court.
When the prosecution fails to prove its case, benefit of the acquittal can be extended by the appellate court even to the accused who has not preferred appeal challenging the order of conviction. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal Law. Though due to passage of time and memory loss, witnesses deviate from their Police Statements, but when such discrepancies make the foundation of the prosecution case shaky, the Court has to take strict note thereof. Karnataka High Court.
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.
If deposition of the child witness inspires confidence in the mind of the Court and there is no improvement or tutoring, the Court may rely upon the same. Karnataka High Court.
In determining culpable homicide under Section 299 of IPC, mentality of the accused, nature of the act and its effect upon the victim have to be analysed. Karnataka High Court.
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.
When accused are acquitted for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, conviction for the murder cannot be sustained. Karnataka High Court.
Lack of intention on the part of the accused and commission of the act in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel are the mitigating circumstances. Karnataka High Court reduces sentence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304.
Criminal Law. When trial Court misreads the evidence and arrives at a conclusion erroneously to convict the accused, the appellate Court must intervene to prevent miscarriage of justice. Karnataka High Court.
Criminal law. To impose the extreme punishment, all the three tests; Crime test, Criminal test and Rarest rare test must be satisfied. Karnataka High Court converts imprisonment till last breath of life to life imprisonment.
Criminal Law. Subsequent voluntary statement of the accused cannot be admissible in evidence and recovery to that effect amounts to “rediscovery of a fact already disclosed and capable of discovery.” Karnataka High Court.
Service Law. Court cannot sit on perceptivity of the State Government in posting a person to a particular post except considering the eligibility of the person to occupy the post. Karnataka High Court.
Failure to furnish legible and translated copies of the documents supporting the preventive detention to the detune vitiates the detention order. Karnataka High Court.
Income Tax Act. Proceedings regarding escaped assessment and notices under Section 153C solely based on loose sheets and documents which are termed as ‘diaries’ found during the search are unsustainable. Karnataka High Court.
It is not always mandatory for the State Government to script the reasons for transfer of public servant when the reasonings are reflected in the records for obtaining prior-approval from the Chief Minister. Karnataka High Court.
The Karnataka State Bar Council has addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister of India and the Law Minister of India demanding inclusion of Judge/s from Karnataka in the Karnataka High Court collegium.
Speaking to S. Basavaraj, Senior Advocate and Member, Karnataka State Bar Council, Justice Santosh Hegde, former judge, Supreme Court of India and Shri. B. V. Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General for Karnataka have supported the view of the Bar Council.
Justice Santosh Hegde says “the collegium should not only be aware of the good qualities of an Advocate before recommending his name to be a Judge, but it must also be aware of his drawbacks. The critical assessment of a lawyer or a subordinate judge for elevation as High Court judge is possible only if a local judge is part of the collegium when compared to outsiders.”
Shri. B.V. Acharya minced no words when he said “the entire collegium system is a judge made system. I am of the opinion that the collegium at the High Court level should consist of the local judges from the state. If the collegium consist of outside judges, the chief justice of India should recommend senior most judge outside the collegium and consider his views on the recommendation. ”
The letter of the Karnataka State Bar Council reads as follows: The Karnataka State Bar Council, representing the legal fraternity of our State, humbly submits this letter to draw your esteemed attention to a matter of significance concerning the composition of the Collegium of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Identified as the State of Mysore during the British Raj, our State has been actively part of the administration of the judicial system be it with the appointment of the Board of Commissioners on 21/10/1831, to the appointment of Maharaja of Mysore as Rajpramukh under the Constitution of India to the current judicial set-up. We have seen it all.
The Karnataka High Court (previously called as the High Court of Mysore) has its principal bench at Bengaluru with circuit/additional benches in Dharwad and Kalaburgi. Few notable judges who have been elevated from the High Court of Karnataka to become Chief Justice of India are Hon’ble Mr. Justice E.S. Venkataramaiah, Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. N. Venkatachalaiah, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu. Drawing ourselves back to the subject under reference, it has come to our notice that the current Collegium of the Honble High Court of Karnataka does not include any judges whose parent High Court is Karnataka. While we hold the highest regard for the distinguished judges serving in our High Court from other States, we respectfully express our concern regarding the absence of representation from judges who have roots and a deep understanding of the legal traditions, customs, and nuances specific to State of Karnataka. Judges whose parent High Court is Karnataka bring with them an intrinsic understanding of the unique legal landscape of the state, informed by years of practice and experience within its jurisdiction. Their insights are invaluable in maintaining the balance between the diverse legal challenges that arise in the State of Karnataka and the broader jurisprudential framework of our nation. This balance is crucial for fostering a judiciary that is not only impartial but also deeply connected with the local populace it serves. Furthermore, the inclusion of such judges in the Collegium would bolster the confidence of the legal community and the public in the judicial process, reinforcing the perception that the High Court is attuned to the specific legal, cultural, and social fabric of State of Karnataka. It also serves as a recognition of the contributions and professional development of judges who have dedicated their careers to the judiciary in Karnataka.
We are aware of the complexities involved in judicial appointments and the multitude of factors that the Collegium considers. However, we respectfully urge that this aspect be given due consideration in the ongoing and future appointments to the High Court of Karnataka. In this regard, we place our trust in your office wisdom and discretion to take steps that would address this concern, ensuring that the High Court of Karnataka continues to reflect both the diversity and unity of our judicial system and consider our request to include the judges in the collegium whose parent High Court is Karnataka since regional Judges know about the deep root of practical issues. We express our profound gratitude for your attention to this matter and remain hopeful that our humble submission will be considered favourably.
Hon’ble Ms.Justice Jyoti Mulimani celebrates her 56th birthday today.
Hon’ble Miss. Justice Jyoti Mulimani: Born on 15.08.1968. Enrolled as an Advocate on 31.07.1992.
Handled all types of Civil Cases. Hindu Law, Probate, Company, Arbitration. Constitutional, Tax & Tariff. Electricity, Education, Service, Motor Vehicles, and Excise matters.
Served as a Mediator and Trainer in Bengaluru Mediation Centre for the past 12 years.
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 Miss. Justice Jyoti Mulimani.
Civil court cannot enhance compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act towards diminution value if the Deputy Commissioner has already awarded under a particular head. Karnataka High Court.
Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act can invalidate Gift only if the Gift has condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Law. Gift by a coparcener of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property either to a stranger or to his relation without the consent of the other coparcener is void. Comprehensive Judgement of the Karnataka High Court.
Recognition of Trade Union cannot be demanded as a matter of right. Recognition depends on the discretion of the employer which cannot be imposed by invoking Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.
Where title of the plaintiff is disputed by the defendant, mere suit for bare injunction without supporting prayer for declaration is not maintainable. Karnataka High Court.
Transfer of property in violation of law against fragmentation is void and does not confer title. Suit based on such transfer is liable to be dismissed. Karnataka High Court.
When an officer is entrusted with the duty to decide the issue, detailed order and not an official memorandum is required to be passed. Karnataka High Court.
Though mortgage by deposit of title deeds can be created by handing over title deeds to lender, if the parties reduce the contract to writing, the document alone would be the sole evidence of its terms. Karnataka High Court.
Corporation cannot cancel khata without passing a speaking order and without giving an opportunity to person who may adversely be affected. Karnataka High Court.
Prohibition of transfer of land under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act applies even to agreement of sale. Specific performance of such agreement cannot be granted. Karnataka High Court.
KIADB Act. Terms of lease-cum-sale agreement prevail over Regulations governing disposal of lands. Once a lease-cum-sale agreement is executed, the Board cannot revoke the allotment citing the Regulations. Karnataka High Court.
Payment of Gratuity Act. Controlling Authority cannot entertain application claiming gratuity after inordinate delay beyond the period of limitation. Karnataka High Court.
Senior Citizens Act. Petition against non-relatives is not maintainable especially when the gift deed is silent about maintenance. Karnataka High Court.
Daksha Legal 