KUNAL BAHL and another vs STATE OF KARNATAKA. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4676 OF 2020. Decided on 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/357138/1/CRLP4676-20-07-01-2021.pdf HELD: 16.1 At the time of taking Cognisance and issuance of process, the Court taking Cognisance is required to pass a sufficiently detailed order to support the conclusion to take cognisance and …
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Service Law. Selection. Court would not sit in the armchair of experts to assess or award marks for publications except in cases of arbitrariness or malafides. Karnataka High Court.
Dr. Prashant Babaji vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 10807/2018 decided on 30 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/357135/1/WP10807-18-30-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 14. It is trite law that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be loathe to interfere with the marks awarded by a selection committee to the candidates …
Arms Act, 1959. No prior sanction of the District Magistrate to prosecute is required if the prohibited arm is possessed for sale. Sanction required only in cases of mere possession of arm. Karnataka High Court.
Khadir Sab vs State of Karnataka. Criminal Petition 6173/2020 decided on 16 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354801/1/CRLP6173-20-16-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 9.6 In the present facts and circumstances, the allegation against the petitioner is that he was in possession of prohibited arm with an intention to sell the same. The said offence does come under Section 3 …
Karnataka High Court strikes down rule enabling collection of fee from transporter of minor minerals from other States into State of Karnataka.
Sri. Sai Keshava Enterprises and others vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 8851/2020 and connected matters decided on 7 January 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/357096/1/WP8851-20-07-01-2021.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 1. The main issue involved in these writ petitions is: “Whether the State Legislature has legislative competence to enact sub Rule (7) of Rule 42 of …
Bhoodan and Vidyadan Scheme. Owner cannot seek return of land once gifted. He can only seek direction for proper utilization of the land. Karnataka High Court.
Keerthi Kumar vs State of Karnataka and another. Writ Petition 6278/2018 decided on 8 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/352928/1/WP6278-18-08-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 15.15. …, once the land has been gifted under Bhoodan and Vidyadan scheme, there is no right which is created in the donor or the legal representatives of donor to seek for return of …
Exercise of any power having effect of destroying the Constitutional institution besides being outrageous, is dangerous to the democratic setup of this country. Karnataka High Court.
Kalpana Manjunath and others vs State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 117245/2020 decided on 5 January 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/356948/1/WP11725-20-05-01-2021.pdf 26. The issue raised before this Court, when considered in the backdrop of the Constitutional provisions, the words of the Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and …
Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981. Drifting of Vessel into maritime zone of another country due to unforeseen circumstances does not constitute an offence. Karnataka High Court.
Ababakar Ansari Miya and others vs State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 11248/2020 decided on 21 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354911/1/WP11248-20-21-12-2020.pdf Facts: Straight from any movie ! Please read Relevant paragraphs. 7. Sri.Kethan Kumar, learned counsel or the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are but fishermen, who unfortunately due to act of nature …
Arbitral process cannot be interfered under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court.
Bhaven Construction vs. Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.&Anr. Civil Appeal 14665 of 2015 decided on 06/01/2021 Judgment Link: Relevant paragraphs: 10. Having heard both parties and perusing the material available on record, the question which needs to be answered is whether the arbitral process could be interfered under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, …
Motor Accident Cases. Supreme Court recognizes the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers in fixation of notional income.
Kirti & Anr. Etc vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1920 of 2021, [Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) Nos.1872829 of 2018] decided on 05/01/2021. Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/16762/16762_2018_32_1501_25229_Judgement_05-Jan-2021.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 16. Returning to the question of how such notional income of a homemaker is to be calculated, there can be no fixed approach. It …
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.
M.N. Chinnaiah and another vs State of Karnataka. Criminal Appeal 693/2010 decided on 15 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/356594/1/CRLA693-10-15-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 32. In the case of ‘Alamgir Vs. State [NCT, DELHI]’ [supra] it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that ‘experts opinion must always received with great caution and perhaps none so with more …
Daksha Legal 