Category Archives: Uncategorized

Anti-Suit Injunction. Case laws on the point.

Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., (2003) 4 SCC 341 – Paragraph 10. The courts in India like the courts in England are courts of both law and equity. The principles governing grant of injunction — an equitable relief — by a court will also govern grant of anti-suit injunction which is but …

Continue reading “Anti-Suit Injunction. Case laws on the point.”

‘Slayer Rule’. A murderer cannot inherit property of the victim even where the provisions of Hindu Succession Act do not apply. Karnataka High Court.

Swami Shradanand vs Gauhar Taj Namazie and others. Regular First Appeal 148/2003 decided on 17 March 2017. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/159003/1/RFA1487-03-17-03-2017.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3knwf8n83KNvLscdUhmuOdw10E1NsSSKeYhmGrk1ZRtxSznCy7tY4AU6M Relevant paragraphs: 11.Having regard to the aforesaid rival contentions, the prime question for consideration in the application is, “Whether the appellant has incurred disqualification to represent the estate of deceased Shakereh Khaleeli on account of …

Continue reading “‘Slayer Rule’. A murderer cannot inherit property of the victim even where the provisions of Hindu Succession Act do not apply. Karnataka High Court.”

Specific Performance. In case of immovable property, time is not the essence of the contract. However, Court can infer essence of time in certain cases. Supreme Court

Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, (1993) 1 SCC 519. (Constitution Bench) Paragraph 19. It is a well-accepted principle that in the case of sale of immovable property, time is never regarded as the essence of the contract. In fact, there is a presumption against time being the essence of the contract. This principle is not …

Continue reading “Specific Performance. In case of immovable property, time is not the essence of the contract. However, Court can infer essence of time in certain cases. Supreme Court”

Marriages registered under the Registration of Hindu Marriages Act 1955 even after coming into force of the Karnataka Marriages (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976 are valid. No implied repeal of 1955 Act. Karnataka High Court.

Sadananda Naik vs State of Katnataka. Criminal Revision Petition 567/2011 decided on 11 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354623/1/CRLRP567-11-11-12-2020.pdf Facts. Wife filed criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused denied marriage itself. Argument in High Court was that the alleged marriage was registered under the Registration of Hindu Marriages Act 1955 …

Continue reading “Marriages registered under the Registration of Hindu Marriages Act 1955 even after coming into force of the Karnataka Marriages (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976 are valid. No implied repeal of 1955 Act. Karnataka High Court.”

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.

M/s. Kluber Lubrication (India) Pvt Ltd vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. TAET 10/2014. Decided on 16 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354692/1/TAET10-14-16-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs. 20. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying the law of precedent have become locus classicus. “Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between …

Continue reading “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.”

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.

M/s. Kluber Lubrication (India) Pvt Ltd vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. TAET 10/2014. Decided on 16 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354692/1/TAET10-14-16-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs. 18. In the backdrop of aforesaid relevant statutory provisions referred to supra, we may advert to well settled principles of construction of taxing statutes. It is well established rule of interpretation …

Continue reading “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.”

Human rights vs Police apathy. Karnataka High Court disciplines erring Police in unique way.

Tarabai vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition Habeas Corpus No. 200012/2020 decided on 17 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354098/1/WPHC200012-20-17-12-2020.pdf Text of Judgment. The petitioner Tarabai is present along with her son Suresh. This Habeas Corpus writ petition was filed on account of her son Suresh going missing on 20.10.2020. Subsequently, he was …

Continue reading “Human rights vs Police apathy. Karnataka High Court disciplines erring Police in unique way.”

‘Unlawful assembly’ as an offence under IPC, was a colonel weapon of oppression invented during the British rule to suppress freedom movement and still remains in the statute book. Landmark judgment of the Karnataka High Court.

Santu @ Santosh Poojary vs State of Karnataka. Criminal Appeal 880/2015 and connected appeals decided on 15 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354638/1/CRLA880-15-15-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 41. By a careful reading of the provisions of Section 149 of IPC, it clearly depicts that every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object …

Continue reading “‘Unlawful assembly’ as an offence under IPC, was a colonel weapon of oppression invented during the British rule to suppress freedom movement and still remains in the statute book. Landmark judgment of the Karnataka High Court.”

Cr.P.C. Appeal by victim under Section 372 will not abate if victim dies during the appeal proceedings. Karnataka High Court.

K.A.Shivappa Gowda vs B.L.Jayesha and others. Criminal Appeal 45/2015 decided on 30 November 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354477/1/CRLA45-15-30-11-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 17. It is not in dispute that the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant under the  proviso to Section  372 of the Cr.P.C. The proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. came into …

Continue reading “Cr.P.C. Appeal by victim under Section 372 will not abate if victim dies during the appeal proceedings. Karnataka High Court.”