Category Archives: Uncategorized

Motor Vehicle Act. Insurance policy commences from the time of making payment and not from issuance of policy. In the absence of contract fixing time, policy commences from 00.00 hours midnight (next day). Karnataka High Court.

Sudharshan vs Subash and another. Miscellaneous First Appeal 31894/2012 decided on 2 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/350758/1/MFA31894-12-02-12-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 25. Therefore, as per Section 64VB of the Act above stated, the provision is very clear that soon after the receipt of the payment of premium by the owner and received by the Insurance Company then …

Continue reading “Motor Vehicle Act. Insurance policy commences from the time of making payment and not from issuance of policy. In the absence of contract fixing time, policy commences from 00.00 hours midnight (next day). Karnataka High Court.”

A take on the (un)constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020.

Ajay Nandalike, Advocate, Bengaluru Much ado about conversion for marriage – a take on the (un)constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020 There has been some debate on the promulgation of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020 (‘UP Ordinance’) calling it the Love Jihad …

Continue reading “A take on the (un)constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020.”

Service Law. Employee of a Gram Panchayat cannot be removed on acts of misconduct without enquiry though he is not a civil servant under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Panchayat, a ‘State’ under Article 12, cannot act arbitrarily. Karnataka High Court.

S.K. Shankarappa vs The Panchayath Development Officer and another. Writ Petition 48068/2018 decided on 21 October 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/350766/1/WP48068-18-21-10-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 8…“Whether a permanent employee of the Panchayat can be removed on acts of misconduct without holding a departmental enquiry?” 12 & 13. Sections 113 (3) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj …

Continue reading “Service Law. Employee of a Gram Panchayat cannot be removed on acts of misconduct without enquiry though he is not a civil servant under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Panchayat, a ‘State’ under Article 12, cannot act arbitrarily. Karnataka High Court.”

Hindu Marriage Act – Section 13- “Cruelty” meaning explained with case laws.

Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, at page 546 : No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are …

Continue reading “Hindu Marriage Act – Section 13- “Cruelty” meaning explained with case laws.”

Specific Relief Act. Section 28. Executing Court can rescind the agreement of sale and anull the decree for specific performance- Karnataka High Court.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 28(1) – Rescission of Contract – Parameters – Sale Agreement annulled at execution stage.T.L. Rajagopal v. S.N. Shivakumar, 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 10072 : ILR 2014 KAR 4035 : (2014) 3 KCCR 2182 : (2014) 4 AIR Kant R 701 : (2014) 6 Kant LJ 423 : (2014) 4 …

Continue reading “Specific Relief Act. Section 28. Executing Court can rescind the agreement of sale and anull the decree for specific performance- Karnataka High Court.”

“Orders of appointment and transfers are made by the State Government and the top Executives in utter disregard to reminders of the Courts to act in public interest” – Karnataka High Court.

Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 11455/2020 decided on 1 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/350672/1/WP11455-20-01-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: The petitioner was appointed as Director of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), on 6:12:2019. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7:10:2020 passed by the respondent-State Government, whereby respondent No.4 was appointed as …

Continue reading ““Orders of appointment and transfers are made by the State Government and the top Executives in utter disregard to reminders of the Courts to act in public interest” – Karnataka High Court.”

Service Law. Person who questions a Government order in Court and accepts another Government order without demure loses right to challenge the first order. Karnataka High Court.

Siddaraju vs State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 11455/2020 decided on 1 December 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/350672/1/WP11455-20-01-12-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: The petitioner was appointed as Director of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), on 6:12:2019. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7:10:2020 passed by the respondent-State Government, whereby respondent No.4 was appointed as …

Continue reading “Service Law. Person who questions a Government order in Court and accepts another Government order without demure loses right to challenge the first order. Karnataka High Court.”

“From Estoppel to Expectations”. Supreme Court dissects doctrines of Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation.

The State of Jharkhand and Ors vs Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi and Anr. Civil Appeal 3860-3862/2020 decided on 1 December 2020. Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/17227/17227_2020_33_1501_24877_Judgement_01-Dec-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: H.3 Promissory estoppel – origins and evolution 27. In order to analyze the contentions relating to the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the present case, it is necessary to …

Continue reading ““From Estoppel to Expectations”. Supreme Court dissects doctrines of Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation.”

Limitation Act. Section 5. ‘Sufficient Cause’. Order of dismissal from service deprives right to livelihood. Courts have to apply the provision in a meaningful manner to subserve ends of justice. Karnataka High Court.

Suresh H.L vs The Management Sarvodaya Vidhyavardhaka and another Writ Petition 46435/2017 (S-Dis) decided on 4 November. Judgement link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/347715/1/WP46435-17-04-11-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 8. Condonation of delay is discretion of the Court. Sufficient cause depends on the facts of each case. Sufficient cause means adequate cause. The party who seeks conduction of delay shall demonstrate  that  …

Continue reading “Limitation Act. Section 5. ‘Sufficient Cause’. Order of dismissal from service deprives right to livelihood. Courts have to apply the provision in a meaningful manner to subserve ends of justice. Karnataka High Court.”