Category Archives: Uncategorized

Succession to property. “Per Capita” and “Per Stripes” explained.

Succession to property. “Per Capita” and “Per Stripes” – explained in simple diagram & words. In Per Stirpes a person’s share of the inheritance will go to his heir. In Per Capita heirs will not receive any share. Consider an example where, Mr.X has two children A and B. A has a son S1 and …

Continue reading “Succession to property. “Per Capita” and “Per Stripes” explained.”

“Even God gave an opportunity of hearing to Adam & Eve before punishing them for consuming the proscribed fruit in the Eden Garden”. Karnataka High Court annuls action of the University in punishing student on the basis of a stray admission without hearing.

Hruday P.B. vs The Vice Chancellor, The National Law School University of India and another. Writ Petition 9395/2020 decided on 18 November 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348727/1/WP9395-20-18-11-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 4 (a) The essential grievance of the petitioner emanates from the so called ‘admitted’ charge of plagiarism. Ramanatha Aiyar’s “Advanced Law Lexicon” 3rd Edn, Wadhwa Nagpur states: …

Continue reading ““Even God gave an opportunity of hearing to Adam & Eve before punishing them for consuming the proscribed fruit in the Eden Garden”. Karnataka High Court annuls action of the University in punishing student on the basis of a stray admission without hearing.”

Suit for specific performance. Question of readiness and willingness becomes immaterial when the agreement itself is doubtful – Karnataka High Court.

S.R. Suresh and another vs Rudrappa Kabbur and another. Regular Second Appeal 649/2013 decided on 23 October 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348682/1/RFA649-13-23-10-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 19, 20 & 21.…When the defendants have denied the very execution of the agreement, receipt of the sale advance amount and the signatures, it is the burden on the  plaintiffs to prove …

Continue reading “Suit for specific performance. Question of readiness and willingness becomes immaterial when the agreement itself is doubtful – Karnataka High Court.”

Property dispute vis-a-vis title deeds. Where boundaries in a document are vague and indefinite, the area should prevail, but where boundaries are specific and definite, the area must be taken as given approximately. Law on the point discussed- Karnataka High Court.

H. Naganna and others vs Marlinge Gowda by Lrs and others. Regular Second Appeal 2110/2010 decided on 6 November 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348681/1/RSA2110-10-06-11-2020.pdf Relevant pages (paragraphs are not numbered): 19. As early as in the year 1948, the Privy Council in  THE PALESTINE KUPAT AM BANK CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.VS GOVERNMENT OF PALESTINE AND OTHERS reported …

Continue reading “Property dispute vis-a-vis title deeds. Where boundaries in a document are vague and indefinite, the area should prevail, but where boundaries are specific and definite, the area must be taken as given approximately. Law on the point discussed- Karnataka High Court.”

Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. After receipt of report from Lokayukta or Upalokayukta under Section 12(3), it is mandatory for the Government to record reasons to entrust matter to Lokayukta Upalokayutka or disciplinary authority. Doctrine of per incuriam discussed- Karnataka High Court.

K.S. Nanjegowda vs State by Karnataka Lokayuktha. Writ Petition 48384/2017 and connected case decided on 12 November 2020. Judgment Link: https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/noticeBoard/wp-48384-2017-cw-61697-2016.pdf 31….Section 12(4) of Act, 1984 mandates the competent authority to examine the investigation report submitted on behalf of the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta. On this point Dr.K.Lalitha vs The State of Karnataka and others 2019 (4) KLJ …

Continue reading “Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. After receipt of report from Lokayukta or Upalokayukta under Section 12(3), it is mandatory for the Government to record reasons to entrust matter to Lokayukta Upalokayutka or disciplinary authority. Doctrine of per incuriam discussed- Karnataka High Court.”

“Do not wait for judicial pronouncement in each and every matter even to consider representations of Citizens. Government officials owe a duty to consider pending grievances”. Karnataka High Court lays down guidelines.

Order in W.P.No.41189/2017 dated 19 March 2020Pursuant to the order dated 05.03.2020, objectionshave not been filed in the present petition.Shri Manjunath Prasad, the Principal Secretary,Revenue Department and Shri Vastradmutt, the LawSecretary are present.Law Secretary is hereby directed to take necessarysteps in issuing general circular to each and everydepartment, wherever representations of the persons arepending consideration. …

Continue reading ““Do not wait for judicial pronouncement in each and every matter even to consider representations of Citizens. Government officials owe a duty to consider pending grievances”. Karnataka High Court lays down guidelines.”

Service Law. Seniority. Persons promoted in excess of backlog vacancies shall be continued against supernumerary posts in existing cadre till they get the date of eligibility for promotion in that cadre. Karnataka High Court.

M/s. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs B. Gurumurthy and others. Writ Appeal 448/2020 decided on 13 November 2020. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda. Judgment Link: https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/noticeBoard/wa448-2020.pdf Judgments referred to: Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217], R.K.Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745, Union of …

Continue reading “Service Law. Seniority. Persons promoted in excess of backlog vacancies shall be continued against supernumerary posts in existing cadre till they get the date of eligibility for promotion in that cadre. Karnataka High Court.”

ಅ0ತರ್ಜಾಲ ಮುಖಾ0ತರ ವಕೀಲರ ದಾಖಲಾತಿ. ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಮು0ಚೂಣಿ ಸಾದನೆ.

ಅ0ತರ್ಜಾಲ ಮುಖಾ0ತರ ವಕೀಲರ ದಾಖಲಾತಿ. ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಮು0ಚೂಣಿ ಸಾದನೆ. ಕೋವಿಡ್ ನಿ0ದ ಉ0ಟಾದ ಸಮಸ್ಯಯನ್ನು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು ಅ0ತರ್ಜಾಲ ಮುಖಾ0ತರ ವಕೀಲರ ದಾಖಲಾತಿ ಮೂಲಕ ಯಶಸ್ವಿಯಾಗಿ ನಿಭಾಯಿಸಿದೆ. ಇದುವರೆಗೂ ಐದಕ್ಕೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಅ0ತರ್ಜಾಲ ದಾಖಲಾತಿ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆ ನಡೆದಿದ್ದು, ಆರುನೂರಕ್ಕೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ವಕೀಲರನ್ನು ದಾಖಲಾತಿ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಮೊದಲನೆಯ ದಾಖಲಾತಿ ಸಮಾರ0ಭವನ್ನು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಖ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಅಭಯ್ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ ಓಕ ಉದ್ಘಾಟಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು ದಾಖಲಾತಿ ಕಮಿಟಿಯ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಶರಾಗಿ …

Continue reading “ಅ0ತರ್ಜಾಲ ಮುಖಾ0ತರ ವಕೀಲರ ದಾಖಲಾತಿ. ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಮು0ಚೂಣಿ ಸಾದನೆ.”

“ಸಾದನೆಯ ಹಾದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು.” – ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಡಾ. ಎನ್. ಕುಮಾರ್.

ಸಾದನೆಯ ಹಾದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು. ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಡಾ. ಎನ್. ಕುಮಾರ್ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ ಲಾ ಅಕೆಡೆಮಿಯು ಏರ್ಪಡಿಸಿದ್ದ Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ಅ0ತರ್ಜಾಲ ಉಪನ್ಯಾಸ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ತಾರೀಖು 3 ನವೆ0ಬರ್ – 13 ನವೆ0ಬರ್ ವರೆಗೆ ಉಪನ್ಯಾಸ ನೀಡಿದ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ನಿವೃತ್ತ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಡಾ. ಎನ್. ಕುಮಾರ್, ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ಮುಕ್ತ್ಯಾಯ ಸಮಾರ0ಭದ0ದು ಅಭಿನ0ದನೆ ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು ಕೈಗೊ0ಡಿರುವ ಕಾರ್ಯಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಪ್ರಶ0ಶೆ …

Continue reading ““ಸಾದನೆಯ ಹಾದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು.” – ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಡಾ. ಎನ್. ಕುಮಾರ್.”

Criminal Trial. “A conviction must rest on proof, so strong that Court must be convinced that what it concludes must necessarily has happened and is not reasonably explicable in any other way. When the prosecution has relied upon circumstantial evidence, it has to be proved as if there is no proof, than the offence having occurred other than the accused”. Karnataka High Court.

Prathap vs The State of Karnataka. Criminal Appeal 633/2014 decided on 7 October 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/347395/1/CRLA633-14-07-10-2020.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 29.. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B in the teeth of Section 59 and 65-A. A …

Continue reading “Criminal Trial. “A conviction must rest on proof, so strong that Court must be convinced that what it concludes must necessarily has happened and is not reasonably explicable in any other way. When the prosecution has relied upon circumstantial evidence, it has to be proved as if there is no proof, than the offence having occurred other than the accused”. Karnataka High Court.”