Dr. A. Rangaswamy vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 44995/2016 decided on 10 October 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/340658/1/WP44995-16-10-09-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 6….The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India through Govt. of Pondicherry and Another Vs. …
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Civil Procedure Code. Cause of action. Latest judgment of the Supreme Court 5:11:2020.
SHANTI DEVI ALIAS SHANTI MISHRA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO.3630 of 2020 decided on 5 November 2020 Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/25048/25048_2018_34_1501_24598_Judgement_05-Nov-2020.pdf Mulla on the Code of Civil Procedure whilecommenting on Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Codedefined cause of action in following words:-“The expression ’cause of action’ hasacquired a judicially settled meaning. …
Government retaining excess money paid by citizen. Same amounts to unjust enrichment and is violative of Article 265 of the Constitution. Writ petition is maintainable seeking refund. Karnataka High Court.
Dalmiya Cement Venture Limited vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 104140/2013 decided on 22 August 2017. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/183184/1/WP104140-13-22-08-2017.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 7. It is significant to note that the respondent No.4 admitted the excess stamp duty paid by the petitioner. 9 . The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries …
Bar on transfer of tenanted lands under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Even the agreement of sale is hit by such prohibition. Purchaser is not entitled to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Karnataka High Court.
Late Laxman Lakkappa Durgannavar by lrs. vs Yellawwa and others. Regular Second Appeal 2221/2005 decided on 12 March 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/333167/1/RSA2221-05-12-03-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: …17. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 creates an embargo on transfer of land within 15 years from the date of the order of Land Tribunal. The language used in Section …
Custodial torture resulting in death. Act of the Police Officials is like “fence itself eating the crop”. Petition for anticipatory bail rejected. Karnataka High Court. 22:10:2020
Rakesh vs The State of Karnataka and others. Criminal Petition 2072/2020 & connected cases decided on 22 October 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/346590/1/CRLP2972-20-22-10-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: Paragraph 10. On close reading of the Post Mortem Report, it indicates that the deceased has suffered with 16 serious injuries inflicted on his body and contents of the complaint clearly …
Registration Act, 1908. Compulsorily registrable but unregistered document can be received in evidence to prove admission made therein about another document which does not require registration. Karnataka High Court.
Gangamma vs Rangaiah and others. Writ Petition 15209/2015 decided on 21 October 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/346526/1/WP15209-15-21-10-2020.pdf Facts: In a suit for declaration, the plaintiff wanted to produce unregistered release deed in which there was an admission regarding the will under which the plaintiff claimed ownership. The trial court rejected the prayer. Relevant Paragraphs: 11. It …
Cyber Crime. Date of broadband connection generating Internet Protocol address is relevant. Mere I.P. address not enough to foist criminal case. Discharge of accused upheld. Karnataka High Court.
State of Karnataka vs Avinash R Kashyap. Criminal Revision Petition 1028/2016 decided on 21 October 2020. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/346565/1/CRLRP1028-16-21-10-2020.pdf Relevant Paragraphs: 24. (facts) Accused was connected to the crime only on the basis of his I.P. address. As per the complaint itself, the alleged profile was created on 30.06.2007. As per the report of the …
Maintenance. Judgment of the Supreme Court issuing detailed guidelines. 4:11:2020.
Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/37875/37875_2018_39_1501_24602_Judgement_04-Nov-2020.pdf Final DirectionsIn view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B – I to V of thisjudgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise ofour powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India :(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdictionTo overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid …
Civil Procedure Code. Review. Latest Supreme Court Judgment on review under Section 114. Power of review is not appellate or inherent power. Supreme Court 3:11:2020.
Shri. Rama Sahu by lrs. vs Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors. Civil Appeal 3601/2020 decided on 3 November 2020. Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/31367/31367_2017_35_1503_24560_Judgement_03-Nov-2020.pdf HELD: Para 6.1 Judgment in Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) andOthers, (2006) 4 SCC 78 & Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, (2000) 6 SC 224 relied on. It is further observed in the said decision that the words “anyother sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC mustmean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to thosespecified in the rule” as was held in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar BasseliosCatholicos vs Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526. 7. The dictionary meaning of the word “review” is “the act oflooking, offer something again with a view to correction orimprovement”. It cannot be denied that the review is the creation ofa …
Service Law. An employee is expected to give a correct information as to his qualification. A candidate having suppressed the material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continuance in service. Supreme Court 3:11:2020.
Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & anr vs Anit Kumar Das. Civil Appeal 3602 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 8343 of 2020) decided on 3 November 2020. Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/8647/8647_2020_35_1504_24560_Judgement_03-Nov-2020.pdf HELD: 8. Even on the ground that respondent – original writ petitioner deliberately, wilfully and intentionally suppressed the fact that he was a graduate, the High Court has erred in directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent – original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon. In the application/biodata, the respondent original writ petitioner did not mention that he was a graduate. Very cleverly he suppressed the material fact …
Daksha Legal 