K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan, (1999) 4 SCC 526 Relevant Paragraphs. 25. In the present case the appellant was not an elector in the electoral roll of Lalgudi Assembly Constituency. He, therefore, could not be elected as a Member from that constituency. How could a person who is not an elector from that constituency represent …
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Writ of Quo-Warranto. Pre-requisite for issuance of a writ of quo- warranto is that the person against whom it is sought must hold an “Independent”, “Substantive” public office. Mere holding of a public office is not enough. Karnataka High Court.
Karnataka Kaigarika Pradeshabhivruddi Mandali Parishista Jaati Parishista Pangada Matthu Hindulida Vargagala Noukarara Sangha (Regd) vs State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 33055/2019 decided on 8 May 2020. Justice G. Narendar. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/330792/1/WP33055-19-08-05-2020.pdf HELD: The pre-requisite for issuance of a writ of quo- warranto is that the person against whom it is sought must …
Criminal Trial. Though confession statement of accused is inadmissible in evidence, if it is made before the Investigating officer during investigation while in custody, the same can be used by Police as information for the purpose of lodging the complaint and registering the case against the accused. Karnataka High Court.
Chandrashekara vs State of Karnataka. Criminal Appeal 1574/2015 decided on 29 October 2020. Justice B. Veerappa and Justice K. Natarajan. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/346192/1/CRLA1574-15-23-10-2020.pdf HELD: 34. …..Though the confession statement is inadmissible in evidence if it is made before the Investigating officer during investigation while in custody, but the confession statement made before PW.1 as well as …
Label on package of food. Bar Code on package having relevant information regarding lot/code/batch identification, which can be identified by bar score scanner is a sufficient compliance. Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955.
Label on package of food. Bar Code on package having relevant information regarding lot/code/batch identification, which can be identified by bar score scanner is a sufficient compliance. Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. Raghav Gupta vs State (NCT of Delhi) and another(2020) 8 SCC 120
National Company Law Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide succession issues. Such dispute is not oppression of minorities or mismanagement. Supreme Court.
Corporate Laws. National Company Law Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide succession issues. A dispute as regards right of inheritance between the parties is eminently a civil dispute and cannot be said to be a dispute as regards oppression of minority shareholders by the majority shareholders or mismanagement. Aruna Oswal vs Pankaj Oswal (2020) 8 …
Criminal Trial. When the person lodging the FIR is subsequently accused of the offence, it is an admission of certain facts. It’s admissibility is not barred. Law on the point discussed. Karnataka High Court29:10:2020
Daksha Legal Short Notes of Cases Chandrashekara vs State of Karnataka. Criminal Appeal 1574/2015 decided on 29 October 2020. Justice B. Veerappa and Justice K. Natarajan. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/346192/1/CRLA1574-15-23-10-2020.pdf
Investigating Officers in NDPS Cases Are ‘Police Officers’. Confessional Statements Made To Them Are Not Admissible Supreme Court 29:10:2020
Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu. Criminal Appeal 152/2013 decided on 29 October 2020. (Majority view) Justice R.F.Nariman, Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Indira Banerjee. Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/26682/26682_2012_33_1501_24551_Judgement_29-Oct-2020.pdf
Adverse Possession. Ingredients of “animus posudendi”, explained. Person in adverse possession need not canvass his adverse possession till eternity. After satisfying the requirement adverse possession generates title over the subject property as former’s product. Karnataka High Court. 12:10:2020
Jadiyappa vs Gurusiddappa. Regular First Appeal 100107/2016 decided on 12 October 2020. Justice N.K. Sudhindrarao and Justice Ravi Hosmani. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/345360/1/RFA100107-16-12-10-2020.pdf HELD: The claim of adverse possession or perfecting of title cannot be in the form of person in possession canvassing that he is in adverse possession till eternity. After satisfying the requirement adverse …
SARFAESI Act. Issuance of a defective notice under section 13(2) will not vitiate proceedings unless substantial prejudice being caused to the borrower. Judgment of Karnataka High Court reversed. Supreme Court 27:10:2020.
M/s. L&T Housing Finance Limited vs M/s. Trishul Developers and another. Civil Appeal 3413/2020 decided on 27 October 2020. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Ajay Rastogi. Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/25979/25979_2019_38_1501_24436_Judgement_27-Oct-2020.pdf HELD: 15. Notably from the very inception at the stage, when theproposal of taking a term loan from the appellant was furnishedby …
Kindly share Important Trial Court Judgments.
When we read reportable decisions of High Courts and the Supreme Court, we also notice how trial court judgments are upheld as following the correct legal position. Many trial court judgments are really inspiring for the young aspirants of judgeship. Hence, apart from publishing reportable High Court and Supreme Court judgments, Daksha Legal proposes to …
Continue reading “Kindly share Important Trial Court Judgments.”
Daksha Legal 