This is a win-win scenario for advocates and Daksha Legal interns. Law students from reputed colleges across the country join Daksha Legal as interns for a month. Due to covid, this year, it is only online internship. Hence I have opened this platform. It works like this. Join Daksha Legal Facebook group by using this …
Continue reading “Research Assistance (from Daksha Legal interns)”
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. …
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. …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
Daksha Legal