“Know Your Judge”. Justice S G Pandit. Karnataka High Court.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S G Pandit celebrates his 59th birthday today. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shankar Ganapathi Pandit: Born on 16th November 1965. Appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and took oath on 14.02.2018 and Permanent Judge on 07.01.2020. Important Judgments delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S G Pandit. Divorce. When the allegations …

“Despite development measures, SC/ST community members remain vulnerable to various offenses, indignities, and harassment”. District Judge Koppal convicts 101 people atrocities case.

The Sessions Judge Koppal Hon’ble Shri. C. Chandrashekar convicted 101 persons in a decade old case of atrocity against members of the Scheduled Caste community at Marakumbi village. (Judgement enclsoed) The Hon’ble Judge observed, “To show mercy in a case like this would be travesty of justice. Considering the fact that the injured victims, male …

“Despite development measures, SC/ST community members remain vulnerable to various offenses, indignities, and harassment”. District Judge Koppal convicts 101 people atrocities case.

The Sessions Judge Koppal Hon’ble Shri. C. Chandrashekar convicted 101 persons in a decade old case of atrocity against members of the Scheduled Caste community at Marakumbi village. (Judgement enclsoed) The Hon’ble Judge observed, “To show mercy in a case like this would be travesty of justice. Considering the fact that the injured victims, male …

Bar Council demands inclusion of regional Judges in the HC collegium. Legal luminaries support the view.

The Karnataka State Bar Council has addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister of India and the Law Minister of India demanding inclusion of Judge/s from Karnataka in the Karnataka High Court collegium. Speaking to S. Basavaraj, Senior Advocate and Member, Karnataka State Bar Council, Justice Santosh Hegde, former judge, Supreme …

“Infallibility is not known to humanity and therefore at times we Judges are fallible”. Karnataka High Court recalls its Judgment on child pornography.

Inayathulla N vs State by Police Sub Inspector and another Criminal Petition 13141 of 2023. Order dated 19 July 2024. Justice M Nagaprasanna. CRL.P NO. 13141/2023 Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has moved the matter to recall the order dated 10.07.2024 on the score that the proceedings were quashed at the threshold, notwithstanding the fact …

“Know Your Judge”. Justice Krishna S Dixit. Karnataka High Court.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna S. Dixit celebrates his 60th birthday today. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna S. Dixit was born on 20:7:1964. He enrolled as an advocate in July 1989. Since then he was practising in the High Court of Karnataka & High Court of Madras, specializing in Law of Writs, Election Laws & Service Laws. …

New Criminal Laws –Hurried Legislation.

N. Ravindranath Kamath, Senior Advocate, Bengaluru. (2) If the Court after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms …

Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused who breaches settlement agreement to pay cheque amount cannot later take the contention that the original complaint was defective for not making company a party. Karnataka High Court.

Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused who breaches settlement agreement to pay cheque amount cannot later take the contention that the original complaint was defective for not making company a party. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below: https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/w0akRGWrJ8sCCfVJPfvjT1ok9

Once the plaintiff proves his possession and enjoyment of the suit property and when the defendant has chosen to contest the suit, the defendant’s interference could be inferred and the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction. Karnataka High Court.

Once the plaintiff proves his possession and enjoyment of the suit property and when the defendant has chosen to contest the suit, the defendant’s interference could be inferred and the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below: https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/VYfhK7IXoR75PodnZMXWmKhSY

Limitation Act. When plaintiff’s title is not in dispute and the plea of adverse possession fails, suit for possession based on title cannot be said to be barred by time under Section 65. Karnataka High Court.

Limitation Act. When plaintiff’s title is not in dispute and the plea of adverse possession fails, suit for possession based on title cannot be said to be barred by time under Section 65. Karnataka High Court. To know more click the link below https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/TGwG0RcnU5x3lkVJdJlEqIl5g