Important Judgments delivered by Justice V Srishananda. Karnataka High Court.
1 Provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, production of additional evidence in Appellate Court, cannot be used to plug loopholes in the case of a party especially when such evidence was available earlier. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/wbnmmbTyGhLBHbzQWaHLIGcTN
2 Copyright Act. When once positive action is taken by the copyright holder of infringement, action under Section 60 challenging groundless threat of legal proceedings would no longer survive. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/SAcs1pPMPVj3v2NPX8CjCwm2N
3. Suit challenging a compromise decree passed before the Lok Adalath on the ground of fraud is not maintainable since the only remedy is to question the same under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/vvOaN6gF7FQhPjsU9Ii0cebZs
4. Daughter-in-law cannot claim maintenance against her parents-in-law under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/kPtjApw9uZLD9gOrw9ffVoRR4
5. Plea of prior partition in a suit for partition is available only if all the necessary parties were included in the earlier partition. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/eMgQkQNDQUv6q5kPXnY9x8bsZ
6. Income Tax Act 1961. Company ceasing to exist on the day of passing assessment order as a result of its merger under the approved scheme of amalgamation. Assessment order against such non-existent company is invalid. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/FAWoQOXlZLfmfu3z5vewi8RDF
7. ‘Acid attack is not only a crime against victim, but a crime against the entire civilized society. It is high time to deal with the acid attackers with iron hand.’ Karnataka High Court upholds life sentence to acid attacker.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/0YkRvJRrnLkrok11ekMO10wLD
8. Criminal Procedure Code. Section 267. Accused can NOT be detained by the jail authorities only on the basis of ”body warrant” without there being any detention order or judicial order. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/uHJh3z9PYXVFk1KZp3n2a3Hio
9. Public nuisance. Executive Magistrate must afford sufficient opportunities to the parties and record evidence and arrive at a legal finding that the action complained has resulted in nuisance to the general public at large. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/OlyzjPD8LGdJGbFKW1Uu1f2Y9
10. Bulk allotment of lands in favour of house building co-operative societies by BDA is valid and the society can seek permanent injunction on the basis of such bulk allotment. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/jcYPNcWA1OnAsTgzfsjt5n1FA
11. Statutory body using public money to indulge in frivolous litigation. Karnataka High Court imposes cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the Bangalore Development Authority.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/sEp8AlnggOxhUJq7Lifwdbq5f
12. POCSO Act. Special Judge has no power to reduce minimum sentence of seven years for the penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 4. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/elCK4hqctbj6MbVNFhrL0iCXP
13. Acceptance of ‘B’ report by the Magistrate cannot be reversed by the District Judge in revision without issuing notice to the defacto complainant. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/xIrHntA9nSiv3dPw9oHHu0JER
14. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Husband cannot be forced to keep both first and second wives in the same house. Karnataka High Court modifies trial court order.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/WQOdfRT8KGZGFXry16SwHc5TO
15. Wills. Attesting witness is not just a ritualistic signer of a document. He is a key player in putting the plan of action of the testator into reality after the death of testator. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/6BlQsiwwg8tLsEq1rOkx6Hqie
16. Being physically handicapped by itself is not a favourable factor in considering the bail application of the accused when the gravity of the offence is serious in nature. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/MnRIcmtnBlKPmIPV0iuYhe54x
17. POCSO Act. Undertaking by the accused that he would marry the victim girl if released on bail cannot be countenanced either to grant bail or to quash the proceedings. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/nJaPDrJxKoa32QsiLCDObz9SL
18. Initiation of criminal proceedings under the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Deposits in Financial Establishment Act against director of a company without preliminary enquiry is illegal. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/rYHN5JxyE29862S5lJi6rJRbd
19. Insecticide Act. Non impleading the company who manufactured the pesticides vitiates criminal prosecution. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/u122zBeefiwhpnTrOzStEa55K
20. Anticipatory bail. Though Court can’t hold a mini trial on merits, usage of deadly weapon and attack on vital part of the body are factors to be considered to reject the petition. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/ENAznsletM4XsJCFUn8yL6WOY
21. Violation of privacy. There is no requirement for the Police to take permission of the Magistrate to register the case under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/Cpth124GZBcGSETM7yfE9Jt4L
22. Second marriage by Muslim woman without divorcing the first husband is ‘Batil’ and void-ab-initio. Children born out of such marriage are illegitimate with no right of succession. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/oGwTSmwxmoxdEUi8jyNymxLZT
23. Summons to produce document or other thing under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. The power is not limited to the enquiry or investigation but it would also extend for trial. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/AMm8ul2EFzBVjRoZ8e82VqtrD
24. Motor vehicle accident. Criminal prosecution against subsequent purchaser cannot be launched unless the erstwhile owner gets his name removed from the RTO register and enters the name of the subsequent purchaser. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/2RFmZaDGzGNpSRE9kkdYmTMLV
25. Provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, production of additional evidence in Appellate Court, cannot be used to plug loopholes in the case of a party especially when such evidence was available earlier. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/wbnmmbTyGhLBHbzQWaHLIGcTN
26. A charge sheet is deemed to be filed within the statutory period if it bears the judicial endorsement of receipt within the prescribed timeframe, even if it is later processed by the court registry. The right to default bail is extinguished once the charge sheet is filed within the mandatory period. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/b2e6a8526289a6a41edfc83a
27. Negotiable Instruments Act. Once the issuance of a cheque is admitted, the presumption under Section 139 applies, and the burden shifts to the accused to prove the absence of liability. A legal notice sent to the correct address, if returned unclaimed, is deemed served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/c31a60813b918e194fdfc346
28. Accused in prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should not be treated similarly to those convicted under other penal statutes. If the accused pays the entire cheque amount and fine, courts have the discretion to reduce or set aside the imprisonment sentence. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/3382c906f484faafdba6d539
29. Karnataka Rent Act. Cout has no power to extend the statutory five-year period granted to the legal representatives of an original tenant to vacate rented premises. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/f4bdf8fc16c4c2fc44a5d5ad
30. When a tenant denies ownership of landlord, such tenant must vacate the premises and then establish his right or the contra title over the suit property and then take back possession of the property. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/f791803acdcbeb9fbc216ff9
31. Criminal appeal. When appellant’s counsel is absent, the appeal cannot be dismissed for default. The court must reassess the judgment on merits or provide legal assistance to the appellant. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/164186b18546a4da4615a5b8
32. Karnataka Rent Act. There is a presumption in favour of landlord regarding his bonafide requirement, which needs to be rebutted by the tenant by cogent evidence. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/f619c0c0bbd7868af471ba00
33. In the absence of rival claims the Magistrate shall release seized properties ensuring that the material objects would be available for identification during the trial. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/38a87580e2879f1720985e57
34. “Do not allow expensive and sophisticated goods to be damaged/ruined”. Karnataka High Court lays down guidelines for release of seized materials by the Police.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/c4a64cd0a850cf392f61c4eb
35. Want of money lending license cannot be pleaded in proceedings under NI Act when issuance of cheque is admitted. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/fCUpeSLBKm9wRzWAFdWBscRhR
36. Drawing up of high-tension electricity lines on private lands. Writ Court cannot go into the technical aspects especially when the experts have drawn the route to cause as little damage as possible. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/87MB6ynZEvsSYNcXTuvJJXZyL
37. Provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act does not apply to lands which are granted by the Land Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/IdbvMPdJEybzcYOKVbXM5JIeu
38. Police cannot file FIR based on report of a private organisation or correspondence between government officers without there being independent evidence showing cognizable offence. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/t9PLv18KsUnfVgDh4ncQv6Exz
39. A person who purchases the property in a Court auction would be purchasing such property free from all encumbrances including the tenancy claims. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/BI10eGIoqY0aoZrG4vT17rC1Z
40. Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Person claiming tenancy cannot plead adverse possession. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/sH5rnTzNFtx5C5Fs3QxLb8ywJ
41. Proceedings before the Lok–Adalat are not judicial proceedings. Lok-Adalat cannot entertain applications where Judicial orders are required to be passed. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/79mH9Sgy1t4kwdLwNf0bPjz75
42. Non-compliance with procedural safeguards during arrest may constitute an irregularity, but it does not automatically entitle the accused to bail. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/4934d776be31bb036b3286b7
43. Negotiable Instruments Act. Magistrate is duty-bound to first consider the application for condonation of delay, after due notice to the parties, and pass a speaking order before proceeding to record the sworn statement or take cognizance of the offence. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/4bf6d55c7655b93d0b8bbed4
44. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. High Court has no revisional or appellate power over the discretionary order of grant of bail even in heinous offences. Grave and serious error while granting bail can be corrected only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/b778ae376f9fd3549042c841
45. Electricity Act. A prior assessment of unauthorized electricity use is not a mandatory condition precedent for initiating criminal proceedings for theft of electricity. The Special Court constituted under the Act has the jurisdiction to determine both the civil and criminal liability in cases of electricity theft. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/66b0857aebfeda1d86281e93
46. Land specifically reserved for a public park in a residential layout cannot be transferred by the City Municipal Council to another department for a different purpose. Such reserved spaces are intended as ‘lung space’ for residents and must be developed as park. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/87f8eef8ab7dac5bc3d7b6c1
47. Once evidence is recorded, the trial court is required to return findings on all issues, not merely on a preliminary one. Limitation, being generally a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be treated as a preliminary issue to dismiss the suit in its entirety. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/400981ce60c462cf26829b53
48. Specific Relief Act. A contract to sell a co-parcener’s defined share in joint family property is specifically enforceable, provided the vendor limits the sale to his own lawful share and not the entire property. Section 17, which bars enforcement against a person without title, is inapplicable when the vendor conveys only his legitimate share. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/9c74ee49896586f318ae4ccd
49. Transfer of Property Act. A transferor’s legal representative cannot question a sale deed by claiming the transferor lacked full title when executing it. Section 43 operates to protect the transferee, not the transferor or their successors. The principle of feeding the grant by estoppel validates the title of the purchaser once the transferor acquired ownership rights through the re-grant of the land. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/8ee8d3fd3506abe99e2d2389
50. Suit for partition. A property acquired by a female through a sale deed and subsequently gifted to another person cannot be subjected to partition especially during her lifetime, unless the plaintiffs establish a pre-existing right in that property. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/6b09abbcdf8dc549f32a5f26
51. Land Reforms Act. Grant of occupancy rights to one member of a joint family enures to the benefit of the entire joint family and is subject to partition, provided the land was cultivated by the family’s ancestors and the application was filed by that member on behalf of the joint family. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/eb2c2229cc17b1b131460128
52. Doctrine of Finality. Land Acquisition. A highly belated appeal by the legal heirs is not maintainable when the deceased claimant had accepted the enhanced compensation and failed to seek further enhancement within the limitation period during his lifetime. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/fd4efc19f10f710e8ddc0727
53. Order XI Rule 21 of CPC. If a plaintiff fails to comply with a clear court order directing production of documents, the suit may be dismissed for non-prosecution. Likewise, a written statement may be rejected if the defendant fails to comply with such an order. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/1938a99ac81767444d29554c
54. Land acquisition Act of 2013. Claimants who did not initially seek enhancement are entitled to seek redetermination of compensation under Section 28A(3), in line with the final award. The Reference Court cannot dismiss such a petition as time-barred, since there is no prescribed limitation period for challenging an order passed under Section 28A(2) while seeking a reference under Section 28A(3). Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/c507c01eb86ca7d88f8fe4ce
55. Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 118 limited only to those specific matters expressly provided for within the Act. A civil suit filed by a third party or a leaseholder to protect possession of a property is maintainable, as such a dispute does not fall within the ambit of ‘business of the society’ or internal management disputes. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/52eae1a82fb386a8765582b6
56. Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Where a dispute entails serious and specific allegations of fraud including fabrication or forgery of documents and the adjudication requires voluminous evidence, criminal-style inquiry, or detailed investigation beyond the scope of arbitral proceedings, the Arbitral Tribunal can decline to exercise jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/518e37e3dc00d3fee4958ae4
57. When arbitrator validly declines to exercise his jurisdiction, the time spent in the infructuous arbitration proceedings is excludable under Section 14 of the Limitation Act to ensure the right to a remedy is not jeopardized. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/6bec392fd6a02e2f88d245b7
58. Negotiable Instruments Act. The statutory presumption under Section 139 is not absolute and can be rebutted by the accused through a preponderance of probabilities. Referred. A conviction under Section 138 cannot be sustained if the ‘legally recoverable debt’ is disproven by showing the transaction did not reach its logical conclusion. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/2f38f4f5bc76dc04ba16c931
59. In a criminal appeal filed by a convict challenging his conviction and sentence, the High Court cannot enhance the punishment awarded by the Trial Court if the State has not filed a cross-appeal or a separate petition for enhancement of sentence. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/92b2e57da68f7d367b6bf017
60. A police investigation and subsequent legal proceedings, including the taking of cognizance and issuance of process, for an offence classified as non-cognizable under the Bharatiya Nagaraik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023), are void and must be quashed if conducted without the explicit prior order of a jurisdictional Magistrate, as mandated by Section 174(2) of the BNSS, 2023. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/1c29d9fd6534b24f3aef0eba
61. Convictions in fatal road accident cases can be modified if the accused’s statement was improperly recorded or if rigorous imprisonment was imposed without justification. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/1088c2c5b1a02e460134503a
62. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. An appeal against an acquittal must be filed within 90 days. After 180 days, the appeal cannot be accepted, no matter what the reason for the delay is. Courts have to follow this strict rule. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/0a13020009f7a70dc14b7517
63. ”While recording the accused’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, use simple language and translate it into the accused’s language to ensure understanding”. Karnataka High Court cautions trial courts against using complex legal and medical terminology, emphasizing the need for clear and simple language.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/5af84ecba3aec60eae9f515d
64. Karnataka Land Revenue Act. ‘Pot Kharab (a)’ also belongs to the owner and cannot be treated as a separate and distinct parcel of land. The conversion fee for such land cannot be levied at the market rate as a separate entity. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/b8549b2e72f15b1139ab8166
65. A suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction seeking removal of an encroachment on a public road, when filed by a user of that road, is maintainable even without a prayer for declaration of title or public right, especially when the fact of encroachment is established by the evidence. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/5e05b3496ca8dfb532a18d3b
66. Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act. When a holder of service inam land, possessing the right to regrant, alienates the property, the subsequent regrant in favour of the alienor perfects the alienee’s previously imperfect title by application of the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/edbc46511478c9ca42435d03
67. Specific Relief Act. In a summary suit for recovery of possession under Section 6, the plaintiff bears the absolute burden of proving actual physical possession of the property within six months preceding the date of filing. A claim of illegal dispossession cannot be maintained solely on the basis of unsubstantiated oral contentions. Karnataka High Court.
https://www.dakshalegal.com/judgements/actionView/8a160ce2ee9847d3b83f6861
