Tag: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Peaceful Protest, Quashes Criminal Case Against Andhra Educationists
28Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Peaceful Protest, Quashes Criminal Case Against Andhra Educationists

The Supreme Court held that certified copies of municipal documents, duly certified under Section 376 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, carry the same evidentiary value as originals. The failure of the Municipal Council to produce original records despite court orders justified drawing an adverse inference, and a registered sale certificate cannot be invalidated by a mere administrative resolution. Facts Of The Case: The dispute concerned two plots, No. 394 and 395, auctioned by the City Municipal Council (CMC). Respondent No. 2, Prabhudeva, purchased plot No. 395 in a 1973 auction, but his 1988 sale deed erroneously mentioned plot No. 394. Upon realizing this mistake, he applied for rectification in 1992. The CMC's Junior Engineer inspected the site and confirmed the error, lea...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Departmental Inquiries: Authority for Minor Penalties Can Issue Major Charge Sheets
22Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Departmental Inquiries: Authority for Minor Penalties Can Issue Major Charge Sheets

The Supreme Court held that under Rule 13(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a disciplinary authority competent to impose only minor penalties is fully empowered to institute proceedings and issue a charge-sheet for imposing major penalties. The final order, however, must be passed by the authority competent to impose a major penalty. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, R. Shankarappa, was a Sub Divisional Engineer in the Department of Telecommunications who retired in 2018. In 2003, he was prosecuted by the CBI in two cases: one for demanding and accepting a bribe, and another for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. He was convicted in both cases, but the High Court later stayed the conviction and sentence, with the criminal appeals remaining pending. Paralle...
Read More
Supreme Court: Joint Family Property Disputes Need Evidence, Not Quick Rejection
2Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Joint Family Property Disputes Need Evidence, Not Quick Rejection

The Supreme Court ruled that Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be invoked to reject a partition suit based on the Benami Act when plaint averments describe properties as joint family assets. Whether properties are benami or fall under exceptions (Section 2(9)(A)) requires evidence. Section 4’s bar applies only to proven benami transactions, not disputed claims requiring trial. Facts Of The Case: The dispute involved a family partition suit (Regular Suit No. 630A/2018) filed by Vidya Devi Gupta (mother) and Sudeep Gupta (younger son) against Sandeep Gupta (elder son), his wife Shaifali Gupta, and their children, along with subsequent property purchasers Deepak Lalchandani and Surya Prakash Mishra. The plaintiffs claimed that multiple properties acquired in individual family members’ names – in...
Read More
Cheque Issued After Retirement? Supreme Court Says Partner Still Liable Without Proper Notice
1Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Cheque Issued After Retirement? Supreme Court Says Partner Still Liable Without Proper Notice

The Supreme Court held that a partner's retirement from a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, requires strict compliance with Section 72—including public notice publication and Registrar of Firms updates—to absolve liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Non-compliance renders retirement legally ineffective. The High Court erred under Section 482 CrPC by deciding factual disputes (e.g., retirement date/liability) prematurely, as these require trial evidence. Signatory status is irrelevant for partner liability under Section 141 NI Act if involvement in firm affairs is alleged. Facts Of The Case: Shivappa Reddy (Appellant) filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against M/s AVS Constructions (Ac...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules Unreliable Witness & Lack of Demand Proof Sink Prosecution: Govt Official Cleared
1Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Unreliable Witness & Lack of Demand Proof Sink Prosecution: Govt Official Cleared

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that proving the initial demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt is essential for conviction under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient; the prosecution failed to conclusively establish demand. The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not apply when demand is not proven, requiring strict construction of penal provisions. Facts Of The Case: C B Nagaraj, the Respondent, served as an Extension Officer in the Taluka Panchayath office, Davanagere. The Complainant, E R Krishnamurthy, sought a Validity Certificate for a teaching post under Category-II A, requiring a spot inspection report from Nagaraj. On February 7,...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds MSMED Act’s Supremacy, Rejects Bengaluru Arbitration Clause : “MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Agreements”
19May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds MSMED Act’s Supremacy, Rejects Bengaluru Arbitration Clause : “MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Agreements”

The Supreme Court ruled that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMED) Act, 2006 overrides arbitration agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming its special law status. It held that the supplier’s location determines arbitration jurisdiction, disregarding contractual seat clauses. The judgment reinforces statutory protection for MSMEs, ensuring disputes proceed before designated Facilitation Councils as per Section 18(4). Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a construction contract between M/s Harcharan Dass Gupta (Appellant), an MSME-registered supplier, and ISRO (Respondent), following a 2017 tender for staff quarters in Delhi. The agreement included an arbitration clause designating Bengaluru as the seat. When conflicts emerged, the supplier app...
Read More