Posts

Key Apex Court Judgments - PTCL Act

The landmark Supreme Court judgment that established the validity of this Act and the right to reclaim property is Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka (1984) . However, more recent "apex court" rulings have introduced critical limitations on when you can reclaim such land. The primary legislation governing this in Karnataka is the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 , commonly known as the PTCL Act . 1. Key Apex Court Judgments While the PTCL Act is a powerful tool for restoration, the Supreme Court has set boundaries to prevent "stale" claims: Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka (1984): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the PTCL Act. It confirmed that the State has the power to nullify transfers of "granted land" made in violation of the grant conditions to protect marginalized communities. Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka (2017): This is perhaps the most impo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Important judgments on POCSO Act POCSO Act Imp. Judgments

Important judgments on POCSO Act  POCSO Act Imp. Judgments 1. Arjun Malge Vs. State of Maharashtra Bom HC 2021 Held : Notice of hearing of case and bail application is mandatory to victim.  2.Aparna Bhat vs. State of M P. Supreme Court 2021 Held: Notice to victim must. Bail conditions should not be arbitrary.  3.Nipun Saxena vs. Union of India Supreme Court 2019 Identity of victim should be concealed. Guidelines given.  4.Sangita Tanpure Vs. state of Maharashtra 2020 Bom HC Identity of victim to be concealed. Not to mention name in charge, deposition. More elaborate guidelines laid down.  5.State of Karnataka Vs. Shivanna 2014 Supreme Court Copy of statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. of victim not to be given to accused until filing of chargesheet.  6. Atul Ambale vs. Maharashtra 2022 Bom HC Held.- Evidence of victim to be recorded within 30 days from chargesheet.  (Directions to POCSO Courts)  7. XYZ  vs. state of MP 2022 Supreme Court Inc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Courts Should Direct Parties To File Affidavits Of Assets & Liabilities Before Granting Maintenance: Patna High Court

  Courts Should Direct Parties To File Affidavits Of Assets & Liabilities Before Granting Maintenance: Patna High Court The Court held that affidavits of assets and liabilities are essential for assessing the parties’ status, needs, and earning capacity before determining maintenance. Cause Title: Ravi Prakash Saxena v. Priyanka Rani The Patna High Court has held that before passing a final order of maintenance, Family Courts are under a statutory obligation to direct parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities and that only after considering such affidavits can the status of the parties, their assets, needs, and earning capacities be evaluated to determine the appropriate amount of maintenance. The High Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging an order of the Family Court, which had directed him to pay monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 to his wife, arguing that the order was passed mechanically, without properly assessing his financia...
Post a Comment
Read more

When Sale Deed Is Void, Suit For Possession Governed By Limitation Period Of 12 Years Under Article 65 Instead Of Art 59 : Supreme Court.

  When Sale Deed Is Void, Suit For Possession Governed By Limitation Period Of 12 Years Under Article 65 Instead Of Art 59 : Supreme Court. Cause Title: SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORAN VERSUS JAGAN DEVI & ORS. The Supreme Court on Friday (Sep.12) held that a suit instituted seeking possession of immovable property on the ground that the defendant's sale deed is void is governed by the 12-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, rather than the shorter 3-year period under Article 59 of the Act. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan clarified that where possession is claimed over property by the defendant based on a forged and void sale deed, he suit can be filed within 12 years, as such possession is treated as adverse to the plaintiff. “Therefore, the plaintiff could indeed have maintained an action to obtain possession of the property on the basis of her title and filed the same within the period of 12 years from the da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sec 138 and 139 under NI act

Sec 138 and 139 under NI act Section 138: Dishonour of Cheque for Insufficiency, etc., of Funds This section deals with the criminal offense of cheque dishonour (bouncing). If a cheque is returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the drawer's account or for other specified reasons, the drawer can face legal action. Punishment for Section 138: If a person is found guilty of an offence under Section 138, they can be punished with: Imprisonment: A term of imprisonment which may extend to two years, or Fine: A fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or Both: Both imprisonment and fine. Key points related to Section 138: Criminal Offence: Cheque bounce under Section 138 is a criminal offense, providing a strong deterrent. Conditions for Offence: For an offence to be made out, certain conditions must be met: The cheque must have been issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The cheque must be presented to the bank within its period of valid...
Post a Comment
Read more

Whether Issuing a Blank Cheque under Indian Law: Legal Validity, Section 138, and Judicial Precedents

  Whether Issuing a Blank Cheque under Indian Law: Legal Validity, Section 138, and Judicial Precedents Issuing a blank cheque , where only the signature is affixed and all other particulars are left blank, is a common practice in many business and personal transactions in India. While this might seem risky at first glance, Indian law has laid down clear principles regarding the legality and implications of such instruments. Is Issuing a Blank Cheque Legal? Yes, issuing a blank cheque is legally valid if the cheque is signed and voluntarily handed over to the payee , with authorization to fill in the remaining details, such as the amount and date. This practice is covered under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , which recognizes the authority of a holder in due course to complete an inchoate instrument. Relevance of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 deals with the dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds or stop payment instructio...
Post a Comment
Read more

No Prohibition To Adjudicate The Issue Regarding Court Fee As A Preliminary Issue: Karnataka HC

  No Prohibition To Adjudicate The Issue Regarding Court Fee As A Preliminary Issue: Karnataka HC IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA  WP No 106540/2024 Cause Title: Erappa vs The Karnataka Kurubar Boarding, Koppal BENCH: JUSTICE C M PONNACCHA Appearances: Petitioner- Advocate Shriharsh A. Neelopant Respondent- Advocate Mrutyunjay S. Hallikeri, HCGP Kirti Lata R. Patil Date : 11/11/2024 The Karnataka High Court observed that there is no prohibition to adjudicate the issue regarding Court fee as a preliminary issue. The Court was considering against Trial Court order directing the plaintiff to pay deposit the Court fee at preliminary stage. The single-bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha observed, "...it is relevant to note that the Trial Court while requiring the plaintiff to pay Court fee has recorded a finding that the suit properties are the agricultural properties and the same has come within the CMC limits. Having regard to the judgment of Full Bench of the Court in the case of Mr...
Post a Comment
Read more