0

As daughters relinquished shares from others for that reason daughters cannot be abandoned to have claim in the house property, Hindu succession –Karnataka state High court

Case No: Regular First Appeal no. 100221 of 2016 c/w Regular First Appeal No. 100197 of 2016.

Case Title: Akkamahadevi & Others And Neelambika & Others

CORAM: Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Ramchandra D Huddar

Appearance

Appellants: Advocate J S Shetty

Respondent: H.N. Gularaddi, Anand P Bagewadi

Date of judgment:

Introduction

The High Court of Karnataka has contended that the daughters leaving their share only in the agricultural property belonging to a joint family, which is partitioned among the sons of the propositus, cannot be deemed to have abandoned their shares in other joint family properties and they can seek partition of those properties.

 

Facts of the case

The plaintiff’s suit was for partition and separate possession of their 1/10th share each in thirteen landed properties. The plaintiffs claimed partition in schedule ‘A’ and schedule ‘B’ properties on the score that they were all ancestral joint family properties. They came to know that defendants 1 to 11 created a false partition deed for their convenience, obtained their signatures and the signatures of defendants 12 and 13 deceitfully, and obtained the mutations of the properties to their names. They stated that this mutation did not affect their share in the properties. Property bearing R.S.No.556/1A/1+2+3A measuring 7 acres and 24 guntas exclusively belonged to third plaintiff but it was also included in the partition.

The tenth defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by defendants 1 to 9 and 11. The specific contention in the written statement is that the first plaintiff was born before 1956 and therefore she cannot claim any share. On 05.04.2000 there took place a partition in the presence of the elders and since the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 13 were parties to the partition, they cannot claim partition again. The revenue entries were mutated based on the partition. It is also contended that items 10, 11, and 12 are the self-acquired properties of defendants 10 and 11. In this view suit is to be dismissed.

In this view, plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant 13 would become entitled to claim share. With these findings, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit holding that plaintiffs 1 and 2 were each entitled to 1/10th share in schedule ‘B’ properties and dismissed the suit in respect of schedule ‘A’ properties.

G.Sekar Vs. Geetha and others1 and Narasimhmurthy Vs. Susheelabai (Smt.) and other cases were linked.

the defendants have admitted that the house properties belonged to the joint family. Because of this reason plaintiffs 1 and 2 have been given share in the house properties. There is no infirmity in this part of the judgment. Therefore the defendant’s appeal is to be dismissed and the plaintiff’s appeal is to be allowed to grant share in properties.

Analysis of the court

The Court observed that the restrictive right contained in Section 23 of the Act cannot be held to continue despite the 2005 amendment.

Acco rdingly it dismissed the appeals.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By

Kaulav roy chowdhury
Click here to view the judgement

0

The Karnataka High Court has affirmed that unaided educational institutions managed by linguistic minority bodies are eligible to receive funding under Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act.

Title: Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital and Dr Sanjay Murgod

Decided on: 12th, OCTOBER 2023

Writ C No. – 580 OF 2023 (S-RES)

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr Prasanna B. Varale, Chief Justice and The Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishna S Dixit 

INTRODUCTION

A legal dispute concerning the applicability of Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act to unaided educational institutions run by linguistic minority organizations was brought before the Karnataka High Court in Bengaluru. The court’s ruling on this issue and its consequences for these institutions is outlined in its judgment, which was released on October 12, 2023. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

 A disagreement exists in this case between Dr. Sanjay Murgod and Rajarajeshwari Dental College. A single judge ruled that Dr. Murgod’s termination notice was invalid and ordered his reinstatement with back pay. In its appeal, Rajarajeshwari Dental College claimed that unaided educational institutions managed by linguistic minority bodies were exempt from Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act. The court dismissed the appeal after ruling that Section 98 applied to these kinds of institutions.  

COURTS ANALYSIS AND DECISION

According to the Karnataka High Court, unaided educational institutions managed by linguistic minority organizations are subject to Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act. The Rajarajeshwari Dental College’s appeal was denied by the court, which upheld the section’s application to all employees of educational institutions in order to safeguard their employment security and working conditions. The significance of defending workers’ interests in the education sector is emphasized by this ruling.  

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer. “

Written by- Kusuma R

Karnataka Hc 1

0

Changes in Officeholders Will Not Affect the Company’s Obligation to Repay Cheque Amount: Karnataka High Court

Title: Rajiv & Others And State Bank of India C.C.No.3095 of 2021

Date of Decision: October 6, 2023

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Introduction

This judgment review pertains to a case where two criminal petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for offenses punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case revolves around the issuance of a cheque as security for a credit facility, which became the subject of dispute after the death of the individual who had signed the cheque.

Facts of the Case

The case involves two separate criminal petitions filed by the accused parties. In the first criminal petition (No.6481 of 2022), accused numbers 3, 4, and 6 filed the petition, while in the second criminal petition (No.7203 of 2022), accused numbers 1, 2, and 5 were the petitioners. The accused parties in both petitions challenged the proceedings initiated against them in Criminal Case No.3095 of 2021.

The dispute centers around M/s. Jamkhandi Sugars Limited, which had sought credit facility from the State Bank of India (the Bank) for its operations related to harvesting and transportation of sugarcane. The credit facility was granted, and a cheque was issued by the Chairman of the company as security for the facility. However, the Chairman passed away, and subsequently, the accused parties took over as office bearers of the company.

The Bank declared the credit facility as a non-performing asset, and when the cheque was presented for realization, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds. A legal notice was sent by the Bank to the accused parties, which led to the filing of a private complaint and the issuance of summons.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The crux of the case revolved around whether the issuance of the cheque as security, following the death of the Chairman who signed it, was legally valid. The petitioners argued that the presentation of the cheque after the Chairman’s death rendered it invalid, and therefore, the proceedings against them were null and void.

On the other hand, the Bank contended that the accused parties, who were office bearers of the company, were not absolved from liability as they had played a role in the renewal of loan documents, were aware of the cheque issued by the former Chairman, and the company was still in existence.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court had to decide whether the proceedings should be quashed. The Court held that the mere death of the Chairman of the company did not automatically absolve the other office bearers from liability. They were responsible for the company’s debts and had actively participated in the transactions.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ arguments and ruled in favor of the Bank, stating that the proceedings would not be quashed. The Court found that the petitioners had a role in the affairs of the company and could not evade liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In conclusion, the Court’s decision upheld the continuation of proceedings against the accused parties, emphasizing that they had a significant role to play in the company’s financial transactions, despite the death of the Chairman.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Tarishi Verma

Click here to view Judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

When a Public Property is Allotted for a Specified Purpose and that Purpose Remains Unaccomplished, the Retention of such Allotment Militates Against the Public Interest: High Court of Karnataka

Title: M/S Divyajyothi vidya Kendra v. Karnataka housing board and others 

Decided on: 10th October 2023 

WRIT APPEAL NO. 873 OF 2023 (GM-RES) 

Coram: HON’BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT 

Introduction  

Divyajyothi vidya Kendra’s appeal challenging the cancellation of allotment of the subject land has been dismissed by the Karnataka high court, with a direction to the respondent-Karnataka Housing Board to pass orders determining the quantum of forfeiture and refund of remaining amount to the appellant within a period of four weeks. 

Facts of the case 

Allotment of a civic amenity site was made vide letter dated 16.12.2003 and the appellant has paid the allotment price of Rs.53,10,293/- along with interest of Rs.7,11,157/-. A conditional sale deed dated 20.10.2005 was executed and registered by the Housing Board on 20.10.2005, subject to the condition that the allottee should construct the school building within a period of 5 years and failure to do so, the allotment would stand rescinded. Due to shortage of funds and unavailability of loans or credit, the structure could not be constructed though BBMP had issued the khata.  

Court Analysis and Decision  

The division bench declined indulgence in the matter being broadly in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and observed that the subject property is a huge civic amenity site. The allotment was for the specified purpose of establishing an educational institution by constructing a building therein within a period of five years which has not happened. The site has remained unutilized for a period of more than two decades after it was allotted to the appellant. As a consequence, the right to education of those who would have studied, if the educational institution was established in the site in terms of stipulation of allotment, has been brutalized. Had the site been allocated to some worthy person, that would have served the public purpose for which it was earmarked. 

When a public property is allotted for a specified purpose and that purpose remains unaccomplished, the retention of such allotment militates against the public interest. Where such a purpose has constitutional flavor like the one catering to the educational needs of society, this proposition assumes imperative character. If leniency is shown in matters of breach, that would be tantamount to placing premium on illegality & would be a case of misplaced sympathy too. The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Registration of Societies Act, 1960 and it claims to run educational institutions. Permitting such entities to retain allotment of the site despite breach of the statutory conditions, would lay a bad precedent which has abundant abuse potential.  

The appeal being devoid of merits was rejected and the Respondent-Board is directed to comply with the order concerning determination of quantum of forfeiture and refund of amount, as directed by the Single Judge. Accordingly the society would deliver the possession of the property in an ‘as is where is’ position to the Board, which should take back the possession within four weeks. 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

Written by- K R Bhuvanashri 

click here to view judgement

 

0

Calculation of Land’s Market Value under 1894 Act to Follow Right to Fair Compensation Act When Award is Passed After its Enactment: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Deco Equipments Pvt Ltd AND The State of Karnataka & others.

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.33180 OF 2016

Date of Order: 29-08-2023

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE  S Sunil Dutt Yadav

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has clarified that if the award for land acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is issued after the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, the market value of the acquired land should be assessed according to the guidelines outlined in Section 26 of the 2013 Act.

FACTS

In this case, a single bench of S Sunil Dutt Yadav considered a petition filed by M/s Deco Equipments Pvt Ltd. The petitioner challenged the validity of an Award dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer of Mysore District. The case revolved around the acquisition of land and determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The acquisition process began with a Preliminary Notification issued on 15.03.2008, followed by a Final Notification on 05.06.2009 under Sections 4(1), 6, and 17(1) of the 1894 Act. The petitioner contested the validity of these notifications, and after some legal proceedings, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. During the course of the proceedings, the 2013 Act came into effect.

The petitioner ultimately sought compensation under the provisions of the 2013 Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award determining compensation based on the sale consideration from a Sale Deed dated 21.04.2007 and using norms outlined in the Gazette Notification dated 04.07.2013.

The key legal issue was whether the proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act could be subjected to the compensation determination provisions of the 2013 Act, especially considering the changes introduced by Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The bench examined the relevant provisions, specifically focusing on Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. It noted that if no award had been made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, the compensation determination provisions of the 2013 Act would apply. In this context, the court concluded that even when acquisition proceedings were initiated under the 1894 Act but the award was being sought after the 2013 Act came into force, the compensation determination provisions of the 2013 Act would be applicable.

The court observed that the petitioner had settled for compensation under the 2013 Act during the proceedings, even though they had initially challenged the validity of the acquisition proceedings. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh Award. The compensation was to be recalculated in accordance with the principles discussed in the judgment, and the officer was instructed to adhere to the guidelines of Section 26 and other applicable rules under the 2013 Act.

In essence, the court’s decision highlighted the applicability of the compensation determination provisions of the 2013 Act in cases where the award was sought after the 2013 Act came into force, even if the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the 1894 Act.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreya Sharma

 

1 2 3 12