The Amendment Act brought by Karnataka Legislature was struck down as Unconstitutional and untravires to Parent Law, NLSIU Act 1986.
This apart, the Court held that the 5% concession to be given to Karnataka students (under the 25% domicile reservation) would tamper with the merit list, and therefore, is not permissible under the ambit of Article 14.
Master Balachandar Krishnan Vs State of Karnataka on 29 Sep 2020Because of the allegation of Dowry giving are made by married women, husbands are resorting to these kind of hyperbolic tricks which fall flat on their face. Instead of hitting at the root cause, peripheral aspects are stroked only to be later quashed like this.
Viral Dhulia Vs Virag Dhulia on 25 July 2013Citations: [2013 KCCR 4 3137], [2013 AKR 4 454], [2014 ILR KAR 199], [2013 SCC ONLINE KAR 5387], [2013 AIR KANT R 4 45]
Other Source links:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56094831e4b01497112656fb
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140258661/
https://www.legitquest.com/case/viral-goda-viral-dhulia-others-v-virag-r-dhulia-another/DDF53
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Mrs-Viral-Goda–Viral-Dhulia-and-Others-Versus-Virag-R-Dhulia-and-Another-2013-07-25
The 3-judge bench of Karnataka High Court held that Section 8A of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 is constitutionally valid and the burden of proof laid on the accused in offences under this Act carry onus on the Prosecution to discharge their duty to establish their case based on foundational facts relevant and only then the proof of burden shifts to accused.
Harikumar Vs State of Karnataka on 22 October 1993Citations: [1995 ALT CRI 1 25], [1993 ILR KAR 3035], [1994 DMC 1 356], [1995 CRIMES 1 573], [1994 KARLJ 3 335], [1994 KANTLJ 3 335], [1993 SCC ONLINE KAR 240], [1994 KANT LJ 3 335], [1993 HLR 2 672]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1973279/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56093aeee4b0149711228334 or https://498anlr.wordpress.com/2018/08/03/2899/
Karnataka High Court held that, an application for recalling of NBW has to be disposed of on same day of filing same.
Sri Gunavenkataramane Gowda Vs Sri N S Vijayakumar on 28 March 2019Citations: [2019 SCC ONLINE KAR 473]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95097297/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c9e48a29eff430a019b99ba
https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/recall-applications-should-be-heard-and-disposed-of-same-day/articleshow/68678246.cms
Disclaimer:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
Karnataka High Court has quashed this 498A IPC case on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband since the complaint is fill of junk vague and non-specific allegations.
Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 02 April 2019The Supreme Court had crushed another false DV case by this liar and quashed it on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband here.
Citations: [
Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d4be4364a9326071f285522
In this false DV case, Justice JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, discussed two contentions but adjudicated only on one aspect.
The Supreme Court crushed this judgment here and quashed the false DV case on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband.
Citations: [
Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5cc473859eff43397d6ab68f
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Based on landmark judgments here, here and here, Karnataka High Court held that,
Citations: [2011 KCCR 1 230], [2008 SCC ONLINE KAR 758]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56093e42e4b0149711231bf9
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
No Shared household. DVC is not maintainable.
NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda on 11 December, 2019Citation:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70402378/
The index page is here.
This judgment from High Court of Karnataka says,
Santosh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka on 09 October, 2019“it is incumbent on the Court to state reasons with reference to the material on record on which reliance is placed by the Court to formulate an opinion, to reject the application for discharge”.
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org link:
Earlier Judgment is available here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
This in the judgment of Karnataka High Court on a Tax matter.
Key passage is this one:
Patil Vijaykumar and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr on 10 August, 1984But we wish to add that although a decision of another High Court is not binding on this court, we see no reason for not accepting, with respectful caution, any help they can give in the elucidation of questions which arise before this court.
Citation: [(1985) 151 ITR 48 (KAR)]
External Link: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/375809/patil-vijaykumar-vs-union-india
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
