Not sure, what kind of judgment is this… Read and bare with it.
Category: High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification
Dinakar Vs Krishnamurthy on 12 November, 2009
This case involves a retired DGP of Karnataka state regarding a murder of one Murugan who along with 2 others broke into DGP’s house on a fateful date. The petitioner Dinakar, on behalf of the said Muragun, has tried to file a case, but in vain. Hence he approached the Home Minister of Karnataka and NHRC ar Delhi. On this the DGP was aggrieved and filed a defamation case on Dinkar. Dinakar filed many applications at various fora praying that the defamation case be dismissed and in this regard he challenged the jurisdiction and power of taking cognizance of case by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which was brought before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the instant case.
There were interesting arguments and counter-arguments supported by judgments of various High Courts and their Division Benches and also Hon’ble Apex Court. Read on.
Rabiya Bi Kassim M. Vs The Country Wide Consumer on 5 April, 2004
In it held in this judgment from High Court of Karnataka that once arguments are completed and judgment is reserved for pronouncement for a future date, no new application of any nature can be allow by the Hon’ble Trial court.
The Sub-rule(4) of Order 18, Rule 2 reads as follows, that came into force in 1976 via Amendment Act, has been deleted via the CPC Amendment Act 1999, with effect from 1.7.2002
“(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage”
The 1963 landmark judgment is here.
C.V. Sudhindra and Ors. Vs Divine Light School For Blind on 21 July, 2008
Another awesome judgment from Karnataka reiterating that when a client loses confidence and faith in his Advocate he can choose to terminate the vakalathnama and seek for return of the case file.
Be that as it may, neither the trial Court in the present suit nor this Court in this petition would be required to go into the correctness or otherwise of the said allegations and counter allegations except to reckon the same to notice that the Advocates on record and their clients have been trading charges against each other, which alone is sufficient for a client to loose confidence and faith in the Advocate so as to choose to terminate the vakalathnama and seek for return of the file. The very fact that the Advocate is clinging on to the file without initiating any other action which would have been open to them in law, if in fact the Trustees had acted contrary to the interest of the Trust would indicate that the contentions put forth before the trial Court was not bonafide, at least in so far as claiming a right to remain on record as saviours of the first respondent when the first respondent has been in existence from the year 1958 as indicated from their letterhead and have taken care of themselves.
Honourable Profession… hmmm
In fact as and when any such unfortunate situation arises, the learned Advocate who has been appearing for such a client, should on his own free will come forward to advise the client to take back the file and should express lack of interest to appear on their behalf. That is why, this profession is known as honourable profession.
Other Judgements on this subject here.
G Deepak Adv Vs Rangegowda on 1 April, 2014
This WP is dismissed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in a dispute between a advocate and his client who wanted to change to a different advocate and seeking No objection certificate.
The writ petition is not maintainable as the relief sought is in respect of breach of contract between a lawyer and his client. The remedy lies elsewhere and not before this court in this writ jurisdiction. The petition is disposed of without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner.
Rangegowda Vs G.Deepak Adv on 7 July, 2014
Awesome Judgment from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court that vividly affirms that there is no need for a No Objection certificate from a advocate if a client wants to change to a different advocate.
The second respondent in any event cannot hold on to the brief when the petitioner has issued a notice terminating his Vakalathnama and has sought for issue of “No objection”.
A earlier judgment related to same parties here.
NagarathnaMurthy Vs S Narayanappa on 20 November, 2011
In this judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, the General Power of Attorney Holder was allowed to act on behalf of Plaintiff under Section 32 of Advocates Act. This is done under the discretionary power of Hon’ble Court and on application of Plaintiff. Plaintiff can not claim this to be one of his rights.
Sushma Pattanshetti Vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2017
As there are no specific allegations on family members other than husband, the proceedings under 489A are quashed in this Karnataka High Court judgment.
Ashok Kumar K Vs S M Sharmila Rani on 8 November, 2017
This judgment from Karnataka High Court held that the RPAD notice that was served to husband was in Marathi and as such that notice was not entered as evidence, presuming that notice was served duly on husband is erroneous.
Side Note: Knife requested 50K INR per month maintenance and trial court ordered 15K INR.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Dilipkumar Vs Preeti WO. Dilipkumar Jain on 6 February, 2013
Even though the the maintenance is issued (reduced from requested 10K INR to granted 2K INR), this is a case of notice not served properly by registered post, but it was returned as Refused.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
