Legal Sarcasm

ACT OF REGISTRY IS NOT AN ACT OF COURT VIDHI GUPTA  BACKGROUND: Petitioner SR Venkatesh Babu was the highest bidder on the auction process conducted in 2008, in regard to a property in Bengaluru. Since he was the highest bidder, his bid was accepted and on account of acceptance of his bid, he had deposited Rs.77,00,000 with the respondent-registered of the city civil court on January 12, 2009. The registry in terms of the court instruction was executed and got registered a sale deed dated May 3, 2009, in the favour of the petitioner. However the obstructors' application was favoured by the Executing court, a substantial part of the property that was comprised in the sale deed was ordered to be retained by the objectors. Petitioners challenge in the high court was not accepted and only by granting some equitable remedy, petitioner retained that portion of the property over which obstructors had no claim. A rectification deed was executed in 2015 where the...

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ON ONLINE SALE OF LIQUOR  BY- SNEHA CHAUHAN Case background The Karnataka High Court noted that there are no chances of Online Sale of Liquor in the absence of enabling provisions in the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. The company (HIP BAR PVT.LTD) was contributing its customer a Semi-Closed Prepaid Payment Instrument (Mobile Wallet) amid other services. Under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had issued the petitioner a certificate of Authorization which is lawful till September 30, 2021. The Government of Karnataka issued the license under FSS and Act allowed it to schlep on the business of distributor, supplier, transporter, whereas the petitioner is allowed to schlep on the food business such as savories, Beverages, apart from dairy products.  A Letter of Authority was issued dating august 1, 2017 by the appellant for e-commerce and Delivery of both Indian and Foreign Liquor al...

BIGAMY BY GOVERNMENT SERVANT IS MISCONDUCT TANISHA SHARMA  BACKGROUND The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on 26 July 2019 held that bigamy by government servant is misconduct. A retired railway employee who committed an act of bigamy, assuming that his first wife was dead since he had not seen her for seven years, has been found guilty of misconduct, as per service rules, by the Karnataka High Court and held liable for 50 per cent reduction in pension amount. However, considering he has retired and solely dependent on the pension amount, the court reduced the punishment from five years to three years, a period already undergone by him. Observing that it is an offense under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the court also asked the state government to initiate disciplinary action against public servants committing bigamy and register criminal cases against them. The Tamil Nadu Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department has been asked to initiate action and...

PROPERTY RIGHTS OF REMARRIED HINDU WIDOW:KARNATAKA HC BY- RAHUL AGARWAL  BACKGROUND Indian society has been evolving in terms of how widows are treated. However a few years ago, the Bombay High Court in the case of Jayalaxmi v. Ganesh Iyer in which the brother of a deceased man quoted the Section 2 of the Widow Remarriage Act 1856 and asserted that his sister-in-law who had remarried should not be allowed to inherit the property of her former husband. The court, however, ruled that a Hindu Widow has the Rights over her former husband's Property, even if she has remarried, as she would qualify as a Class I heir while the husband’s kin would be considered a Class II heir. READ ALSO :  RAPE VICTIMS HAVE A REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE UNDER ARTICLE 21: BOMBAY HC KEY ISSUE The Karnataka High Court in a recent case has observed that a Hindu Widow cannot be deprived of the Property Rights vested in her merely for contracting a second marriage. The Hi...

SAFE ROADS ARE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF CITIZENS SHRISTI KHANDELWAL  BACKGROUND: Part III of the constitution guarantees certain basic rights to the citizens of India known as the Fundamental Rights, which are justifiable . The Fundamental Rights has been classified under the six categories- Right to Equality, Right to Freedom, Right against Exploitation, Right to Freedom of Religion, Cultural and Educational rights and Right to constitutional remedies. In the issue, the right to have good roads and footpaths is considered as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by the Karnataka High court in its recent ruling. Article 21 states that- "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law." Iyer, J., has characterized Article 21 as "the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty." However, Article 21 puts a limit on the power of t...

Who is the best guardian of a minor -explains Karnataka HC ANUSHA AGARWAL  Background The Karnataka High Court parents rather than the grandparents are the best Guardians Of a minor child. This view accepted while directing a grandfather to hand over custody of a minor child to her father but this along with the father, but disallowing the father to become a Legal Guardian to her property. Introduction Under the Hindu minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 4(b), minor means a person who has not completed the age of 18 years. Guardian is a person having the care of a person of the minor or of his property or both person and property. In Hindu law, only three persons are recognized as Natural Guardians: 1. Father 2. Mother 3. Husband Father is the natural guardian of his minor legitimate children, son, and daughters. Section 19 of the Guardians and wards act, 1890, lays down that a father cannot be deprived of the n...

POTHOLE FREE ROADS NOW A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TUSHIKA PRIYADARSHINI  BACKGROUND: In May 2015, a division bench headed by Justice Oka, while dealing with a suo motu PIL, had directed all municipal corporations and the other agencies to issue circulars to its staff, placing them to notice concerning their duties and about the beginning of disciplinary action against erring officials.  In April, a division bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising of Justice A S Oka and Justice C V Bhadang, held that a citizen has a fundamental right to have good and proper roads and properly levelled footpaths and it is the state government's statutory obligation to provide roads which are free of potholes. It further ruled that “ pothole -free roads and properly levelled footpaths are fundamental rights of every citizen of India, guaranteed under Article 21 on the Constitution, and in the occasion any loss caused due to its violation, the citizens have the right to seek ou...