Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... hindu succession act, 1956, as amended by the amendment act, 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation?. (ii) whether section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 as amended by the amendment act, 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956?. (iii) whether section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 as amended by the amendment act, 2005 applies to ..... daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005?. (iv) whether section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 as amended by the amendment act, 2005 ..... for more than one reason. it is held that in the first place, though section 3 of the amendment act of hindu succession (amendment) act 2005 has substituted with effect from 9 september 2005, erstwhile section 6 by the new section 6, it cannot be said that the new section 6 relates .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... for the appellant submitted that the propositus namely yashwant upadhye had expired on 18.02.1988 i.e., prior to commencement of the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 with effect from 09.09.2005 and, with reference to the averments made in the plaint, it was pointed out that the appellant has confined the claim in this appeal on ..... , 24 we see no impediment in proceeding further with the appeal as the question of retrospective operation of section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956, as amended by hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 has been referred to a larger bench, by the supreme court does not arise for consideration in this appeal.14. learned counsel for the appellant submitted ..... the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/7th share in all the properties in the light of section 6 of the hindu succession (amendment) act 39 of 2005 which came into force with effect from 09.09.2005.12. when the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3, at the outset, has invited .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... right from 1888 till the present enactment.36. the mysore land revenue code (hereinafter referred to as the code ) was enacted in 1888 to consolidate and - 24 - amend the law relating to revenue officers and to the assessment and recover of land revenue.37. section 361 of the code declared that all lands wherever situate, which are ..... the little of the land in favour of the state.58. in the year 1964, the land revenue code, 1888 was replaced by the karnataka land revenue act, 1964. this act, despite the repeal of 1888 code, contains provisions which are more or less similar to the provisions found in the 1888 code in several aspects, including the ..... acquisition officer and another (w.p. no.18451/2007 [la-res].) 3. gurubai gurusiddappa balashetty and others vs. special land acquisition officer and another (w.p.no.20029/2005 [la-res].) the judgment in sadashivaiah s case (cited supra) is followed by this court in catena of judgments subsequently.17. the division bench and the other decisions, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... or often left without any ocular or other direct evidence to prove who the offenders are. therefore, the law commission in its 113th report recommended amendment of indian evidence act so as to provide certain solace to the victims. if there is evidence that injury was caused during the custody when the person was in ..... statements of prosecution witnesses are consistent, then they cannot bee discarded only because of minor inconsistencies. here also, the said incident has taken place in the year 2005. the investigation was commenced in the year 2010 i.e. after lapse of five years. the evidence of the witnesses conducted after substantial lapse of time. therefore ..... are correct.30. pw2-basavaraj sadeppa parasannavar is branded as eyewitness by the prosecution, who happens to be the in-charge of visitors room in the year 2005. he has been turned hostile. though the prosecution directed severe cross-examination, but he has denied all the suggestions directed to him. therefore, his evidence would .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... prayed for in both the writ petitions. he would submit that the first writ petition was filed challenging the sale notice dt.25.5.2007 and later it was amended to challenge the sale notice dt.5.7.2007 pursuant to which sale negotiations were held on 31.7.2007, while the second writ petition was preferred impugning ..... judgment is inapplicable. the learned counsel has also relied upon another judgment of the apex court rendered in civil appeal nos.2062 and 2063 of 2002 dated 30.03.2005. the hon ble apex court has held in the facts and circumstances obtaining therein, that effective steps had been taken to realize the maximum amount and the high ..... terms and conditions imposed thereunder. as a consequence of its failure, the corporation exercised the powers vested in it under section 29 of the state financial corporation act (for short the act ) and took the possession of the running hospital on 21.04.2007. the mahazar was drawn up and the premises were locked and the corporation deployed its .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... identical prayers in wp84805 868/2011, wp721572012 and wp8079680822/2013 and wp656482011:- 48 a) to declare that the karnataka hindu religious institutions and charitable endowments (amendment) act 2011 (karnataka act no.27 of 2011) as discriminatory, violative of constitutional rights, unconstitutional and strike down the same in its entirety; b) alternatively, to declare that ..... a religious denomination within the meaning of article 26 of constitution of india and accordingly to declare that karnataka hindu religious institutions and charitable endowments (amendment) act 2011 (karnataka act 27 of 2011) and rules 2002, can have no application to hindus and their right to establish, manage and administer their own religious and ..... of 2001). a learned single judge of this court having heard the matters on merits had, by an order dated 9.9.2005, held that the act was constitutionally valid. the order of the learned single judge was carried in appeal before a division bench of this court. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... , would notwithstanding its expiry, continue to be effective for a period of 30 days. 21 10. one other development that is relevant is the amendment of sub-section (2) of section 10 by the motor vehicles (amendment) act, 1994 in the said section, the following kinds of vehicles were specified: (e) medium goods vehicle, (f) medium passenger motor vehicle, ( ..... motor accidents claims tribunal held that though on the date of accident the driving licence was not valid, since the driver s licence was renewed on 16.5.2005 for a further period of three years it cannot be said that during the intervening period the driver was incompetent or disqualified to drive the truck. in appeal ..... decision. 47 further, the decision in nesaria would have no application as the court was dealing with an accident of the year 2005, while in nesaria, the accident was of a period prior to the amendment of the central motor vehicle rules, 1989, made with effect from 28.3.2001. the said decision may, therefore, require a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... daughter is given the status of a coparcener. assuming that plaintiff no.1 had no cause of action to file suit in the year 1995, as the amendment of section 6 of act, 2005 is held to be retrospective in operation, it must be deemed that the daughter had a share in the properties when the suit was filed in 1995.14. he ..... to the daughter and the wife in lieu of arrears of maintenance is to be treated as allotment of share in the partition?.18. section 6 of the act, which was amended in the year 2005 conferring the status of a coparcener to a daughter of a male hindu entertains few exceptions. alienation of properties before 20th december 2004 is an exception to ..... of 2007 c/w rfa.crob no.101 of 2008 9. the suit was filed on 28.01.1995, before the commencement of the act of 39 of 2005, amending section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 (for short, the act ).10. sri.vivek mehta learned counsel for the appellants submits the daughter/plaintiff no.1 had no right over the properties in the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... daughter is given the status of a coparcener. assuming that plaintiff no.1 had no cause of action to file suit in the year 1995, as the amendment of section 6 of act, 2005 is held to be retrospective in operation, it must be deemed that the daughter had a share in the properties when the suit was filed in 1995.14. he ..... to the daughter and the wife in lieu of arrears of maintenance is to be treated as allotment of share in the partition?.18. section 6 of the act, which was amended in the year 2005 conferring the status of a coparcener to a daughter of a male hindu entertains few exceptions. alienation of properties before 20th december 2004 is an exception to ..... of 2007 c/w rfa.crob no.101 of 2008 9. the suit was filed on 28.01.1995, before the commencement of the act of 39 of 2005, amending section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 (for short, the act ).10. sri.vivek mehta learned counsel for the appellants submits the daughter/plaintiff no.1 had no right over the properties in the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... the matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. 2439.6. claim of juvenility lacking in credibility or frivolous claim of juvenility or patently absurd or inherently improbable claim of juvenility must be rejected by the court at the threshold whenever raised.32.3. in arnit das (1) v. state of ..... is only the question of 38 sentence for which the provisions of the 2015 act would be attracted and any sentence in excess of what is permissible under the 2015 act will have to be accordingly amended as per the provisions of the 2015 act. otherwise, the accused who has committed a heinous offence and who did not ..... sending the petitioner to child court and not trying him as a juvenile is contrary to section 25 of the juvenile justice (care and protection of children) act, 2015 ( the act for short) and is seeking quashment of entire proceedings, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction. 55. the learned .....
Tag this Judgment!