Shri Vijay S/O Dhondiram Kamble v. State of Karnataka
This case involves a dispute over family property and about the entries made in the land records. After, the death of Shivram Kamble , his son Dhondiram’ s name was entered in the record as the manager of the joint family property. Later, in 1998 , the names of Dhondiram’ s children were also entered after an alleged partition. Some family members challenged the entry after 16 years, 10 months and 4 days and asked assistant commissioner to excuse the delay. The Assistant commissioner allowed the request without giving notice to the other affected family members. The matter eventually reached at the Karnataka High Court. The Court held that such a long delay cannot be dealt casually. The Assistant commissioner had not properly considered the delay. The High Court cancelled the earlier orders and sent the matter back for consideration.
2. Sri M. K. Manoj v. Sri Mayana Syed Sab
The case arose from a motor accident in which the claimant suffered serious injuries and required several surgeries and long period of hospitalization. The motor accident claims Tribunal awarded him compensation, but he felt that the amount was not sufficient and then he approached the Karnataka High Court seeking enhancement. One of the issue before Court was whether the claimant disability could be properly assessed even though the doctor who treated him had not been examined. The High Court considered the medical records, photographs, surgeries and other available evidence. It held that the absence of treating doctor did not automatically make the medical evidence unreliable. The Court assessed the claimant functional disability and reconsider the compensation. After taking into account factor such as income, future prospects and appropriate multiplier, the Court enhanced the compensation to ₹29,32,873 with 6% interest.
3. Sri R. Sai Srinivasamurthy v. Mrs R. Radha
The case involve a family property and partition dispute. The plaintiff claimed a share in properties which has been settled on her father by her great grandfather. After her father died without leaving a will, a dispute arose between the plaintiff and her brother regarding their respective shares. Some portion of the property had also been sold by the brother. The main question before the Karnataka High Court was whether the daughter was entitled to an equal share with her brother. The Court held that the property received by the father through registered settlement deed was his separate property. Therefore, after his death , his daughter and son were entitled to inherit it equally . The High Court accordingly modified the earlier decision and recognised the plaintiff entitlement to an equal share in the property.
4. Sri AnilKumar S/o Peeraji Bhavani v. The Management of N.W.K.R.T.C.
The case concerned an employee of the North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation who had remained absent from work . He had submitted leave application along with medical documents and argued that his absence should therefore be accepted. The Labour Court had already interfered with his dismissal and reduced the punishment to stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The employee challenged this discission before the High Court. The main question was whether submitting leave applications and medical documents was enough to justify his absence . The Karnataka High Court held that merely applying for leave does not mean that the leave has been sanctioned. The employee was required to obtain proper approval from the employer. The Court also found that the medical records did not sufficiently established that his absence was authorised. It therefore found no reason to interfere with the Labour Court discission and dismissed the petition.
5. Dr. K. Prem Anand v. Dr. Susan Issac
This case concerned interim maintenance in divorce proceedings. The wide had sought financial support under section 36 of the Special Marriage Act , the Family Court directed husband to pay ₹1,10,000 per month , along with ₹50,000 towards litigation expenses. The husband challenged this order , arguing that his wife was a qualified dental specialist and could earn independently. The Karnataka High Court examined the financial information provided by both the parties. It found shortcomings in the husband disclosure of his income and assets and considered the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. The High Court held that proper financial disclosure is important when deciding maintenance. It uphold the maintenance order and dismissed the husband challenge. The Court also imposed ₹2 Lakh in costs and directed the Family Court to examine the financial disclosures properly.
Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications