AIR 1958 SC 538 and PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION No.39434 OF 2013 (L-PG) C/W W.P.Nos.14083/2011, 29691-29694/2011, 44827-44830/2011, 1163/2012, 51033/2012, 51034/2012, 51035/2012, 2145/2013 37434/2013, 49523/2013, 10429-10436/2014, 38497/2014, 43321/2015, 43322/2015 W.P.No.39434/2013 BETWEEN: Sarvodaya Education Trust, Rep. by its Secretary, Virajpet – 571 218, Virajpet taluk, Kodagu district. ... Petitioner (By:Sri Vijaya Kumar, Advocate) AND: 1. The Union of…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

…ent was repelled on the ground that an inquest under Section 174 CrPC is concerned with establishing the cause of death and only evidence necessary to establish it need be brought out. The same view was taken in Eqbal Baig v. State of A.P. [(1986) 2 SCC 476: 1986 SCC (Cri) 232: AIR 1987 SC 923] that the non-mention of the name of an eyewitness in the inquest report could not be a ground to reject his testimony. Similarly, the absence of the name of the accused in the inquest report cannot lead to an inference that he was not present at the time of the commission of the offence as the inquest rep…

SRI.A.M.BHASKAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, both the petitions are dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

…egislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people. It is also helpful to refer to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 2 SCC 476, wherein it is held that a statute carries with it a presumption of constitutionality. Such a presumption extends also in relation 39 to a law, which has been enacted for imposing reasonable restrictions on the fundament rights. 38. Just because Section 39(1) of the said Act is said to be inconsistent with Section 38(1)…

SRI SANNARANGAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

…1 ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2013 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION No.5251 OF 2012 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: Sri. Sannarangappa, Son of Late Mudlappa, Aged 62 years, Kalluguuarahally Village, C.N.Durga Hobli, Kortgere Taluk, Tumkur District. …PETITIONER (By Shri. K.N. Nitesh, Advocate for Shri. K.V. Narasimhan, Advocate ) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, By it’s Secretary, Department of Public Wor…