•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

Karnataka high court

27 August 2015

How soon cases are scheduled depends very much on where you areA wide variance exists between how a case progresses through various high courts (HCs), according to a study by Bengaluru-based non-governmental organization (NGO) Daksh aimed at understanding how delays take place in the judicial system and how they affect the delivery of justice.

16 July 2015

Four members of civil society, represented by Supreme Court advocate KV Dhananjay, have filed a writ petition in the Karnataka high court praying that a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation be started against the Lokayukta of Karnataka, Y Bhaskar Rao and his son Ashwin Y Rao, who are being investigated for corruption charges by the Lokayukta’s internal police force.

01 July 2015

Dhananjay: Judges are human beings, feedback could help them improveKarnataka high court and Supreme Court advocate KV Dhananjay has commissioned a web developer to build a website that is intended to allow advocates to rate judges on three parameters - knowledge, integrity and cordiality.

23 June 2015

The Karnataka government today moved the Supreme Court challenging the state high court's verdict acquitting Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, her aide Sasikala Natrajan and two others in a case of disproportionate assets.

The Karnataka government has urged the apex court to stay the operation of the May 11 verdict.

"Pass an ex-parte ad-interim order of stay, staying the operation of impugned final judgment and order of May 11," a petition by the Karnataka government said in its prayer for interim relief.

The Karnataka government contended that the high court committed a "grave mistake" in arriving at a figure of Rs 24,17,31,274 while a total of 10 loans taken by Jayalalithaa and others and the companies they were associated with was Rs 10,67,31,274.

It is because of this "grave mistake" in the calculation that the high court erroneously concluded that the disproportionate assets were only to the extent of 8.12 percent of the income whereas it was 76.7 percent.

Contending that the reversal by the high court of the trial court verdict convicting Jayalalithaa had resulted in "miscarriage of justice", the Karnataka government said that apart from other infirmities, the "grave mistake" had led to the acquittal of Jayalalithaa and others including VN. Sudhakaran and J Elavarasi.

The Karnataka government has questioned whether Jayalalithaa's appeal against the trial court order convicting her and others was maintainable without making Karnataka a respondent.

The state has contended that because Jayalalithaa and the others did not make the Karnataka government a party to the case, it could not appoint a public prosecutor to pursue it.

The trial court in Bengaluru on Sep 27 convicted Jayalalithaa of possessing assets disproportionate to her known sources of income and awarded four jail terms and fined her Rs 100 crore.

The case dates to the period from 1991 to 1996 when Jayalalithaa was the chief minister of Tamil Nadu.

The Karnataka government had earlier this month decided to appeal the acquittal, after special public prosecutor BV Acharya had recommended that it was a case fit for appeal in May.

The politico’s acquittal by the Karnataka high court was widely criticised for dubious maths and reasoning.

14 May 2015

"Yes I have recommended saying it is a fit case for appeal” for the Karnataka government special prosecutor BV Acharya, who was responsible for getting the initial trial court verdict against J Jayalalithaa, told the Times of India as well as the Hindu Businessline.

Acharya had said earlier this week after the Karnataka high court had set aside Jayalalithaa’s conviction that an appeal was likely because the prosecution had not been allowed to make oral arguments.

In addition, there were several other potential issues with the judgment, including potentially questionable arithmetic.

09 April 2015

Karnataka high court senior advocate Prabhuling Navadgi yesterday accepted his appointment to become additional solicitor general (ASG), taking up a post created for the first time ever in the state.

09 December 2014

Fortis Hospital Bangalore, whose organ transplant licence was cancelled in 2011 after alleged medical negligence by two of its surgeons led to the death of a patient undergoing pancreatic transplant, lost its appeal in the Karnataka high court.

In a writ petition, Fortis had challenged the authority of the Appropriate Authority for Transplantation of Human Organs to pass the order cancelling its licence. Justice BS Patil, in his judgment, agreed with the decision of the Appellate Authority that based on the illegal pancreas transplant performed by the hospital, its licence should be cancelled.

The victims husband, Pankaj Rai, commented: “For me it has been a very personal journey, because it provides some justice in a matter pertaining to the untimely demise of my wife.”

“There are a very few judgments on Transplantation of Human Organs Act. With the exception of two judgments, all the judgments in India are on the issues of donors/recipients being denied permission by the Authorisation Committee. This judgment is the first of its kind in India because it pertains to a Hospital violating the provisions of Transplantation of Human Organs Act,” added Rai.

Senior counsel {CV Nagesh} briefed by advocate K Suman was acting for Fortis. Advocate D Aswathappa was acting for the Appropriate Authority and the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Karnataka government. Rai appeared in person.

Download judgment

21 October 2014

Advocate KV Dhananjay argues that a recent decision of the Karnataka high court in one of his cases amounts to a rewriting of the Constitution of India, which is without parallel or precedent in the constitutional history of India.