Dismissed

T. Krishna Puranik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2018WA/100345/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeals filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, were dismissed by following a judgment of a coordinate Bench. The Court held that the Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 is not applicable to land acquisitions initiated under the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 before its commencement, and enhanced compensation awards do not make it applicable. Respondents directed to complete the pr

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals were dismissed; respondents directed to complete the project within six months; no interim stay directed.

T. Krishna Puranik Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BELLUNKE

¶9

WRIT APPEAL No. 100345 OF 2017 (LA-RES)

¶10

C/w.

¶11

WRIT APPEAL Nos.100346, 100348, 100349, 100350, 100354, 100357 & 100359 OF 2017 (LA-RES)

¶12

In WA No.100345/2017:

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

T. KRISHNA PURANIK S/O T. KUPPAYYA, AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KRISHNA NIVAS, SARASWATPUR, DHARWAD.

¶15

... APPELLANT

¶16

(By Sri.: S.S. BETURMATH, ADV.)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NO.504, 5TH FLOOR, 4TH GATE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶20

¶21

THE SPL. LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HDBRTS OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, KSFC BUILDING, RAYAPUR, DHARWAD.

¶22

.. RESPONDENTS

¶23

(By Sri.C.S. PATIL, GA)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT WRIT APPEAL SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2017 PASSED IN W.P.NO.105885/2016 (LA-RES) FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREBY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶25

IN WA NO.100346/2017:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

GANESH S/O VITTAL ANKOLA AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O: SAVITRI SADAN, OPP KITTELL COLLEGE, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD.

¶28

... APPELLANT

¶29

(By Sri.: S.S. BETURMATH, ADV.)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NO.504, 5TH FLOOR, 4TH GATE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶32

THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HDBRTS OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR,

¶33

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶34

¶35

KSFC BUILDING, RAYAPUR, DHARWAD.

¶36

... RESPONDENTS

¶37

(By Sri.C.S. PATIL, GA)

¶38

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2017 PASSED IN W.P.NO.105879/2016 (LA-RES) FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREBY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶39

In WA No.100348/2017:

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

RAVI S/O KESHAVARAV NERLEKAR AGE: 62 YEARS,

¶42

NITEEN S/O KESHAVARAV NERLEKAR AGE: 60 YEARS,

¶43

PRADEEP S/O KESHAVARAV NERLEKAR AGE: 56 YEARS,

¶44

SATEESH S/O KESHAVARAV NERLEKAR AGE: 52 YEARS,

¶45

MADHAV S/O NARAYAN NERLEKAR AGE: 85 YEARS,

¶46

PUNEET S/O MADHAV NERLEKAR AGE: 43 YEARS,

¶47

SMT.SHARMEELA W/O PROMOD NERLEKAR AGE: 67 YEARS,

¶48

ALL ARE R/O: CTS NO.109/G2, LAXMI TALKIES, DHARWAD.

¶49

... APPELLANTS

¶50

(By Sri.: S.S. BETURMATH, ADV.)

¶51

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶52

¶53

AND :

¶54

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NO.504, 5TH FLOOR, 4TH GATE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶55

THE SPL. LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HDBRTS OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, KSFC BUILDING, RAYAPUR, DHARWAD.

¶56

... RESPONDENTS

¶57

(By Sri.C.S. PATIL, GA; SRI.C.V.ANGADI ADV. FOR C/R2)

¶58

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2017 PASSED W.P.NO.106460/2016 (LA-RES) FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AND THEREBY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶59

In WA No.100349/2017:

¶60

BETWEEN:

¶61

VILAS S/O TUKARAM GAONKAR AGE: 53 YEARS,

¶62

PROMOD S/O TUKARAM GAONKAR AGE: 50 YEARS,

¶63

AJIT S/O TUKARAM GAONKAR AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

¶64

ALL ARE R/O: NAGARKAR COLONY, NEAR HUBBALLI TOLL NAKA, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD.

¶65

... APPELLANTS

¶66

(By Sri.: S.S. BETURMATH, ADV.)

¶67

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶68

¶69

AND:

¶70

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NO.504, 5TH FLOOR, 4TH GATE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶71

THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HDBRTS OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, KSFC BUILDING, RAYAPUR, DHARWAD.

¶72

... RESPONDENTS

¶73

(By Sri.C.S. PATIL, GA)

¶74

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2017 PASSED W.P.NO.106459/2016 (LA-RES) FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AND THEREBY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶75

In WA No.100350/2017:

¶76

BETWEEN:

¶77

VENKATESH S/O MUDDURAO BEDAGBETTU AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: "MAITRI PALACE", DHARWAD.

¶78

K.B. SURYAKANTRAO S/O MADVARAO U. AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: "MAITRI PALACE", DHARWAD.

¶79

... APPELLANTS

¶80

(By Sri. S.S. BETURMATH, ADV.)

¶81

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶82

¶83

AND:

¶84

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NO.504, 5TH FLOOR, 4TH GATE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶85

THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HDBRTS OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, KSFC BUILDING, RAYAPUR, DHARWAD.

¶86

... RESPONDENTS

¶87

(By Sri.C.S. PATIL, GA; Sri.C.V.ANGADI, ADV. FOR C/R2)

¶88

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2017 PASSED W.P.Nos.106462/2016 AND 109649/2016(LA-RES) FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AND THEREBY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITIONS AND ETC.

¶89

In WA No.100354/2017:

¶90

BETWEEN:

¶91

SMT. DUNDAVVA W/O BASAVANNEPPA TEGUR AGE: 70 YEARS, R/O: NEAR NTTF, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD.

¶92

BASAVARAJ S/O BASAVANNEPPA TEGUR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NEAR NTTF, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD.

¶93

MALLIKARJUN

¶94

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶95

¶96

S/O BASAVANNEPPA TEGUR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NEAR NTTF, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD.

¶97

PARAMESHWAR S/O BASAVANNEPPA TEGUR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NEAR NTTF, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD. (By Sri. S.S. BETURMATH, ADV.) AND:

¶98

... APPELLANTS

¶99

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NO.504, 5TH FLOOR, 4TH GATE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶100

THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HDBRTS OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, KSFC BUILDING, RAYAPUR, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENTS

¶101

(By Sri.C.S. PATIL, GA; Sri.C.V.ANGADI, ADV. FOR C/R2)

¶102

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2017 PASSED W.P.NO.106453/2016 (LA-RES) FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AND THEREBY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶103

In WA No.100357/2017:

¶104

BETWEEN:

¶105

RAJASHEKHAR S/O BASAVARAJ KITTUR

¶106

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶107

¶108

AGE: 56 YEARS, JAYANAGAR, BARAKOTRI LINK ROAD, DHARWAD. (By Sri. S.S. BETURMATH, ADV.)

¶109

... APPELLANT

¶110

AND:

¶111

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NO.504, 5TH FLOOR, 4TH GATE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶112

THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HDBRTS OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, KSFC BUILDING, RAYAPUR, DHARWAD.

¶113

... RESPONDENTS

¶114

(By Sri.C.S. PATIL, GA FOR R1 AND Sri. C.V. ANGADI FOR C/R2)

¶115

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2017 PASSED W.P.NO.106452/2016 (LA-RES) FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREBY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶116

In WA No.100359/2017:

¶117

BETWEEN:

¶118

SANJAY S/O BASAVARAJ KITTUR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: LAXMI NIVAS, JUBILEE CIRCLE, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD.

¶119

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶120

¶121

SMT.SHAKUNTALA W/O BASAVARAJ KITTUR AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: LAXMI NIVAS, JUBILEE CIRCLE, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD.

¶122

... APPELLANTS

¶123

(By Sri. S S BETURMATH)

¶124

AND:

¶125

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NO.504, 5TH FLOOR, 4TH GATE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶126

THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HDBRTS OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, KSFC BUILDING, RAYAPUR, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENTS

¶127

(By Sri.C.S. PATIL, GA FOR R1 AND Sri. C.V. ANGADI FOR C/R2)

¶128

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2017 PASSED W.P.NO.105881/2016 (LA-RES) FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AND THEREBY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶129

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS REG. NONCOMPLIANCE OF OFFICE OBJECTIONS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶130

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶131

¶132

J U D G M E N T

¶133

These Writ appeals are listed on account of office objections not being removed.

¶134

They arise from the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.03.2017 passed inter alia, in W.P. Nos.105885/2016, 105879/2016, 106460/2016, 106459/2016, 106462/2016 & 109649/2016, 106453/2016, 106452/2016 and

¶135

105881/2016. Since the issue raised in these appeals are identical, they have been clubbed together.

¶136

Learned counsel for the appellants seeks a short accommodation to remove office objections. However, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri C.V.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for

¶137

caveator/respondent No.2 jointly submit that in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.100221-25 of 2017 (LA-RES)

¶138

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶139

¶140

and connected writ appeals (Anil and others V/s

¶141

State of Karnataka and another) dated 19.04.2017, these appeals would have to be dismissed by following the aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute the fact that the judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ appeals would squarely apply. However, the said judgment has been assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter is pending consideration.

¶142

In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that it is unnecessary for this Court to grant time to the appellants to remove office objections as the same would be an academic exercise in view of the fact that this appeal would have to be dismissed by following the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 19.04.2017 referred to above.

¶143

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶144

¶145

In the circumstances, we issue notice to

¶146

the respondents so as to dispose of the appeal by following the above mentioned judgment. Learned Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.2 accepts notice for respondent No.2.

¶147

We have perused the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Anil and others V/s State of Karnataka and another dated 19.04.2017.

¶148

7. It is submitted by the respective counsel

¶149

that the said judgment squarely applies to these appeals.

¶150

Submission is placed on record. The relevant portions of the said judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court are extracted as under:

¶151

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶152

¶153

10. We are of the considered opinion that the present Writ Appeals are devoid of any merit and the litigation by the present set of petitioners-appellants is a futile and unsustainable attempt on their part to delay the said Project of great public importance merely by the pendency of the litigation in the Courts of law. We do not find any merit in the legal contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants and we are of the clear opinion that the provisions of the new Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 cannot be applied to the land acquisition in the present case initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 by the issuance of a Notification under Section 15 of the Act way back in the year 2012 on 21^st November 2012, much before the commencement of the new RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 with effect from 01^st January 2014.

¶154

11. It is a misconception of the appellants-petitioners that merely because the State Government has adopted the yardsticks and criteria for determining the market value of compensation on the basis of principles

¶155

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶156

¶157

enacted in the new Land Acquisition Act, 2013 in the Government Order dated 14^th November 2014 and even the Addendum-I issued by the respondent-HDBRTS Company Limited in November 2015, as envisaged and permitted under Sections 103 and 107 of the Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013, the said RTFCTLARR Act of 2013 itself became applicable to the present acquisition. It is the date of initial Notification for an acquisition like under Section 4 of the old Central Land Acquisition Act of 1894 or Section 15 of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964, which is relevant to determine the applicable law. By Government Order dated 14^th November 2014 or the Addendum issued by HDBRTS Company Limited in November 2015, neither the Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 could be made applicable to the present land acquisition of 2012 nor it has been so done by the respondent-State Government. Therefore, the claim of the appellants that the Act of 2013 applies to the present acquisition and all proceedings for determining the compensation have to be undertaken accordingly is a misconception and the same deserves to be rejected. We do not find any

¶158

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶159

¶160

error in the findings of the learned Single Judge in this regard repelling this contention.

¶161

12. Section 24(2) of the Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 has no application to the present case. Firstly, this acquisition is not under old Central Land Acquisition Act 1894, but under Karnataka Highways Act, 1964. Therefore, Section 24(2) of the Act ex-facie does not apply. Secondly, the possession of the land had also been taken long back and awards have also been passed under Karnataka Highways Act, a majority of them being Consent Awards under Section 27 of the State Act of 1964. Moreover, the new Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 does not over-ride and repeal the State’s Karnataka Highways Act, 1964, but as rightly submitted, new Act is not in derogation but in addition to existing State laws in this regard as prescribed under Section 103 and 105 of the said Act of 2013. Therefore, on the own showing of the appellants-petitioners, the acquisition in the present case could not be said to have lapsed, attracting the provisions of the new RTFCTLARR Act, 2013, when the appellants

¶162

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶163

¶164

themselves admit that the present acquisition is under State’s Law (The Karnataka Highways Act, 1964) and they are only seeking enhanced compensation to be paid under the new Central Act of 2013, their contention that Section 24(2) of the Act applies in the present case is demolished by their own contention of claiming only the compensation in terms of new Act of 2013, which we have found to be not applicable to the present acquisition at all.

¶165

13. On the other hand, the draft Award at Annexure ‘E1’ in the present case under Section 28 of the Karnataka Highways Act 1964 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Dharwad on 28^th March 2012 and the Final award was passed vide Annexure ‘F’ on 08^th June 2016. It was also informed at the Bar by the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of compensation in terms of the said award has already been deposited with the Reference Court, but the appellantspetitioners have failed to take the disbursement of that compensation, despite intimations sent to them in this regard. However, a majority of land-losers have so

¶166

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶167

¶168

taken their compensation under the Consent Awards passed under Section 27 of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964.

¶169

14. The second contention of the appellants-petitioners that the Award deserves to be quashed, because it was not passed in terms of the provisions of the new Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013, falls to the ground, once we hold that the Act of 2013 does not and cannot be applied to the present acquisition initiated by issuance of the Notification under Section 15 of the Karnataka Highways Act way back on 21^st November 2012, much before the commencement of the new RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 on 01^st January 2014, irrespective of the enhanced compensation awarded on the basis of policy decisions taken by the State Government in the Government Order dated 14^th November 2014. The contention of the appellants that by this Policy decision, the Central RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 was made applicable to the present acquisition is absolutely misconceived and is liable to be rejected. By subordinate Executive Policy decision, like the Government Order

¶170

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶171

¶172

dated 14^th November 2014, neither the Central Act of 2013 could be applied to this acquisition nor it has been so done. The legislative enactment has a place much higher than such Policy decision in the form of Government Orders. The Policy decision to pay higher market value in consonance with the letter and spirit of Sections 105 and 107 of the RTFCTLARR Act, 2013 does not ipso facto or ipso jure make that enactment of 2013 itself applicable to the present acquisition as a whole. The acquisition still continues to remain under the provisions of Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 and continues to be governed by the provisions of the same State enactment.

¶173

15. The appellants can approach the Reference Court under Section 35 the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 if they are dissatisfied with the Award already passed and can seek modification of the same upon establishing their claim on the basis of relevant evidence, but such proceedings does not have and cannot have any effect on the progress and completion of the said BRTS Project in question. The aforesaid contention of the

¶174

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶175

¶176

learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, cannot be accepted in law and the same is accordingly rejected.

¶177

16. x x x x x x x x x

¶178

17. x x x x x x x x x

¶179

21. Now, with the conclusion that we have arrived at that even there is no merit in the Writ Appeals also, and the said writ appeals also have to be dismissed as being without merit, we do not find any ground in granting any relief to the present appellantspetitioners in the present appeals.

¶180

22. x x x x x x x x x

¶181

23. x x x x x x x x x

¶182

24. We further direct the Respondents to complete the said Project expeditiously within a period of six months from now and we make it clear that there is no interim order operating or shall be operative against the completion of the said Project either from this Court or any subordinate Courts, except with the specific order from the Division Bench of this Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

¶183

WA No.100345/2017 & Connected cases

¶184

¶185

Following the aforesaid judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, relevant portions of which are extracted above, which squarely applies to these cases, the writ appeals are dismissed but without any order as to costs.

¶186

SD/JUDGE

¶187

SD/JUDGE

¶188

MNS/RK/-

T. Krishna Puranik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Krishna Puranik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anita D/O Shankar Joshi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Janabai W/O Balasaheb 2 Balaso Jatar Vs Bahubali S/O Vrushabh Kalshetty

Manoj S. Kawalekar Vs the Registrar

Smt. Smitha W/O Vinayak Jadhav Vs Sri. Nakul S.S., IAS

Mallikarjuna Siddappa Sangreshi Vs the State of Karnataka

Ghishibhai W/O Champalal Shah Vs the State of Karnataka