Two-day national moot court competition at Chanakya varsity
B.M. Shyam Prasad, Justice, High Court of Karnataka, was the chief guest. He appreciated the university's motto and emphasised moot courts as vital pedagogical tools. M.K. Sridhar, Chancellor of the university, highlighted the role of multidisciplinary education in shaping legal minds.
Pro-Vice Chancellor H.S. Subramanya and Chetan B. Singai, Dean, School of Law, Governance and Public Policy, also addressed the gathering.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
10 hours ago
- The Hindu
Eligible voters of cooperative society have no right to seek list of voters when law mandates publication of ineligible voters list: Karnataka High Court
The High Court of Karnataka has said that no eligible voting member of a cooperative society has the right to seek the list of other eligible voting members as the societies are tasked with publishing the list of only ineligible voters under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. Noticing that it is only at the time of elections that the electoral roll is prepared, the court said that the list of eligible voters cannot be provided on submission of application merely because some members want to plan their campaign. Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by H.M. Vishwanath and three others, all members of various primary agriculture credit cooperative societies in Tumakuru district. The petitioners had moved the court as the Tumkuru District Central Cooperative Bank had not entertained their applications filed in June for providing provisional eligible and ineligible voters lists of primary credit cooperative societies; taluk agricultural producers cooperative marketing society; Group C and D primary credit cooperatives societies, and women's self-help group cooperatives societies. Stating that it is not for the petitioners to espouse the cause of ineligible voters by filing the present petition, the court said that if at all, the person named in the ineligible voters list has any grievances regarding the same, they have their own remedy under the rules as the society publishes the list of ineligible voters on its notice board. 'They could always verify who are the members of the society and, being aware of who the ineligible voters are, they can plan their campaign as regards the other members whose names are not found in the ineligible list,' the court said.
New Indian Express
3 days ago
- New Indian Express
Karnataka HC rejects govt appeal in SC/ST Act case, flags delay in filing plea
BENGALURU: Rejecting the appeal filed by the state government against the acquittal of the accused for offences committed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the High Court of Karnataka asked the prosecution to draw the attention of the legislature to find a remedy for not filing the appeal against the acquittal within the stipulated period. 'It is always open for the special public prosecutor (SPP) to place a copy of this order before the legislature to amend the statute if need be to provide a remedy for a litigant in such circumstances, where the delay has occurred on account of reasons that are not attributable to a negligent litigant, but on account of bonafide reasons,' said Justice V Srishananda while rejecting the appeal filed by the government against the acquittal order of September 7, 2023, passed by the district and sessions court at Yadagiri. Before this, SPP BA Belliappa contended that taking away the right of appeal only on the grounds of technicality may be harsh in a given case and substantial justice would be denied to a litigant. The court, however, said no doubt there is merit in the arguments put forth by the SPP. Nevertheless, since there is a statutory bar which is mandatory in nature in view of the word 'shall' being found in the second provision to Section 14(2) of the Act. As such, the courts are only expected to enforce the law that has been enacted by the legislature. Arguing on behalf of the accused, Basalingappa and five others from Shahapur, their counsel contended that the court has no power to condone the delay of more than 180 days as per Section 14-A of the Act. The accused were acquitted for the offences under the Act and also under the provisions of the IPC.
The Hindu
3 days ago
- The Hindu
Karnataka High Court refuses to entertain govt. appeal filed after 381 days against acquittal of six persons for insulting Scheduled Caste person
Stating that there is a clear bar in the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to entertain an appeal beyond 180 days after the pronouncement of verdict by trial courts, the High Court of Karnataka has refused to entertain an appeal filed by the State government after 381 days. '...the framers of legislation have made a proviso wherein there is a total bar for entertaining the appeal after 180 days. Therefore, in view of the statutory bar, the delay of 381 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned,' the court said. Justice V. Srishananda passed the order while dismissing an appeal filed by the State government against the September 7, 2023 verdict of a sessions court in Yadgiri district, acquitting six persons from the charges of insulting a member of the SC community in public view and other offences alleged to have been committed in 2014. The State Public Prosecutor (SPP) had argued that taking away the right of appeal only on the ground of technicality would be harsh in a given case and substantial justice would be denied to a complainant only on the technical ground of limitation of 180 days. However, the court pointed out that Section 14-A(2) of the 1989 Act provides only 90 days to file an appeal before the High Court against the judgement of the trial courts while granting liberty to the HC to condone the delay, after the expiry of the period of 90 days if it [HC] is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within 90 days. As a provision to Section 4(3) of the Act makes it clear that 'no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of 180 days', the court said that it has no jurisdiction in law to entertain the appeal after 180 days. Meanwhile, the court said that it would be open for the SPP to bring to the notice of the State legislature on requirement to amend the statute, if need be, to provide a remedy for a litigant in such circumstances, where the delay occurs on account of the reasons that are not attributable to a negligent litigant, but on account of bonafide reasons.
