SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 1

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.
State of Karnataka and Others v. NIL


1.This petition is posted before me on the objections raised by the office that the caveat filed by the State Government cannot be registered as the name of the respondent has not been shown and also the requirements of sub-sec. (2) of S.148 - A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has not been complied.

2. Sri D'Sa, learned Government Advocate submitted that the requirement of sub-sec. (2) of S.148A of the Code is required to be complied with, wherever, it is possible to identify the person, who is likely to institute a proceedings against a person; and who is likely to make an application in such proceedings; and whenever it is not possible to identify such a person, the requirement of sub-sec. (2) of S.148A of the Code can be dispensed with as it is impossible of compliance. He pointed out that the object of S.148A of the Code is to give any person who claims right to appear before the Court in respect of the proceedings instituted against him and contest the claim of the opposite party and that being the object, if the requirement of sub-sec. (2) of S.148A of the Code, which provides for service of caveat petition on the person who is likely to








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top