Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Analysis and Conclusion - Sources lack the queried case; snippets highlight recurring Damodara Naidu in civil disputes (family, property, insurance) across Indian courts, with incidental government mentions unrelated to litigation against Government of India. No substantive insights on query; likely not covered ["MR. DAMODARA NAIDU V vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"] ["G. Krishnamoorthy VS Padmavathy - Madras"] ["SRI. GOGINENI DAMODARA Vs M/S HDFC BANK LTD - Karnataka"] ["Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu VS A. R. Damodara Mudaliar and Company - Madras"]
In the vast landscape of Indian jurisprudence, case names like C.K. Damodara Naidu v. Government of India often spark interest among legal researchers, practitioners, and those navigating disputes involving government entities. Whether it's a challenge to government actions, land acquisition, or contractual obligations, understanding landmark or referenced judgments is crucial. However, thorough research sometimes reveals gaps in available records. This post delves into a detailed examination of the queried case C.K. Damodara Naidu v. Government of India, based on provided legal documents, and explores tangentially related precedents featuring similar names, particularly in negotiable instruments and land acquisition contexts.
Important Disclaimer: This article provides general information for educational purposes and is not intended as legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation.
When researching C.K. Damodara Naidu v. Government of India (also phrased as C K Damodara Naidu vs Union of India), one expects holdings on constitutional challenges, administrative law, or civil disputes against the state. Yet, exhaustive review of the supplied legal materials yields a striking finding: The provided legal documents do not contain, reference, or analyze the judgment C K Damodara Naidu vs Union of India. No details, holdings, or principles from this specific case are present. Vishal VS Prakash Kadappa Hegannawar - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 309
Document Scope: The primary source Vishal VS Prakash Kadappa Hegannawar - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 309 is a list of judgments relied upon by counsels in an unrelated proceeding. It enumerates cases cited by the appellant's counsel, such as K.N.Beena v. Muniyappan (2001 (7) Supreme 810), Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008 (1) Supreme 306), and Rangappa v. Sri Mohan ((2010) 11 SCC 441). For the accused, it lists K.Subramani v. K.Damodara Naidu ((2015) 1 SCC 99), Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019 (3) KCCR 2473), and Shiva Murthy v. Amruthraj (ILR 2008 Kar 4629). Vishal VS Prakash Kadappa Hegannawar - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 309
No Direct Match: None of the listed cases match C K Damodara Naidu vs Union of India by title, parties, or citation. Vishal VS Prakash Kadappa Hegannawar - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 309 The nearest resemblance is K.Subramani v. K.Damodara Naidu, where K.Damodara Naidu appears as respondent, not petitioner, and without Union of India involvement. Vishal VS Prakash Kadappa Hegannawar - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 309
Inter-Document Gaps: With only one core document, no cross-references or timelines connect to the query. Name similarities (e.g., C.K. vs. K.) do not imply relevance without matching facts or parties. Vishal VS Prakash Kadappa Hegannawar - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 309
This absence underscores the limitations of isolated document sets and the need for comprehensive databases like SCC Online or Manupatra for full judgments.
While the exact case eludes us, numerous sources highlight K. Damodara Naidu in cheque dishonour matters under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). These provide valuable context, as cited lists often cluster around such themes. Vishal VS Prakash Kadappa Hegannawar - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 309
This Supreme Court decision is frequently invoked: The learned counsel for the accused has also relied on ... i) K.Subramani v. K.Damodara Naidu reported in (2015) 1 SCC 99. Vishal VS Prakash Kadappa Hegannawar - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 309 It addresses acquittals in Section 138 cases where the accused rebuts the presumption under Section 139 NI Act.
Core Principle: Accused was successful to rebut presumption available to her under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. R. Narender VS Yakamma Keloth or Kalyan The complainant must prove the cheque was for a legally enforceable debt; mere issuance triggers presumption, but probable defense shifts scrutiny. R. Narender VS Yakamma Keloth or Kalyan
Rebuttal Standard: Courts emphasize a prudent man reasonableness test. The rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that the court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable. S. Veerappan VS K. Sundar - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1103
Subsequent cases reinforce this:- In a revision petition, conviction was set aside as the respondent/complainant has not proved the vital and prime aspect that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. S. Veerappan VS K. Sundar - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1103- Another held: The burden is heavily upon the complainant to prove that he had requisite funds for having advanced the money. Padmanabhan VS State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 1541 Failure invites acquittal. Padmakumari VS Manoj Kumar - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 949
These precedents generally illustrate that under NI Act, presumptions favor complainants but are not insurmountable—accused can succeed with credible evidence. R. Narender VS Yakamma Keloth or KalyanPrasanta Lenka VS Birendra Nath Rana - 2020 Supreme(Ori) 14
Other sources suggest Damodara Naidu variants in government-related matters, potentially aligning with the queried case's Union of India angle.
Historical Reference: In order to buttress his submission he has referred to AIR 1972 Madras 386 (Damodara Naidu ... Patna High Court CWJC ... government in the Road Construction Department. Vinay Kumar Daruka vs The State Of Bihar and Ors This hints at construction or departmental disputes.
Land Acquisition Upholding: In a Madras High Court matter, The court upheld the validity of land acquisition proceedings, affirming that procedural compliance was met, negating any retrospective claims for re-conveyance. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs The Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58273 Key ratio: It is incumbent upon the government to ensure compliance with procedures ... historical context and completion of the process invalidate any retrospective claims. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs The Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58273
Writ Petitions: Karnataka High Court cases involve GOGINENI DAMODARA RAMAKRISHNA S/O GOGINENI VENKATAPPA DAMODARA NAIDU challenging Debt Recovery Tribunal matters, declining entertainment per Supreme Court precedents. SRI. GOGINENI DAMODARA Vs M/S HDFC BANK LTDSRI JAWAHAR KRISHNA G Vs HDFC BANK LTD
Though not matching C.K. Damodara Naidu v. Government of India, these evoke themes of challenging state actions under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Sections 4(1), 6). The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs The Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58273
No exceptions bridge the gap to the queried judgment. Analysis sticks to documents, avoiding external speculation. Vishal VS Prakash Kadappa Hegannawar - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 309
Recommendations:- Seek the full C.K. Damodara Naidu v. Government of India text via official repositories.- For NI Act parallels, cross-reference Rangappa ((2010) 11 SCC 441) and Subramani for rebuttal strategies. Vishal VS Prakash Kadappa Hegannawar - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 309- In land disputes, verify procedural compliance early to counter lapse claims. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs The Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58273
This exploration highlights interconnected Indian case law. Stay informed, and for personalized guidance, engage legal experts.
#DamodaraNaiduCase, #NIAct138, #SupremeCourtIndia
DAMODARA NAIDU V SON OF V GOPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. ... DAMODARA NAIDU V SON OF V GOPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. MRS. ... SRI V DAMODARA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O V GOPALA NAIDU 3. ... Earlier, in respect of the case initiated by Sri Damodara Naidu, this Court granted bail. ... Naidu and Smt.Gowri.
GOGINENI DAMODARA RAMAKRISHNA S/O GOGINENI VENKATAPPA DAMODARA NAIDU, R/AT NO.1334, 26TH MAIN, 27TH CROSS, ... PARIJATHA W/O GOGINENI DAMODARA RAMAKRISHNA DAMODARA NAIDU, R/AT NO.1334, 26TH MAIN, 27TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, KUM SONIKA KRISHNA G D/O GOGINENI DAMODARA RAMAKRISHNA DAMODARA NAIDU, R/AT NO.1334, 26TH MAIN, 27TH
A sum of Rs.2,60,000/- which is the insurance claim is entitled to be received by Sri Damodara Naidu under due identification from State Bank of India Life Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred ... In view of the settlement inter se, Damodara Naidu to receive the insurance claim in a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- from Insurance Company, Master Policy No.70000018311 (SBI Lite- RiNn Raksha ... Naidu, as Sri Rakesh has already given letter to the State Bank of India. ... learned counsel submits ....
GOGINENI DAMODARA RAMAKRISHNA S/O GOGINENI VENKATAPPA DAMODARA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.1334, 26TH MAIN, 27TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2 ... before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and as such this Court declines to entertain this petition, particularly in the background of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India ... G.K.PARIJATH W/O GOGINENI DAMODARA RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.1334, 26TH MAIN, 27TH CROSS, D/O GOGINE....
Hence, Perumal Naidu had adopted one Ramachandra Naidu as his son, whose son was Damodara Naidu. The said Damodaran Naidu died leaving behind the plaintiffs, who are his widow and children. ... Perumal Naidu had two daughters through his first wife and one daughter through his second wife and he had no male issue and hence, he adopted a son, by name, Ramachandran, whose son is Damodara Naidu. The 1st respondent is the widow and respondents 2 and 3 ar....
In order to buttress his submission he has referred to AIR 1972 Madras 386 (Damodara Naidu and others v. Thirupurasundari Ammal and another) and AIR 1951 Orissa 124 (Chairman, District Board, Puri & ors v. C.H. Achaya). ... In an identical case like the present one, the Madras High Court in the case of Damodara Naidu case (supra) held in para 10, as under: ... “I am, therefore, of opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to have access to the public road abutting item 1 free of any obstruction and for ... The G....
In order to buttress his submission he has referred to AIR 1972 Madras 386 (Damodara Naidu and High Court in the case of Damodara Naidu case (supra) held in Patna High Court CWJC ... Since the government in the Road Construction Department was going with the construction of p style="position:absolute;white-space
Venkata Varadiah Maistry 2.Damodara Maistry minor by Varadammal. ... Venkatavaradian Maistry, Damodara Maistry minors by guardian Varadammal. 2. Venkatavaradiah Maistry Damodara Maistry represented by Aailakshmi ammal. 3.The Management of Pachayappa's Trust. ... The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in and by its order dated 04.10.2010 directed that the compensation amount due to the respondents which has been deposited with the Reserve Bank of India may be released to the respondent, with interest, if any. ... Subsequently....
P S DAMODARA. S/O LATE P V SURYANAR. ... P S DAMODARA, S/O LATE P V SURYANARAYANA, S/O LATE M NARASAIAH NAIDU, S/O LATE M NARASAIAH NAIDU, SRI M JANARADHAN S/O LATE M NARASAIAH NAIDU
Damodara Naidu … Respondent(s) REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ... NAIDU Respondent(s) VERSUS appellant/accused were working as lecturers in a Government
In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent relied upon the following judgments: And others v. Magnum Aviation Private Limited and another, (2014) Law Suit (SC) 252. 1. K. Subramani v. K. Damodara Naidu, (2015) 1 SCC 99.
(i) T. Nagappa Vrs. Y.R. Muralidhar, (2008) 2 SCC(Cri) 677 ; (ii) K.S. Subramani Vrs. K. Damodara Naidu, (2015) 1 SCC(Cri) 576 ; and (iii) Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vrs. State of Gujarat, (2019) AIR(SC)(Cri) 775 .
“Three Judge Bench of this Court in the decision in Rangappa case (supra) laid down that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the N.I. (iii) K. Subramani vs. K. Damodara Naidu in Crl.A.2402 of 2014, dated 13.11.2014 41...Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that the court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'.” Act includes a presumption that th....
Simon C. Abraham, 2014 (2) SCC 236 and K. Subramani vs. K. Damodara Naidu, (2015) 1 SCC 99, etc. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions as in John K. Abraham vs. Accordingly, the petitioner's counsel would strongly urge that as the complainant has miserably failed to adduce any convincing and material evidence to prove abovesaid crucial fact regarding the source of funds to make borrowal transaction, the complainant is not entitled to draw the statutory presumption under Section 118 (a) and Section 139 of th....
Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case in K.Subramani v. K.Damodara Naidu (2015) I SCC 99. The Apex Court in the judgment in John K.Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham and another (2014) 2 SCC 236 has held that in order to draw the presumption under Section 118(a) read with Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden is heavily upon the complainant to prove that he had requisite funds for having advanced the money to the accused in the borrowal transaction. Since the complainant has not adduced any evidence whatsoever to prove his source of funds, i....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
