Karnataka Civil Judge mains PYQs

Bar Council issues notice to 16 lawyers over bench hunting at P&H High Court, will also seek response from Singhvi and Rohatgi
https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/bar-council-to-seek-response-from-singhvi-rohatgi-over-bench-hunting-at-ph-high-court

What does bench hunting means.

An extract from earlier instance not related or mentioned in the above-mentioned article

The Court opined that in case the earlier petition was wrongly dismissed, the proper course was to apply for recall of the said order. It was held that filing of a writ petition seeking certain reliefs and then withdrawing the same with liberty to file a fresh writ petition; and again filing a writ petition seeking the same relief before another Bench, would amount to be “Bench hunting”, which could not be allowed. Therefore, this petition was dismissed as not maintainable. [Dheer Singh v. State of U.P., 2019]...

@CurrentLegalGK

PIL Filed In Supreme Court Seeking Mechanism For Appointment Of A 'Politically-Neutral' CAG; Questions Current CAG's Appointment
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-pil-for-transparent-mechanism-to-appoint-comptroller-and-auditor-general-cag-301018

Lord krishna - The best mediator.

Happy Janmashtmi 🙏

#Mediation@CurrentLegalGK

PIL in March where notice issued to Union of India

Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs Union of India W.P.(C) No. 194/2025

Recent PIL
LOK PRAHARI THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S N SHUKLA, I.A.S. (RETD.), ADVOCATE Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 17740-2025

@CurrentLegalGK

'Child's Right To Know Parentage Overrides Parent's Right To Privacy': Punjab & Haryana High Court
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-upholds-order-for-dna-test-man-right-to-privacy-overrides-child-right-to-know-parentage-301066

🌅 #Quote_@CurrentLegalGK

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

— Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1906), paraphrasing Voltaire’s beliefs

Article 19

☝️ What does non-obstante clause means

A non-obstante clause is generally incorporated in a statute to give an overriding effect to a particular section or the statute as a whole. While interpreting a non-obstante clause, the court is required to find out the extent to which the legislature intended to do so and the context in which the non-obstante clause is used.
This rule of interpretation has been applied in several decisions.

#IOS@CurrentLegalGK

Supreme Court Explains Criteria For Grant Of Interim Injunctions In Trademark Infringement Cases
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-explains-criteria-for-grant-of-interim-injunctions-in-trademark-infringement-cases-301179

Following criteria are generally applied in granting injunction

(i) Serious question to be tried / triable issue:

The plaintiff must show a genuine and substantial question fit for trial. It is not necessary to establish a likelihood of success at this stage, but the claim must be more than frivolous, vexatious or speculative.

(ii) Likelihood of confusion / deception

: Although a detailed analysis of merits is not warranted at the interlocutory stage, courts may assess the prima facie strength of the case and the probability of consumer confusion or deception. Where the likelihood of confusion is weak or speculative, interim relief may be declined at the threshold.

(iii) Balance of convenience:

The court must weigh the inconvenience or harm that may result to either party from the grant or refusal of injunction. If the refusal would likely result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill or mislead consumers, the balance of convenience may favor granting the injunction.

(iv) Irreparable harm

: Where the use of the impugned mark by the defendant may lead to dilution of the plaintiff's brand identity, loss of consumer goodwill, or deception of the public – harms which are inherently difficult to quantify – the remedy of damages may be inadequate. In such cases, irreparable harm is presumed.

(v) Public interest

: In matters involving public health, safety, or widely consumed goods, courts may consider whether the public interest warrants injunctive relief to prevent confusion or deception in the marketplace.

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHER
VERSUS
KARANVEER SINGH CHHABRA
2025


@CurrentLegalGK

#Tip@CurrentLegalGK

Always the judgments of substantive law must be read with facts .

Eg. BNS, ICA, Tort, POCSO, DV, Dowry

Why?
To avoid reading multiple judgments with different reasoning because reasoning differs with facts but the core reasoning will get build up once you read analysis of some important judgments on substantially varied facts.