On account of acute shortage of drinking water the municipal authorities took possession of borewells belonging to some farmers for supplying water to the villagers. The Karnataka High Court held that while the state is obligated to provide water to the public, it cannot take over borewells on private property. The state?s contention that the farmers cannot stake a claim on groundwater is without merit as there is no legislation governing right to use groundwater. The action of the respondents amounts to violation of fundamental right (Ashok Kademani vs State of Karnataka).

A husband filed a petition (in 2002) for divorce that also prayed for a DNA test that the son (born 1988) is not his. The Madras High Court noted that his wife had earlier filed a partition suit claiming share of her minor son in 1997 i.e. prior to filing for divorce and in order to get over such a claim, the father denied paternity and later asked for a DNA test. Rejecting the prayer, the court held that although courts have ample powers to order DNA tests they can do so where there is a prima facie case, which is not so in the instant case (S. Thangavele vs S. Kannammal).

In a case relating to dishonour of a cheque (Rs 21,600), the accused raised a plea that the complainant deliberately omitted to mention that after dishonour of such cheque the accused later paid Rs 10,000 (which was also demanded apart from the amount the cheque covered) and the proceedings are therefore liable to be quashed. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that when there is a clear demand for payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, and the amount was not paid within the stipulated notice period, failure to mention payment of the additional amount cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings (Vupala Venkata Nageshwara Rao vs Tulluri Chit Funds).

SOLON