Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

Karnatka High Court Upholds Appointment of Psychiatrist to Assess Plaintiff’s Mental Capacity

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, the appointment of a psychiatrist to ascertain the mental capacity of the plaintiff has been upheld. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh on 21st July 2023, revolves around an appeal filed under Section 76 of the Mental Health Act, 1987.

The case, M.F.A. No.4815/2021 (MH), involved a dispute over the alienation of property by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 without seeking court permission or appointing a guardian. The plaintiff, T. Sheshadri, represented by a next friend, claimed to be of unsound mind and incapable of understanding things due to a mental disorder.

The Trial Court, in its order dated 15.09.2021, allowed the plaintiff’s application under Section 50(1) and (4) of the Mental Health Act, 1987 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The application sought the appointment of a Senior Psychiatrist or a Psychologist to assess the plaintiff’s mental condition and submit a report.

The appellant argued that the Trial Court failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 50(2) of the Mental Health Act, which requires personal examination of the alleged mentally ill person by the Court and obtaining a report from the concerned health authority.

However, Justice H.P. Sandesh rejected this argument, stating, “Compliance with Section 50 of the Act is evident as the Court called for a report from NIMHANS and provided an opportunity for the defendants to cross-examine witnesses after receiving the expert report.”

Furthermore, the appellant contended that relief should have been sought under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The Court, however, held that the 2017 Act was not applicable in this case as it was filed before the repeal of the old Act.

The judgment affirms the Trial Court’s decision to obtain an expert report to assess the plaintiff’s mental capacity and rejects the appeal. The Trial Court has been directed to dispose of the matter within one year from the date of the judgment.

Date of Decision: 21st July, 2023

SHESHADRI vs SRINIVASA PRAKASH,

Similar News