IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme 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,

Latest Legal News