Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 001 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 290Nominal Index:Raghvendraraddi Shivaraddi Naduvinamani AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 1H B Bhagyalakshmi AND Cheluvamma. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 2Late H.H. Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 3Hemanth Raju AND Punitha H J and Another. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 4ABC AND State...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 001 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
Nominal Index:
Raghvendraraddi Shivaraddi Naduvinamani AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
H B Bhagyalakshmi AND Cheluvamma. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
Late H.H. Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
Hemanth Raju AND Punitha H J and Another. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
Channabasappa Hosmani AND Parvatevva alias Kasturevva & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
Jagdeep Rao AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
M/S. V.K. Niranjan And Co Versus Commissioner Of Service Tax. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar)8
Adarsh Developers Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
H Manjunath AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
All India HDPE/PP Woven Fabric Manufacturers Association AND The Secretary Government of India, Competition Commission of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad AND Government of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
Sanjay M Peerapur & Another & Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
H T Munikumar & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
ANI Technologies Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
Gururaj Jeevan Rao And State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
Nagaraj AND The Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
G R Medical College Hospital and Research Centre AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
M/S Hatsoff Helicopter Training P Limited Versus State Of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath AND Ganesha & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
Sharadha L Dodmani AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
Shrishail AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
M/s Thakur Industries AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
Koshy Varghese AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
Mudiyappa AND Basavaraj @ Basappa & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
Shrikant Bhat AND The State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
Harish K B AND Ponnamma & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
Sadatulla Syed AND National Investigation Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
Ramesh Timmanna Umarani AND The Sub-Registrar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
Nanjundappa & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 32
Vihaan Peethambar AND Manipal University. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
Dr Rajini C K AND The State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
Raktima Khanum AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
The New India Assurance Company Limited AND Sadika & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
Anjinamma & Others AND Mohammed Sajjad Sait & ANR . 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
M/s Ownpath Learning Private Limited AND State By Intelligence Officer & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
K L Shivanna AND Deputy Commissioner, Tumkuru District. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
M/s Achiever Agri India (P) Ltd & Others AND State By Sub Inspector Hebbagodi Police Station & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
Master Thejas & Another AND C R Babu. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
ABC AND Union of India. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
Chikkanna AND Karnataka State Bar Council & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
SHREE RAMACHANDRAPURA MATH AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
Aishwaryagiri Constructions PVT Ltd AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
M/s ICICI Lombard Company Ltd AND Ms Harshitha B & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
Management of M/s Tata Advanced System Limited AND The Secretary To Department of Labour & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
K T Suresh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 49
K Sajan Aiyappa AND Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Kodogu District. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 50
Manikeppa Helavar AND The State Through Mudhol P.S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 51
Anurag Bagaria Versus The Income Tax Department. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 52
ABC AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
H S Abdul Riyaz Basha AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 54
Anil H Lad AND Authorised Officer, Punjab and National Bank. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 55
MPHASIS LIMITED AND Ashok S Narayanpur. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 56
Kushal Ram Reddy AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 57
ABC & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
P V Rudrappa AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 59
M/S. NORTHROOF VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S. XYNC STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
Siddaramaiah AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 61
Ranga Trilochana Bedi @ R.T Bedi AND Kabir Bedi. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
M R Mohan Kumar & Others AND NIL. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
ABC and XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited AND Sidram Vithoba Maragali. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
Dr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty and Bureau Of Immigration. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 67
A Adinarayana Reddy AND S Vijayalakshmi & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 68
Central Relief Committee AND Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru District & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
Mohammed Refeeq AND S. Mohammed Fairoz Ahamed & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
Pallavi AND Mallamma & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
Seethalaxmi AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
Shelhan AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
M/s Ozone Urban Infra Developers PVT Ltd AND Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
The Bar Association Kittur & Anr AND The State Bar Counsel & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
Acharya Pathasala Educational Trust AND Rashmi Khatawakar & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
M/s. Armstrong Design And Acmite India Manufacturing Private Limited AND The Assistant Labour Commissioner. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
ABC AND State By Mysuru Women Police Station & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
State of Karnataka AND Prathap. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
Exalogic Solutions Private Ltd AND Union of India & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
H R Satyanarayana vs H C Suresha and Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 81
M/s. ICDS Ltd vs Sri Bhaskaran Pillai and Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 82
Smt. Vasanthi Ramdas Pai Versus Income Tax Officer. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
BBMP POWRAKARMIKAR SANGHA AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
The Divisional Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited AND Yunus & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
Annappa Appasab Mokashi & ANR AND The SLAO & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
T Narayana Reddy & ANR AND Nirmala & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 87
Shahen @ Hanifa AND Shivakumar Bolishetty & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 88
South Western Railway Catering Contractors Association AND The Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
M G Purshotham & Others AND N K Srinivasan & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 90
Bharatiya Janata Party AND Rizwan Arshad. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 91
Achutha Ayurveda Medical College Hospital and Research Centre & Others AND Union of India & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 92
K Lakshmi AND Canara Bank. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 93
Dr Rajesh Kumar D AND State of Karnataka & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
ABC AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 95
Shivappa AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
Mazin Abdul Rahman @ Mazin. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
Sharath Chandrasekhar AND Union of India. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 98
Sikandar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
Junaid B AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
Chinnammayya AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
A Alice AND Karnataka Transmission Corporation Limited. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 102
B A Umesh AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
B Mohammed Kunhi & ANR AND Abdul Saleem Hassan. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
Shariff Constructions AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 105
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
Dr Lata Krishnaraddi Mankali AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
Hemachandra M Kuppalli AND M/s R.B.Green Field & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & ANR AND K.N. Ningegowda & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
Arunkumar R & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
Umashankara C & Others AND Registrar General & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
XXX AND The Registrar General & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association & Another AND State of Karnataka & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
Dhanayya & Others AND Chandrashekhar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
Jayapal K M AND The Management of Shakti Precision Components (India) Limited. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
C Girish Naik & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
Razorpay Software Private Limited AND Union of India. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
Sunl G & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
D N Bhagya AND D A Mallikarjuna & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
Abdul Khader & ANR AND Tasleem Jamela Agadi & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
DR SHIVAMURTHY MURUGHA SHARANARU AND STATE BY KARNATAKA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
G Hemanth Chandra AND M/s Infrathon Projects Pvt Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
A.H.Makandar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
Mohammed Farughuddin AND Ramchandra Balu Shinde & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd Suvarna News 24/7 & Others AND Divya Spandana @ Ramya. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
State Of Karnataka & Others AND National Commission For Schedule Caste. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
Mahesh AND Ishwar & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 129
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 130
M/S MARGADARSI CHITS (K) PVT. LTD AND H SRINIVAS REDDY & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
Bhuvaneshwari AND Prashanth Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 132.
Alfa S AND The Chief Secretary & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
Nawaz Pasha & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
Mohammed Jabir AND National Investigation Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
Dr Madhukar G Angur AND Directorate of Enforcement. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
Sudha Katwa AND The Registrar General & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
Abdul Basheer & Others AND Inspector General of Police (Prisons) & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
State of Karnataka & Others And REGISTERED UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION KARNATAKA & others.2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
Jayashree AND Mahaningappa & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
N M Suresh AND Sudeep S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
Amith M Jain AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
Althaf Ahamed AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
THIMMAPPA AND THE STATE BY HOLALKERE POLICE. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
Veeranna G Tigadi AND High Court of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
Dr. Sridhara S AND The Director Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
Thimmappa & Others AND Bharathi. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
Ravi Kumar & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Authority & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
Ramanjaneyulu & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
Dr Yogananda A AND The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
Pooja AND Siddanna & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
Yathish M G AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
M/S. Mvr Constructions Vs M/S. V.M.R Constructions And Others.2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
M/s Bellary Nirmithi Kendra v. M/s Capital Metal Industries, Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
M/S Durga Projects Inc Vs Sri. B.G. Babu Reddy. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Syed Mohammed Hussain AND The Karnataka State Board of AUQAF & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 157
Fr. Valerian Fernandes AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 158
The Managing Director Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Others and L Mallikarjunappa. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 159
K C Cariappa AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 160
Parvathamma And The Joint Director. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
Shabnam Parveen Ahmad & ANR AND NIL. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
Jagan Chandy AND Jagadish K A. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
Varun Chopra & ANR AND Shyam Sunder Chopra. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
C Kempanna AND Munichannarayappa & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 165
Srinivas S N AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
T.Y. Subramani vs Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 167
Smt. K. C. Nagalambike and Ors. v. The Managing Director KSRTC & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
Sachin M R AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 169
King Solomon David & ANR AND Joint Secretary. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
Dayananda @ R Babu & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
Priyanka Singh AND Pankaj Singh Sengar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
M/s Pancharathna Enterprises AND The Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
Dr Guddadev Yadrami AND The Director & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 174
Rangaswamy AND Ravi Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
S.V.T PRODUCTS AND S.S PANDIAN AND SONS. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
Ninganna & Others AND State by Nanjangud Rural Police. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
B Lakshmidevi AND Rizwan Arshad. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
Dr Vidyavanthi U Patil AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
Prof Dr Kaushik Majumdar AND Indian Statistical Institute & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
Shashikala Jolle And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
H.M. TAMBOURINE APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION & Others AND Bangalore Development Authority & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt Ltd v. Manyata Infrastructure Developments Pvt Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
M/s Azeem Infinite Dwelling v. M/s Patel Engineering. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes AND K Chandrika. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
M/s Radical Works Pvt Ltd AND Padmanabh T G. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
P Anandan AND The Divisional Controller. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
R BHARATH AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 190.
Iranna & ANR AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
Vijayraj Surana AND CBI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
Raju Naik & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
M/s Sujal Pharma AND Karnataka State Medical Supplies Corporation Limited. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
Rojamani & Others AND Union Bank of India. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
KIKKERI KRISHNA MURTHY And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
B G Uday AND H G Prashanth. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
Smt. N. Bhuvaneshwari vs The Management of M/s Ambuthirtha Power Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Shashanka J Sreedhara AND B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Divisional Controller (South), N.W.K.R.T.C. vs Vasant B Jogi. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
Shivaraj Kamshetty v. The Managing Director Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
SRIVIDYA C G AND SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
Jayashankar AND The Assistant Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
Sultan Mohiyuddin & Others AND Habeebunissa & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
Somashekar AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
Dr Ravikumar N.K AND The State Of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
David D'souza AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
Padpara Patti, Syed Basha Aysb and Anr. vs The Labour Department Government of Karnataka Office at Labour Officer and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
The Management Of Nwkrtc, Gadag Division Vs Manjunath. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
V S Manjunath AND Chief Election Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
Lokesh Kumar AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
C Ganesh Narayan & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
Surya & CO & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
S Santosh Poojari AND State By Mudigere Police. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
Stone Hill Education Foundation AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
B T Kumar AND B N Kumar & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
B.M.S College Of Law AND Bar Council of India & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
Kalpatharu Breweries And Distilleries Pvt Ltd AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
Kumarvel Janakiram AND National Insurance Company LTD & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
Nagendra & Others AND Chandrakant Jain & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
The Branch Manager AND Sarojamma & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
Sayes Khalil Ulla Hussaini AND Chief Election Commission of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 223.
Samiulla Saheb & ANR AND Mohammed Sameer. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
Uma & ANR AND Banshankar & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
Chinnaswamy K AND Theosophy Company (Mysore) Pvt Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
The State of Karnataka AND Anil N B. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
Nagabhushan Reddy N & ANR AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
Adhilakshmi & Others AND K Chidanand. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
Ando Paul AND G Ismail Musliyar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 232
M Govinda Bhat & ANR AND The Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate and District Election Officer & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
Vasanthi AND Umesh G D. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
The Divisional Controller, KSRTC AND N N Mahadeva. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
Dr Sharanya Mohan & Others AND Union of India & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
Abdul Azeem AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
T Bharathgowda AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 238
The State of Karnataka & ANR AND Ramiah Reddy. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 239
Jnana Sarovar Educational Trust AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 240
D M Padmanabha & Others AND The State By Karnataka Lokayuktha & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 241
Muralidhara & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 242
Jithendra Kumar N M AND T Gururaj. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 243
Amit Chougule AND Megha. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 244
K B Lokesh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 245
V.S.S VISHNU SENA SANGHATANE & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 246
Shany Jose AND The Union of India & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 247
Vivek Jain AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 248
Rasheedabanu Mohammed Goush Kwati & ANR AND Ashpakaahamad Abdulasab Mulla & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 249
Neetha G AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 250
Vijaya Bank AND M Ravindra Shetty. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 251
Palaniswamy Veeraraja & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 252
Annegowda AND State By Yeshvanthapura Police Station & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 253
H Channaiah Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 254
City Municipal Council Channapatna AND Siddaramu & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 255. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
Santhosh Shetty & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
Rev. Devaraj Bangera And State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 258
X AND Karnataka Medical Council & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 259
M/s Akhila Karnataka Hindu Temples Priest Agamikas and Archaks Association And State of Karnataka & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 260
Dr Chethan Kumar S AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
C B Prakash & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
Nikil Sankla AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
Uemsha T N and Ors vs. State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
Mrs X AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
Alla Baksha Patel AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
Invest Karnataka Forum & ANR and M/s BBP Studio Virtual Bharath Pvt. Ltd & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 267
ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 268
Bhavani Revanna AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 269
Vijayalakshmi H S AND Principal Secretary & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 270
Lakkamma & Others AND Jayamma. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 271
Sagad Kareem Ismael AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 272
P Reethi Mune Gowda AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
Parvathamma M AND Chandrakala V. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
ABC & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
A M Harish Gowda AND Chaluvaraju H S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
G Nagaraju AND The Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
Paras Jain AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
Karnataka Food And Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Others AND Veena M. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
S R Bellary & State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
G. Ramesh. v. The Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
Dhanashree Ravindra Pandit AND The Income Tax Department. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
Manikanta @ Puli AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
Mathikere Jayaram Shantharam AND Pramod C. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
M R Nagarajan AND The Syndicate Bank & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
Aravinda Reddy AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
WORKMEN OF BEML LTD & Others AND Union of India & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 287
Smt. Sowmya S. Versus ITO. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 288
Centre for Wildlife Studies AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 289
Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Raghvendraraddi Shivaraddi Naduvinamani AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 100721 of 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
The Karnataka High Court recently obliterated rape charges levelled against a man but directed him to pay Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance to the child born out of the consensual relationship which he had with the lady, whom he allegedly lured on the promise of marriage.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition filed by one Raghvendraraddi Shivaraddi Naduvinamani and quashed the charges of rape under Section 376 IPC, but continued proceedings against him under sections 506, 417 and 420 of the Code.
It said,“In the peculiar facts of this case, as it is found that the petitioner is the biological father of the child, he cannot now show a hands off to the responsibility of the child which is born to him albeit, till the conclusion of the trial. I therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay maintenance to the child at Rs.10,000 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial.”
Case Title: H B Bhagyalakshmi AND Cheluvamma
Case No: Criminal Appeal No 2104 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
The Karnataka High Court has held that when the drawer of the cheque signs and issues a blank cheque to the complainant, if any alteration appears on the body of the cheque, such alterations need not require the consent of the drawer of the cheque.
A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah made the observation while allowing the appeal filed by a school teacher H B Bhagyalakshmi and setting aside the acquittal of Cheluvamma from offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: Late H.H. Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 1678 OF 2015.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
The Karnataka High Court has declared that land reserved for public use such as parks, cemeteries, etc., in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, loses such reservation if not acquired within five years.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that when such designation lapses, if the land owner wants to make use of the land for a different purpose than for which it was designated, then they would have to apply under Section 69(3) of the KTCP Act for consideration of new land use proposed by the owner, which would be considered based on the surrounding developments after inviting objections from the general public and would be considered in a meeting of the Authority.
Case Title: Hemanth Raju AND Punitha H J and Another
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 6841 OF 2013.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
The Karnataka High Court has held that in a motor accident if the total amount for repairs is not reimbursed by the insurer of the damaged vehicle, the claimant will have every right to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to seek an order for payment of the balance amount from the insurer of the offending vehicle.
A single judge bench of Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha partly allowed the appeal of one such claimant, a taxi owner, against the Tribunal's order rejecting his claim.
It said,“The claimant cannot claim the same amount which he received from his insurer towards damages to the vehicle again from the insurer of the offending vehicle. However, if the total amount is not reimbursed by his insurer, the claimant will have every right to seek the Tribunal to order for payment of the balance amount from the insurer of the offending vehicle.”
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: W.P.H.C NO. 43 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by a father residing in the USA, seeking a direction upon his wife to hand over their 4 year-old daughter's custody to him.
The man claimed that his wife had brought the child to India in violation of the US-Court's orders. A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda however dismissed the petition saying, “Keeping in view the welfare of minor girl, in our considered opinion, the girl being a four year old girl child, it would be in her best interest to remain in the custody of her mother.”
Case Title: Channabasappa Hosmani AND Parvatevva alias Kasturevva & Others
Case No: Writ Petition no 105363 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
The Karnataka High Court has held that legal heirs of a daughter are entitled to equal share in the family properties, even if the daughters had passed away before the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, came into force in 2005.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, dismissed the plea filed by Channabasappa Hosmani, questioning the order passed by the trial court wherein his application made under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, was declined and the trial court refused to amend the preliminary decree which granted equal share to the legal heirs of the pre-deceased daughters.
Case Title: Jagdeep Rao AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: CCC 1307/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
The Karnataka High Court on Friday saddled the Brigade School in Bengaluru's Malleshwaram area with Rs 1 lakh cost for failure to comply with its interim order requiring it to permit petitioner's daughter to attend classes. She was deprived of attending classes on account of non-submission of an undertaking from the parents, which the school wanted.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit directed the amount to be deposited with the Chief Ministers Fund, within two weeks.
Case Title: M/S. V.K. Niranjan And Co Versus Commissioner Of Service Tax
Case No.: REVIEW PETITION No.384 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
The Karnataka High Court has held that the service tax has been paid with accrued interest even before the show cause notice has reached the review petitioner.
The bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice V. Srishananda has observed that the show cause notice itself shows that there was a payment of service tax along with interest by the review petitioner. The court has reduced the penalty from 100% to 25% and directed the review petitioner to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to meet the ends of justice.
Case Title: Adarsh Developers Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case No.: Writ Petition No.1109/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
The Karnataka High Court upheld the validity of scrutiny notices issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) Addl. CIT instead of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under central charge.
The bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad has observed that if the right to call in question the jurisdiction is left open to be raised at any stage, the proceedings will remain inconclusive, and that could not have been the intention of the legislature.
Case Title: H Manjunath AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 27909 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the State Bar Council (KSBC) suspending an advocate from practising in any Courts of the country, for allegedly sexually harassing a female lawyer.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by H Manjunath and remitted the matter back to the Council to consider the objections of the petitioner that he has to file on or before January 10.
Case Title: All India HDPE/PP Woven Fabric Manufacturers Association AND The Secretary Government of India, Competition Commission of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition 287 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a Government of India notification dated 15-04-2021 which imposes quality control on polyethylene, used to manufacture different types of plastic.
A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the plea filed by All India HDPE/PP Woven Fabric Manufacturers Association and said that if the product was sought to be exported under the “Made in India” tag, then quality insistence from the threshold would ensure that the final product would meet all the necessary global standards.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case NO: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 6578/2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an ex-parte divorce decree passed by the trial court in 2021, as the trial Court had conducted the hearing including recording of the evidence when the world was in the grip of Covid-19 pandemic.
A division bench of Justice K S Mudagal and K V Aravind allowed the appeal filed by the wife and set aside the decree passed by the trial court on the petition filed by the husband seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Case Title: Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad AND Government of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No 24939 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking the disqualification of 9 ministers and 37 MLAs, who did not take oath as per the prescribed format under Schedule III of the Constitution of India.
The plea also called for their appointments to be declared unconstitutional and illegal.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the plea filed by Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad and said “Oath can be taken in the name of God or by solemn affirmation without taking any name of God. This becomes evident by a sheer look at all the formats enlisted in the Third Schedule to the Constitution of India which employs the expression “swear in the name of God” and alternatively other expressions “solemnly affirm.”
Case Title: Sanjay M Peerapur & Another & Union of India & Others.
Case No: Writ Petition No 62966 OF 2011
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
The Karnataka High Court has struck down the expression "if woman" found in Section 6 of the Indian Military Nursing Services Ordinance, 1943 as unconstitutional. By this expression, 100 percent recruitment was reserved for women in the cadre of 'nursing officers'.
A Single judge bench of Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde sitting at Dharwad partly allowed the plea filed by Sanjay M Peerapur and said “Women are justifiably considered to be a separate class under the Constitution. However, it does not mean that there can be hundred percent reservations in employment for women to the exclusion of all others when the classification is solely based on the sex without having any rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
Case Title: H T Munikumar & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.22398 OF 2023 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.23943 OF 2023 /W WRIT PETITION NO. 23318 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
The Karnataka High Court has held that upon the resignation of few members of the Board of a Society as governed under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, elections are required to be held to the posts of all the Directors including the posts of Directors who have not tendered their resignations, if the Board falls short of quorum.
A single judge bench of Justice C M Poonacha dismissed a batch of petitions challenging appointment of the Special Officer to administer the society and conduct of elections to all the posts of directors.
Case Title: ANI Technologies Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Criminal Petition No 10156 OF 2022
Citation No 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
The Karnataka High Court has quashed prosecution initiated under provisions of the Copyright Act, against ANI Technologies Private Limited which operates Olacabs, and its Chief Executive Officer, Bhavish Aggarwal.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petition and quashed the FIR registered by the Jeevan Bheemanagar Police Station under sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Case Title: Gururaj Jeevan Rao And State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No 634 of 2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking to preclude Puttige Mutt seer Sugunendra Theertharu from performing religious rituals in Udupi as he had travelled abroad.
Petitioner Gururaj Jeevan Rao claimed that the pontiff had crossed oceans and therefore, as per traditions of subject Mutt, he is not entitled to touch the idol of Lord Krishna and he is disqualified from worshipping the deity.
Case Title: Nagaraj AND The Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 7204 OF 2021 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 26829 OF 2017 WRIT PETITION NO. 11852 OF 2021 WRIT PETITION NO. 22426 OF 2022, WRIT PETITION NO. 16580 OF 2023, WRIT PETITION NO. 16912 OF 2023, WRIT PETITION NO. 19268 OF 2023, WRIT PETITION NO. 22463 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no blanket prohibition which is imposed as regards sanction of construction plan on a plot measuring less than 50 sq. metres under the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003.
Instead such sanction in respect of private landowners would have to be considered and acceded to by following due principles of law, in the interest of citizens, it added.
Case Title: G R Medical College Hospital and Research Centre AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.17254 OF 2023 (EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 22397 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a G.R. Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Mangalore, challenging the National Medical Council's (NMC) denial of renewal of permission for its 150 1st year MBBS Seats for the academic year 2022-23 and the government's decision to transfer the 150 students to different Medical Colleges in the State.
A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda dismissed the petition and said “No ground is made out for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title: M/S Hatsoff Helicopter Training P Limited Versus State Of Karnataka
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 24699 Of 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
The Karnataka High Court has held that tax exemption cannot be denied to the government's helicopter pilot trainer merely for non-furnishing goods and service tax identification numbers (GSTIN) initially.
The bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad has observed that the GSTIN of the recipient organisation was not furnished initially, is able to be furnished later, and demonstrates that its services of imparting training to the helicopter pilots were totally sponsored and borne by the Central Government or the State Government.
Case Title: Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath AND Ganesha & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal No 543 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
The Karnataka High Court has said that Grama Panchayat cannot dismiss an employee only if a criminal case is registered against him. Dismissal from service can be ordered only after holding an enquiry, it added.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the appeal filed by Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath challenginging a Single Judge's order whereby one Ganesha's dismissal from service was set aside with a direction to reinstate him in the position forthwith. The court said, “In a society like ours, job more often than not happens to be the predominant source of livelihood and therefore snatching away a job (in public employment), like the one that has happened in the case at hand, virtually amounts to taking away the means of livelihood of the employee. That offends the pith & substance of fundamental right to life & liberty constitutionally guaranteed under Article 21.”
Case Title: Sharadha L Dodmani AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 47144 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
The Karnataka High Court has said that in an intra-court appeal, the division bench of the high court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot remit a matter back to the single judge bench if it has been decided on merits. A single judge bench is not a court subordinate to the Division Bench of the high court, it added.
Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation when a service dispute already decided by him on merits was once again placed before the single bench, after the Division bench allowed the appeal against the order and restored the file to the single bench.
Case Title: Shrishail AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Appeal No 200241 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
The Karnataka High Court recently issued guidelines to be followed by trial courts and special courts prescribing certain preliminary enquiry be made with the accused when produced for the first time in a criminal case in order to ascertain if the accused is a juvenile.
A single judge bench of Justice C M Joshi said, “There is no doubt that a Magistrate or Special Court has to make certain preliminary enquiry with the accused when produced for the first time in a criminal case during the crime stage. These enquiries are not mere formalities but they have a vital importance in ascertaining an accused to be a juvenile, mentally fit and the requirements of law are fulfilled. A child, whether an offender or not, is a child and has to be treated as a child.”
Case Title: M/s Thakur Industries AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 22698 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea questioning the direction upon the petitioner to obtain a forest transit pass from the Deputy Conservator of Forest to transport iron ore minerals from the railway sliding site to the factory premises.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the plea filed by M/s Thakur Industries and upheld the requirement of Forest Way Pass.It observed, “It serves a laudable purpose viz., protecting the forests from the possible damage/loss by the Agencies that transport the mineral concerned.”
Banks Cannot Withhold Passport Or OCI Card As Security In Lieu Of Loan Closure: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Koshy Varghese AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 5628 of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
The Karnataka High Court has held that banks cannot withhold the passport of an accused even if it is surrendered to it voluntarily by the accused, who is charged for the offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Koshy Varghese and said, “The action of the Bank in retaining the British passport of the petitioner and the Overseas Citizen of India Card is held to be illegal.”
Case Title: Mudiyappa AND Basavaraj @ Basappa & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 107291 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
The Karnataka High Court has held that when an election nomination form is filed by any candidate, he/she has to disclose all criminal proceedings filed against them, irrespective of whether the candidate had been acquitted or not, whether the proceedings have been quashed or not.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition filed by one Mudiyappa who had challenged the trial court order setting aside his election to the Bevoor Gram Panchayat for failure to disclose an acquittal.
Case Title: Shrikant Bhat AND The State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 101560 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed prosecution initiated under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act against a former senior sub-registrar who was booked after an anonymous complaint was received about alleged irregularities in the registrar's office.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Shrikant Bhat and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 7(a), 7A, 12 and 13(2) of the Act.
Case Title: Harish K B AND Ponnamma & ANR
Case No: Civil Revision Petition No 1344 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to enhance a fine of Rs 1,000, imposed by a trial Court on a 72-year-old lady, in a case over the death of eight stray puppies in 2016.
A single judge bench of Justice J M Khazi dismissed the plea filed by Harish K B, an Honorary Animal Welfare Officer, who had lodged a complaint against the accused Pionnamma and sought to challenge the conviction order dated 06.08.2019.
Case Title: Sadatulla Syed AND National Investigation Agency.
Case No: Writ Petition No 15674 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
The Karnataka High Court has said that where a surety produced original sale deed of property to satisfy the trial court that he is a solvent surety, the trial court has to return the document after obtaining his bond.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil allowed the petition filed by Sadatulla Syed who stood surety for an accused. It said, “In this case after the original of the sale deed was produced, the court ordered to keep it in safe custody. In our opinion, the court should have returned the original sale deed to the surety after obtaining his bond. Once the surety wants the sale deed to be returned, the court must return it.”
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 7082 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
The Karnataka High Court while refusing to set aside an order of the trial court granting two-days custody of a minor child to his father observed, “When the father and the mother, both are alive, depriving a child of its entitlement to have the love and affection of its parents i.e. both father and the mother would not be a justice that is being done to the child.”
A division bench Justice Dr H.B.Prabhakara Sastry and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar dismissed the appeal filed by mother challenging trial court order granting custody of the toddler to her father from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on every Saturdays and Sundays.
Case Title: Ramesh Timmanna Umarani AND The Sub-Registrar
Case No: Writ Petition No 106890 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Inspector General of Registration to verify the authenticity of the Aadhar card and identity of the person who produces it for registering any document and only thereafter proceed with the registration of a document.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that in terms of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, any service provider could register with UIDAI and obtain a sanction to verify the identity on the basis of OTP generated on the phone number of the holder of the Aadhar card.
Grant Of Land To Grow Trees Cannot Be Extended To Mean Title In Granted Land: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Nanjundappa & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal No 1174 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 32
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that if the land is granted only to grow trees, it cannot be treated as the grant of land itself.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit while dismissing an appeal against a single bench order refusing to declare that the title in the land belongs to the appellant said,
“In the case of Grant, ordinarily title to the land vests in the Grantee, at times subject to certain conditions violation of which may result into result into rescinding of the Grant. However, the grant of only a right to grow trees on the land cannot be treated as the grant of land itself.”
Case Title: Vihaan Peethambar AND Manipal University.
Case No: Writ Petition No 12606 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
The Karnataka High Court has observed that Universities/Educational Institutions should process applications for change of name and gender made by transgender persons in degree certificates upon receipt of requests instead of driving all applicants to court for directions.
A single judge bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani issued the direction after it was informed there are innumerable such instances awaiting consideration before the Universities/Educational Institutions in the state. It held: It is observed that it would be appropriate for said authorities to process applications for change of name and gender upon receipt of requests keeping in mind ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in NALSA's case and this court in Christina Lobo's case, instead of driving all applicants to Court for securing directions.”
Case Title: Dr Rajini C K AND The State of Karnataka & Others.
Case No: Writ Petition No 24070 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) after holding that it illegally allotted a reserved seat in the MD Radio Diagnosis course, in favour of one Dr. Sunil Kumar H B.
A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and T G Shivashankare Gowda allowed the plea filed by Dr. Rajini C K, set aside the seat allotted to Dr Kumar and directed the Authority to allot the MD Radio Diagnosis seat in favour of the petitioner and issue necessary orders in that behalf.
Case Title: Raktima Khanum AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 26769 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
The Karnataka High Court has said that the power of Government of India to expel nationals of other countries who overstay in the nation without any document is absolute and unfettered.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by a Bangladeshi national Raktima Khanum who had questioned the issuance of exit permit to her by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, which would result in her deportation to Bangladesh. It said, Any indulgence shown to the petitioner, on any kind of sympathy, would be putting fetters on the discretion of the Government, the FRRO and the Bureau of Immigration, more so in cases where there is even a semblance of threat to national security of any kind.”
Case Title: Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 769 OF 2
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
The Karnataka High Court has said that in matters concerning illegal grant of State largess, the rule of locus standi is to be liberally construed and that would serve the public interest.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed an appeal filed by Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt challenging a single bench order wherein the court allowed the petition filed by private respondents and the grant of subject site in favour of the Mutt was set at naught with a direction for refund of allotment value to the appellant-Mutt.
Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Limited AND Sadika & Others
Case No: MFA NO. 9827 OF 2012
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
The Karnataka High Court has held that in cases where it is not proved that deceased driver of a vehicle involved in a road accident possessed valid driving licence, the Claims Tribunal will have to apply principles of 'pay and recover' by directing the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount and recover it later from the owner of the vehicle.
A single judge bench of Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda partly allowed the appeal filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited and modified the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chitradurga District.
Case Title: Anjinamma & Others AND Mohammed Sajjad Sait & ANR
Case No: R.S.A NO.808 OF 2023 C/W R.S.A No.1358 OF
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
The Karnataka High Court has held that though it is relevant to consider the bank balance of a party while considering the issue of his readiness and willingness to execute a sale agreement, it is not an absolute prerequisite to establish the same.
A Single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, "A plaintiff's financial constraints, per se, should not be wielded as a prohibitory factor if its actions and expressions manifest a true desire to meet its contractual obligations and therefore, it is not solely contingent on financial largesse but encompasses a broader spectrum of commitment and integrity.”: Totality Of Circumstances To Be Considered Not Only Bank Balance to Ascertain Readiness And Willingness Of Party To Meet His Contractual Obligation.
Case Title: M/s Ownpath Learning Private Limited AND State By Intelligence Officer & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 14764 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
The Karnataka High Court set aside an order freezing the bank accounts of a startup company after one of the directors was booked for offences punishable under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M/s. Ownpath Learning Private Limited and said “Freezing the bank accounts of the Petitioner - Company in respondent No.2 Bank, is quashed.”
Case Title: K L Shivanna AND Deputy Commissioner, Tumkuru District
Case No: Writ Appeal No 1359 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a Fair Price Depot owner challenging the order cancelling his authorisation and forfeiting the security deposit made by him after he was found guilty of malpractice in distributing food grains.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit, dismissed the appeal filed by K L Shivanna and said,“The business that is run by PDS Depots is more in the nature of public service and not profit orientation. Unscrupulous PDS Depot Holders need to be weeded out so that the public interest which the policy intends is duly served, especially when the PDS cardholders belong to lower economic strata of the society.”
Case Title: M/s Achiever Agri India (P) Ltd & Others AND State By Sub Inspector Hebbagodi Police Station & Others-
Case No: Criminal Petition No 3156 of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that First Information Reports (FIR) filed in different police stations cannot be transferred by invoking powers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and that only cases and appeals can be transferred under such provision.
A single-judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar dismissed a plea filed by M/s Achievers Agri India (P) Ltd seeking the transfer of 16 FIRs registered in different Police Stations to one of the Courts where the said crimes were pending trial.
Case Title: Master Thejas & Another AND C R Babu
Case No: Writ Petition No 37203 OF 2015
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a proposed purchaser of a joint family property cannot be impleaded as a party respondent in a suit for partition and separate possession between family members.
A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma set aside the trial court order allowing one Murugan to be impleaded in the suit between family members. It said, “I am of the opinion that defendant No.4 [Murugan] who is impleaded by virtue of impugned order was neither a necessary party nor proper party to be impleaded. No right is created under agreement for sale in respect of scheduled property, except the right to seek specific performance of contract against defendant No.1, which he has already done by filing suit.”
Case Title: ABC AND Union of India
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.16681 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
The Karnataka High Court has directed a couple seeking intercountry relative adoption to petition the receiving country i.e Germany, where the father of the adopted child resides for communication to the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) for issuance of a No Objection Certificate and Conformity Certificate to take the child out of India.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “If what is sought by the petitioners is granted it would run counter to the established procedure Therefore, the inter-country adoption should necessarily be in tune with the procedure.”
Case Title: Chikkanna AND Karnataka State Bar Council & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 26197 of 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Karnataka State Bar Council suspending an advocate from practice.
A single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna allowed the plea filed by Chikkanna and set aside the notification dated 10.07.2023. It said “As the practice of the petitioner is suspended without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and is in violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is to be obliterated and the matter remitted back to the hands of respondent No.1 to hear the petitioner and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.”
Case Title: SHREE RAMACHANDRAPURA MATH AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.18330 OF 2023 C/W WRIT PETITION No.19823 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a Government order de-notifying the nominations of four persons who were members of the Overseeing Committee for the Gokarna Mahabaleshwar Temple, as approved by the Supreme Court.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Shree Ramachandrapura Math and its members, and set aside the order dated August 12, 2023 whereby the State government sought to remove the petitioners Veda Moorthy Dattatreya and three others from the Committee. The Committee was reconstituted including the present respondents Vidhanwan Ganapathi Shivaram Hirebhat and three others.
Case Title: Aishwaryagiri Constructions PVT Ltd AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 23054 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a construction company questioning the order of the Karnataka Slum Development Board refusing to grant an extension for completing the contract entered by it with the company for the construction of dwelling houses for slum dwellers.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the plea filed by Aishwaryagiri Constructions Pvt Ltd and directed the Board to issue an appropriate work order and get the houses of poor slum dwellers completed within the decided time frame and not put the lives of those slum dwellers in jeopardy, as by now they have suffered enough.
Extra Passenger On Bike Liable For Contributory Negligence To Accident: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s ICICI Lombard Company Ltd AND Ms Harshitha B & ANR
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 5505 OF 20
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an extra passenger riding on a two-wheeler motor vehicle is liable to contributory negligence if involved in an accident.
While dealing with an appeal from an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar said that a claimant, if knowing fully well that there were four persons riding on a motorcycle meets with an accident, then the claimant contributes to negligence towards the accident.
Case Title: Management of M/s Tata Advanced System Limited AND The Secretary To Department of Labour & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 7674/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
The Karnataka High Court has said that a claim before the Industrial Tribunal by an individual workman regarding his absorption and regularisation in a company can be raised only through a Union representing the workman not by himself.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha allowed the petition filed by the Management of M/s Tata Advanced System Limited and set aside the order of reference dated 06.02.2023 issued by the Department of Labour directing the Tribunal, to adjudicate whether respondent No.2 (Rudrachari) was justified in raising the dispute regarding the regularisation/permanency of his job with the petitioner company and subsequent relief, if any.
Case Title: K T Suresh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12105 OF 2022 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 4167 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO. 13933 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 49
The Karnataka High Court has held that on expiry of lease/licence executed by a Municipal Corporation such Corporation cannot forcibly vacate the persons in occupation, but is required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, or Transfer of Property Act.
A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the Secretary, Urban Development Department to instruct all the Corporations Municipalities coming under its jurisdiction to follow due process of law and not resort to forcible possession of the premises.
Renowned Shooter Can Possess 10 Arms, 1 Lakh Ammunition: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: K Sajan Aiyappa AND Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Kodogu District.
Case No: Writ Petition No 6359 of 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 50
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Kodagu district to consider the application of a renowned shooter for grant of four more arms and 25,000 ammunition.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by K. Sajan Aiyappa and quashed the final notice dated 28.12.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, which directs the petitioner to divulge the minimum qualifying marks of his claim of him being a Renowned Shooter.
Case Title: Manikeppa Helavar AND The State Through Mudhol P.S
Case No: Criminal Petition No 201853 of 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 51
The Karnataka High Court has rejected an application moved by a rape accused seeking to recall the victim for cross-examination, a year after her cross examination was closed.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar sitting at Kalaburagi said, “The victim was already humiliated by kidnap, rape and illegal confinement and she was elaborately cross-examined in the Court. After one year, again the witness was being sought to be recalled without disclosing before the learned Special Judge as to what questions are required to be posed. Since this is a sensitive matter, humiliation going to be suffered by the victim cannot be ignored and merely because the petitioner wants to recall the victim or a witness, the Court is not bound to recall a witness.”
Case Title: Anurag Bagaria Versus The Income Tax Department
Case No.: Criminal Petition No.909 Of 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 52
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act for wilful tax evasion.
The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has observed that the assessees filed revised returns, waiving their claim for short-term capital loss and long-term capital gains, and also paid taxes, the moment the search was conducted and the assessment proceedings commenced.
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 103706 of 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
The Karnataka High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to an accused who had forwarded a picture he received as a WhatsApp message related to a half-naked woman covered with the National Flag depicting the incident that had taken place in Manipur State.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the plea and said “The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.144/2023 registered by the Siruguppa police station, Ballari district for the offence punishable under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 with 01 surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.”
Case Title: H S Abdul Riyaz Basha AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition 26117 of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 54
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) which is entrusted to establish and develop industries in suitable areas in the State, must first determine the area that is required for the establishment of industries after conducting a study and only thereafter venture to acquire the lands.
A Single judge bench of Justice M I Arun made the observations while allowing a plea filed by H S Abdul Riyaz Basha whose land was notified for acquisition under a preliminary notification, but no final notification was passed for the last 14 years.
The court said “The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 is enacted to make provision for the orderly establishment and development of industries in suitable areas in the State. To achieve this object, the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board is established and it is required to specify areas for industrial development and make available land therein for establishment of industries.”
Case Title: Anil H Lad AND Authorised Officer, Punjab and National Bank
Case No: Writ Petition 467 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 55
The Karnataka High Court has refused relief to a landowner who challenged the bank auction sale of his land on failure to repay the loan, nine years after the sale took place.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Anil H Lad, referred to the short story of Rip Van Winkle, penned by American author Washington Irving in the year 1819, about a Dutch – American who falls asleep and wakes up after twenty years, only to see a changed world, having missed the American revolution, on waking up from deep slumber.
Then it said “The doors of this Court to such Rip Van Winkles is not ajar but closed.”
Case Title: MPHASIS LIMITED AND Ashok S Narayanpur
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.5443/2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 56
The Karnataka High Court has said that an employee working as a project lead in an Information Technology Services and Consulting company, would not come in any of the classifications envisaged under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to order his reinstatement.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha allowed the plea filed by Mphasis Ltd and set aside the award of the Labour Court holding that Ashok S Narayanpur, the employee, was a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and that the petitioner refusing employment to him from 29.08.2016 was not justifiable. The Labour Court directed his reinstatement to his original post and further held that the respondent is entitled to continuity of service and all other future consequential benefits.
Case Title: Kushal Ram Reddy AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 11261 of 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 57
The Karnataka High Court has issued general directions to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) suggesting preventive steps to be taken so that new constructions are not carried out in violation of building plans.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj took on record the office order dated 27.07.2023 issued by the Chief Commissioner to all the officers enclosing the flowcharts showing stages of action to be taken for removal of violated portion and demolition of unauthorised construction, as also the table showing the timeline for officers for taking action for unauthorised construction.
Case Title: ABC & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No 924 OF 2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case of abetment to suicide registered against a principal and school teacher after two children studying in a school committed suicide and left a suicide note holding them responsible for their act.
A single-judge bench of Justice G Basavaraja allowed the plea filed by the petitioners and discharged them for the offences under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
In doing so the court said “It is [not] uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not being attentive or not being up to the mark in the studies or for bunking classes or for not attending the school. The prosecution papers, including the voluntary statement of the accused, reveals that only in order to safeguard the future educational interest of the deceased students, as they were not up to the mark in preparatory examination, accused have taken special coaching classes to them. As often whispered, teachers are nation builders, who can build the nation solid and strong by imparting the right education among their students. Discipline can improve students' character and analytical skills – which are important to succeed in life. effective discipline requires a balance between punishment and positive reinforcement.”
Case Title: P V Rudrappa AND State of Karnataka
Case NO: Writ Petition No 9642 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 59
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal whereby the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on a former Panchayat Development Officer, accused of demanding and accepting bribes.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraj allowed the petition filed by P V Rudruppa and said, “Cases of mindless sacking of employees nowadays galore. Proportionality in penalty is rarely seen. We say this with a lot of penury at heart. “Petitioner was a victim, we repeat. Strangely, justice eluded him even at the level of Service Law Tribunal. This happened when there is absolutely no material to prima facie substantiate the allegations of demand & acceptance of bribe for doing the public duty.”
Case Title: M/S. NORTHROOF VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S. XYNC STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,
Case No: Writ Petition No 5509 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
The Karnataka High Court has held that a company which at the time of raising a money claim dispute has not been registered under the Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, it then cannot approach the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, seeking to initiate conciliation proceedings over the dispute and on failure of the same the Council cannot refer the matter for Arbitration.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M/s. NORTHROOF VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED and quashed the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 07.01.2023 and 22.02.2023, rejecting its application to decide the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability of the proceedings.
Case Title: Siddaramaiah AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 7533/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 61
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Congress' State incharge Randeep Singh Surjewala, and legislators Ramalinga Reddy and MB Patil, seeking to quash a criminal case registered against them in 2022 for alleged illegal march towards the residence of then Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai, shouting slogans and demanding the resignation of KS Eshwarappa, then Minister.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the petition filed by the accused and directed Siddaramiah to appear before the Special Court on February,26. Further, it imposed Rs. 10,000 cost on each of the petitioners for arraying the police officer as party respondent in her personal capacity.
Case Title: Ranga Trilochana Bedi @ R.T Bedi AND Kabir Bedi.
Case No: M.F.A. NO.8528/2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea by R.T Bedi, elder brother of film Actor Kabir Bedi, challenging an order of the trial court rejecting his prayer to temporarily restrain Kabir Bedi and the publishing house Westland Publications Private Limited, from selling his autobiography titled 'Stories I Must Tell: The Emotional Life of an Actor.'
Further, he sought an ad-interim order of injunction against the defendants for removal of all defamatory statements made against the plaintiff (R. T. Bedi ) from the book.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh dismissed the appeal and said “I do not find any ground to grant the relief as sought in the appeal. The Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the I.A.Nos.2 and 3 and it does not require any interference of this Court and the appeal suffers from devoid of its merits.”
Case Title: M R Mohan Kumar & Others AND NIL
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 4399 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
The Karnataka High Court has held that probate can be granted on a plea made by the beneficiary named in a will, in case no executor had been named.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh allowed the appeal filed by M.R. Mohan and others and set aside the order of the trial court rejecting their petition filed for issuance of probate. Allowing the appeal the court granted Probate/Succession Certificate in favour of the appellants as sought.
Case Title: ABC and XYZ
Case No: Writ Petition No 2215 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
The Karnataka High Court has held that in the absence of a stay on the decree for restitution of conjugal rights (RCR), if the husband fails to take the wife back to the matrimonial home, then it would be open to the wife to seek interim maintenance for herself and their child even at the stage of execution of the decree.
The Court was dealing with a challenge by the husband, against an order of the Family Court directing him to pay a sum of Rs 25,000 per month as interim maintenance for his wife and child upon the wife executing a decree for RCR when the husband failed to take her back to the matrimonial home.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3749 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
The Karnataka High Court has expressed concern over the emerging trend of 'malicious parent syndrome' whereby a malicious parent engages in attempts to punish the other parent by separating the child, denying child visitation and lying to children.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while allowing a petition filed by the third husband of a woman, who was charged under POCSO Act on a complaint made by the biological father of the child.
Court said the trend is "worrisome" as wrangling parents forget that they are projecting their own child to have been a subject of such assault.
Case Title: The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited AND Sidram Vithoba Maragali
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23428 OF 2011 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23430 OF 2011.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal which granted compensation to villagers who met with an accident and suffered injuries while travelling in tractor-Trailers along with their pet goats.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda though agreed with the contention of the insurance company that there is a violation of Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 in prohibiting the transportation of the animals in the TT Unit, it said, “This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that two goats died and two persons were injured who are the inmates of T.T. Unit and they are the claimants.”
Further it observed, “They (claimants) are the rustic villagers and when they move in groups for harvesting the sugarcane crop, entire family members will be moving to the sugarcane land along with their pet animals, as nobody would be available in the home-front to look after them. As such they are to be carried along with the family members.”
Case Title: Dr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty and Bureau Of Immigration
Case No: WP 4385/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 67
The Karnataka High Court on Friday suspended the Lookout Circulars (LOCs) issued by Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank and the endorsement issued by Bureau of Immigration against founder of NMC Health, Dr Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty (B R Shetty) and permitted him to travel to UAE.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “The writ petition conditionally succeeds, LOC's are suspended. A writ of Mandamus is issued to Bureau of Immigration to permit petitioner to travel forthwith to UAE, if there is no other impediment.”
Case Title: A Adinarayana Reddy AND S Vijayalakshmi & ANR
Case No: Criminal Petition No 5909 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 68.
The Karnataka High Court has held that a single complaint made under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is maintainable for multiple cheques issued by the respondent/accused on the same cause of action.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by complainant A Adinarayana Reddy and set aside the order dismissing the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against accused S Vijayalakshmi and another.
It said “When all the cheques were issued by the husband and wife for the same cause of action and cheques were dishonoured, a common notice was issued against the accused. Such being the case, instead of filing the multiple complaints, single complaint for dishonour of multiple cheques are maintainable.”
Case Title: Central Relief Committee AND Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru District & Others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.55797 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Central Relief Committee constituted under the Karnataka Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1975, questioning an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, declaring a particular area possessed by it, to be a slum.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the plea said “The Central Relief Committee has kept the pot of litigation boiling for the last 7 years and no rehabilitation of the slum dwellers has taken place. If a major portion of the land had been taken away, it would have been a circumstance altogether different, which is not the one in the case at hand. Therefore, the challenge is rendered unsustainable.”
Karnataka High Court Permits DNA Profiling Test In Suit Seeking Partition Of Property
Case Title: Mohammed Refeeq AND S. Mohammed Fairoz Ahamed & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 52855 of 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a defendant in a suit for partition of property, challenging the order passed by trial court directing him and the plaintiff to appear before the Forensic Laboratory to draw blood samples to conduct DNA profiling test to decide on their paternity relationships.
A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma dismissed the petition filed by Mohammed Refeeq and said “If the request for DNA profiling is not accepted, the right of the plaintiff to seek the status of the family members of the defendants, to be the son of late L.P.Ghouse Baig and Umerabi and to claim share in the suit property will be denied. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner or any other defendants, if DNA profiling is conducted.”
Case Title: Pallavi AND Mallamma & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100618 OF 2014
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
The Karnataka High Court has held that there cannot be any discrimination between a minor girl or minor boy while granting compensation for a motor accident.
In Kishan Gopal vs. Lala (2014), the Supreme Court had ruled that in the case of death of a minor in a road traffic accident, the claimants would be entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakh.
A single judge bench of Justice V. Srishananda said "In the case on, no doubt the victim is minor girl. There cannot be any discrimination between a minor girl or minor boy."
Case Title: Seethalaxmi AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 3674 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
The Karnataka High Court has held that the State pensioners have to be handled with sympathy and that the doctrine of delay and laches per se cannot defeat the legitimate right of a citizen in a case where no third party rights are created.
Observing thus, a division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja partly allowed the petition filed by one Seethalaxmi who had approached the court grieving the denial of one solitary increment which avails to all civil servants who have studied in Kannada Medium upto SSLC with Kannada as one of subjects in the syllabus.
Case Title: Shelhan AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 11806 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Karnataka State Bar Council refusing to enrol a government servant who pursued a law degree while being in service and sought enrollment after his retirement on the ground that he did not submit any documents to show that he has attended the classes conducted by the college.
A single judge bench of Justice Ashok S Kinagi allowed the plea and quashed the order by the State Bar Council, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's request for enrollment afresh.
Case Title: M/s Ozone Urban Infra Developers PVT Ltd AND Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Others.
Case No: Writ Petition No 26194 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
The Karnataka High Court recently pulled up the Kannamangala Gram Panchayat for issuing occupancy certificate to a retirement home project without carrying out any inspection as to the actual state of the site.
While refusing to interfere with Karnataka RERA's order declaring the project 'Serene Urbana' an "on-going project", Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the apartment complex did not even have water and power supply.
“None of the amenities that were assured and promised to lure the retired home buyers were in place. Sewage treatment plant was yet to come up. Lifts were not provided...Water supply was not
complete...Therefore, it is necessary to admonish the competent authorities who are empowered to issue occupancy certificates not to sit in four corners of their air-conditioned chambers and issue occupancy certificates, to the developers, for their asking," Court said.
Case Title: The Bar Association Kittur & Anr AND The State Bar Counsel & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 100505 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court has requested the Chairman of the State Bar Council to find a way to mediate the dispute between the two factions of lawyers in Kittur Taluk, so as to maintain harmonious relation between the members of the Bar.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the suggestion while dismissing a plea filed by the Bar Association, Kittur, challenging the resolution of the Karnataka State Bar Council cancelling the registration of the Bar Association, Kittur, dated 07.03.2010 and recognizing the Advocates Bar Association, Channamman Kittur in its place. The Court found that there was no locus for the petitioner to file the plea.
Case Title: Acharya Pathasala Educational Trust AND Rashmi Khatawakar & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 100173 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an application under Order 7 Rule 10 (Return of plaint) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) can be maintained only by the plaintiff and not by the defendant in a suit.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a plea by Acharya Pathasala Educational Trust by holding that "an application under Rule 10 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure can be maintained only by the plaintiff and not by the defendant.”
Case Title: M/s. Armstrong Design And Acmite India Manufacturing Private Limited AND The Assistant Labour Commissioner
Case No: Writ Petition No 1049/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
The Karnataka High Court has held that if it is proved in the disciplinary proceedings that a workman is guilty of the allegations or if a charge sheet is filed in a criminal case by the police in that event, the said workman cannot be accorded the status of “protected workman”.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha set aside the order passed by the Labour Commissioner on an application moved by Armstrong Design And Acmite India Manufacturing Workers Union, recognizing all five workmen including one Umesha K P, against whom departmental enquiry was initiated and later dismissed as a “protected workmen” for the year 2023-24.
Case Title: ABC AND State By Mysuru Women Police Station & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3051 OF 2023 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2579 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case of cruelty under Section 498A IPC against a woman (accused no 9) who was alleged to be in an illicit relationship with the husband of the complainant.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the plea filed by the woman held: “The allegation against accused No.9 is nothing but adultery. The allegation also reveals that she was abating accused No.1 for committing the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Accused No.9 is not a family member or in-laws in order to implicate under Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, proceeding against accused No.9 cannot be sustainable for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC or any other offence. The Supreme Court in the case of JOSEPH SHINE Vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2019), has struck down the provision of Section 497 of IPC as violative of Articles 14, 15(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has held adultery is not an offence punishable under the IPC and it may be used for civil cases seeking remedy in the matrimonial cases."
POCSO Convict Not Entitled To Benefit Under Probation Of Offenders Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND Prathap
Case No: Criminal Appeal No 1335 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
The Karnataka High Court has held that the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, cannot be extended to a person convicted under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil overturned the acquittal order passed by the trial court and sentenced Prathap to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 8 of the Act. It observed, “The Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is a special enactment which came into force w.e.f. 20.06.2012. This enactment is subsequent to coming into force of the Probation of Offenders Act. In the case on hand the accused is liable to be punished according to section 8 of POCSO Act which prescribes a minimum sentence of 3 years imprisonment in addition to fine. Therefore, the minimum punishment has to be imposed. The provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act do not have application.”
Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Of Kerala CM's Daughter's Company Challenging SFIO Probe
Case Title: Exalogic Solutions Private Ltd AND Union of India & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 4268 of 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (February 16) dismissed the petition filed by Exalogic Solutions Private Ltd - a company of which Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's daughter Veena Vijayan is a director - challenging the investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against the company.
A bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Exalogic Solutions challenging the direction issued by the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs asking the SFIO to investigate the affairs of the company.
Case Title: H R Satyanarayana vs H C Suresha and Others.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 33944 OF 2013 (GM-CPC).
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 81
The Karnataka High Court single bench comprising Justice MG Uma held that when a Civil Court refers the parties to arbitration and appoints an arbitrator without invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award merges with the decree accepted by the court, therefore, doesn't warrant to be registered and drawn on a stamp paper.
Case Title: M/s. ICDS Ltd vs Sri Bhaskaran Pillai and Others.
Case Number: M.F.A. NO.6319/2014 (AA)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 82
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice HP Sandesh held that even if an arbitration agreement erroneously refers to the 1940 Act after the enactment of the 1996 Act, it does not render the agreement invalid. It held that arbitral proceedings initiated under it before the enactment of the 1996 Act could continue under the old Act unless the parties agreed otherwise.
Case Title: Smt. Vasanthi Ramdas Pai Versus Income Tax Officer
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 8797 Of 2022 (T-IT) C/W Writ Petition No.8815 Of 2022 (T-IT)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Assessing Officer has to be prima facie satisfied that there is “escapement of income”, unlike earlier law which permitted action based on mere reason to believe. Now mere reason to believe, cannot be a ground for carrying out assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit has observed that under the old section, the opening words were “If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year”. As against that, in the amended section, the opening words are: “If any income chargeable to tax, in the case of an assessee, has escaped assessment for any assessment year”. So, what is conspicuously missing from the new section is the term “reason to believe”.
Karnataka High Court Directs BBMP To Clear Rs 90 Crore Due Towards PF Accounts Of Powrakarmikas
Case Title: BBMP POWRAKARMIKAR SANGHA AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.16539/2022 (L-PF) C/W WRIT PETITION No.4449/2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
The Karnataka High Court has directed Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to comply with the order of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directing it to deposit an amount of Rs 90,18,89,719 towards provident fund, pension fund and insurance fund contribution for Powrakarmikas, for the period from January 2011 to July 2017.
A single judge bench of Justice KS Hemalekha dismissed the petition filed by the Corporation assailing the order of attachment dated 23.01.2018 passed by authority. The Corporation had contended that the impugned order passed by the authority is without giving any notice of hearing.
Case Title: The Divisional Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited AND Yunus & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104098 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104099 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
The Karnataka High Court has held that unless there is some material indicating of active collusion between the injured and driver/owner of the offending vehicle to lay a false claim seeking compensation, proof in the form of police records would be sufficient enough for the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal to come to conclusion that claimant has proved his case of suffering injuries in the accident.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda dismissed an appeal preferred by Shriram General Insurance Company challenging the validity of judgment and award passed on 30.08.2017 allowing the claim petitions filed by Yunus and others. An amount of Rs.77,350 and Rs.1,19,050 was granted respectively.
Case Title: Annappa Appasab Mokashi & ANR AND The SLAO & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102077/2014.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of land owners whose land was acquired by the government but their reference application seeking enhancement of compensation was disposed of for want of necessary evidence being placed on record.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the appeal filed by Annappa Appasab Mokashi and others challenging the order passed by the Reference Court (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Athani) dated 25.11.2023 disposing of the reference application and the confirmation order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer awarding the compensation.
Case Title: T Narayana Reddy & ANR AND Nirmala & others
Case No: Regular First Appeal No 491 OF 2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 87
The Karnataka High Court has held that if a member of a joint Hindu family voluntarily throws his/her self-acquired property into common hotchpot with the intention of abandoning his/her separate claim over it and render it to be of all other members as well, such a property becomes a joint family property.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja while dismissing an appeal filed by T Narayana Reddy and another said, “Partitioning of the self acquired property amongst all the members of the family by the matriarch raises a very strong presumption as to the subject properties having been put into a common hotchpot. That being the position, there is an eminent case for the invocation of the doctrine of common hotchpot.”
Case Title: Shahen @ Hanifa AND Shivakumar Bolishetty & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 100190 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 88
The Karnataka High Court has said the trial court cannot assess and prejudge the evidence that would be given by the Special Power of Attorney, while considering an application made under Order III Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking permission to lead oral and documentary evidence through a special power of attorney.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “In terms of Order III Rule 2 of CPC, the option having been provided under the CPC for leading of such evidence, the assessment of evidence cannot be done at the stage of consideration of application under Order III Rule 2 of CPC. It is only after the evidence is led and the witness is cross-examined, would the court be in a position to assess whether the person, who has deposed has personal knowledge or not.”
Case Title: South Western Railway Catering Contractors Association AND The Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.4162 OF 2024 C/W WRIT PETITION No.4296 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the 2023 addendum to the Railways Catering Policy of 2017, by which Base Kitchen infrastructure and qualified and skilled manpower to handle food production have to be put in place not only at originating but also at enroute stations for ensuring good quality and hygienic food to passengers on trains.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by South Western Catering Contractors Association and others questioning the Commercial Circular notified on 14-11-2023.
Case Title: M G Purshotham & Others AND N K Srinivasan & Others
Case No: Regular Second Appeal No 498/2007
Citation NO: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 90
The Karnataka High Court has said that a strict burden of proof for an adoption cannot be insisted upon when the adoption deed is registered.
A single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh allowed an appeal filed by MG Purushotham who had challenged the order of the trial court and the first appellate court allowing the suit filed by NK Srinivasan and others, declaring him as the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and held that the adoption deed was null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
Case Title: Bharatiya Janata Party AND Rizwan Arshad
Case No: CRL.P 11213/2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 91
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea filed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) seeking to quash a defamation complaint filed by Indian National Congress Legislator Rizwan Arshad, over allegedly defamatory tweets made by the party against him, in the year 2019.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said “The tweets A and B if not C and D (as per annexures mentioned in the petition) prima facie hurt the reputation of the complainant, if they are taken at face value, assuming that they are true.”
Case Title: Achutha Ayurveda Medical College Hospital and Research Centre & Others AND Union of India & Others
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 92
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by 26 Ayurveda Medical Colleges seeking a direction to the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) to provide extra rounds of counselling or extend the last date for admission for students to be admitted in the colleges. A division bench of Chief Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and T G Shivashankare Gowda said,
“The classes have already commenced from November 2023. At this juncture, if the admission process is extend the last date for admission for students to be admitted in the colleges. A division bench of Chief Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and T G Shivashankare Gowda said, “The classes have already commenced from November 2023. At this juncture, if the admission process is extended, it cannot be limited only to petitioner institutions excluding other Ayurvedic Colleges across the State. This would result in discontinuance of the academic schedule and the newly admitted students would not be able to cope up with the course.”
Case Title: K Lakshmi AND Canara Bank
Case No: Writ Petition No 27347 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 93
The Karnataka High Court has held that merely because the appointing authority looked into a daughter's marital status to determine her dependency on a deceased employee will not by itself amount to gender discrimination.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum clarified that the object of compassionate appointment is firmly rooted in addressing the immediate financial crisis faced by families following the demise of a family member.
Case Title: Dr Rajesh Kumar D AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 7951 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on Karnataka Examination Authority after holding that allotment of MD in Respiratory Medicine seat made in favour of a candidate was wholly illegal.
A division bench of Chief Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda allowed the petition filed by Dr. Rajesh Kumar D and set aside the order allotting seat to Pradeep Naik G and directed the KEA to allot the MD in Respiratory Medicine seat in favour of the petitioner and issue necessary orders in that behalf within two weeks.
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 13469 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 95
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the criminal prosecution initiated against a 20-year old youth for allegedly marrying a minor girl and committing sexual intercourse, leading to her giving birth to a child.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by the youth who was charged under Sections 366(A), 376(1) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
Case Title: Shivappa AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No 100280 OF 2022.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
The Karnataka High Court has observed that Courts should be very conscious and unless it is satisfied that the material evidence placed before it warrants exercise of power under Section 216 (Court may alter charge), the powers under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. should not be exercised.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said “Abuse of legal procedure is one of the major factors for delay in disposal of cases. Unless the Courts dispense with such procedures which are totally unnecessary and causes no prejudice to the parties if they are dispensed with, it would not be possible for the Courts to take effective steps for speedy disposal of the cases.”
It added “Providing Fast Track Court and use of Alternate Dispute Resolution, is not sufficient to reduce the burden of the Courts. The courts have to be proactive and they are not only required to dispense with unnecessary procedures but are also required to ensure that legal procedures are not abused.”
Case Title: Mazin Abdul Rahman
Case No: Criminal Appeal No 2248 of 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
The Karnataka High Court while dismissing an appeal by an accused charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, said “Article 21 cannot be stretched too long to afford protection to persons who have least concern for rule of law and pose threat to sovereignty and integrity of the nation.”
A division bench of Justices Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the appeal filed by accused Mazin Abdul Rahman who is charged with sections 120B, 121, 121A of IPC and sections 18, 20 and 38 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, for being associated with banned terrorist outfit Islamic State (IS), challenging the order of the special court refusing bail to him.
Case Title: Sharath Chandrasekhar AND Union of India
Case No: Writ Petition No 18066 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 98
The Karnataka High Court has held that Passport authorities cannot deny re-issuance/renewal of passport to those passport holders against whom pending criminal cases are at the stage of investigation, and the concerned court has not yet taken cognizance of the offence.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna directed the authorities to act in accordance with the clarification issued vide Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs wherein it is clarified that mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation do not come under the purview of Section 6(2)(f) (of the Passport Act) and that criminal proceedings would only be considered pending against an applicant if a case has been registered before any Court of law and the court has taken cognizance of the same.
The bench said “it is expected of the Passport Authorities to act in accordance with the clarification as obtaining in the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 and not drive every passport holder to knock at the doors of this Court, for redressal of their grievance.”
Case Title: Sikandar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 677 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a private person is not required to forego portion of his land for the formation of the public road without receiving any compensation from the authorities.
A single judge bench of Justice M I Arun allowed the petition filed by Sikandar and said “Respondent 4 (The Commissioner, Tumakuru Urban Development Authority) and 5 (The Commission Tumakuru Mahanagara Palike) are directed to pass necessary award and compensate the petitioner or owner of the property, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, which is used/intended to be used for formation of the road.”
Case Title: Junaid B AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Appeal No 1328 of 2012.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
The Karnataka High Court has held that a minor offence within the meaning of Section 222 CrPC would not be something independent of the main offence or an offence merely involving lesser punishments. The minor offence should be composed of some of the ingredients constituting the main offence and be a part of it, Court said.
A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar said, “In other words the minor offence should essentially be a cognate offence of the major offence and not entirely a distinct and different offence constituted by altogether different ingredients.”
Case Title: Chinnammayya AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 1805 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
The Karnataka High Court has held that a nominee or a legal representative of a member of a Co–operative Society, who is admitted as a member after the death of a member, cannot vote and contest in the election to the Board of a Co-operative Society or a general meeting, if he has not completed one year after being admitted as a member.
A single judge bench of Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde dismissed a petition filed by one Chinnammayya who made a claim to vote at the elections held by Begihalli Milk Producers Co-operative Societies Ltd and challenged the decision of the Society which included her in the ineligible voter's list.
Tubectomy & Vasectomy Serve The Same Purpose Of Preventing Further Childbirth: Karnataka HC Directs KPTCL To Encash Rtd Employee's Privilege Leave
Case Title: A Alice AND Karnataka Transmission Corporation Limited
Case No: Writ Petition No 33653 OF 2014
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 102
The Karnataka High Court has directed State's Power Transmission Corporation to encash 90 days unavailed privileged leave sanctioned for maternity care to a retired woman employee, which was forfeited from the terminal benefits on the grounds that the requirement of her husband undergoing vasectomy was not met with.
A Single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by A Alice and granted her liberty to make a fresh representation to the Superintendent Engineer, BESCOM and seek 90 days encashment of privilege leave which was forfeited.
Case Title: B A Umesh AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 23950 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
The Karnataka High Court has said that in cases where the convicts are undergoing life imprisonment, competing public interest cannot be ignored while considering their application seeking parole.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by convict BA Umesh alias Umesh Reddy, a serial killer seeking 30 days parole to attend to his ailing mother and carry out repairs to her house.
The court said “It is not that in every case, one should be granted parole for the asking. Both sides of the coin will have to be considered, one, the necessity for grant of parole ingrained in the reformation theory of sentencing the other, competing public interest. Particularly in cases where the convicts are undergoing life imprisonment the other side of the coin cannot be ignored.”
Case Title: B Mohammed Kunhi & ANR AND Abdul Saleem Hassan
Case No: Civil Revision Petition no 461 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
The Karnataka High Court has held that in a suit filed by a landlord for evicting a tenant, the landlord is required to pay a Court fee on the rent payable and not include the security deposit which is an advance paid by the tenant to the landlord.
A single judge bench of Justice M I Arun said “In a suit filed by the landlord for evicting the tenant, he is required to pay a Court fee on the rents payable and cannot take into consideration the security deposit, which are the advance amounts paid which he is required to refund to the tenant upon the tenant vacating the premises concerned.”
Case Title: Shariff Constructions AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 1867 of 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 105
The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) while reopening self-assessment of property tax against property owners where returns are not filed and in cases of random scrutiny.
A single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav said “It is noticed that in most of the petitions filed by the property owners, the contention that is taken is that the demand notice raised as well as the show cause notice issued, are not preceded by the procedure stipulated under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 and accordingly, it is submitted that unless there is an inspection in their presence, the consequential notices and orders are required to be set aside.”
Further it said, “In light of numerous petitions filed questioning the correctness of the procedure followed by BBMP while reopening the self-assessment returns, need has arisen to lay down the procedure that is required to be followed in cases of reopening self-assessment where returns are not filed and in cases of random scrutiny.”
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: Writ Petition No 14094 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
The Karnataka High Court has observed that taking care of the children, for a mother, is a whole time job and the husband cannot deny maintenance amount on the ground that she being qualified is not willing to work and earn money and wants to live on the maintenance that the husband pays.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a woman questioning the order of the trial court granting a monthly maintenance amount under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the tune of Rs 18,000 instead of Rs 36,000 sought by her.
Case Title: Dr Lata Krishnaraddi Mankali AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100169 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
The Karnataka High Court has held that Sections 19 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act puts an obligation on a doctor to inform the relevant authorities when she/he has knowledge of an offence under the Act. There is no obligation on this person to investigate and gather knowledge about the offence.
A single judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D Huddar said “The expression used is "knowledge" which means that some information received by such a person gives him/her knowledge about the commission of the crime. There is no obligation on this person to investigate and gather knowledge.”
Case Title: Hemachandra M Kuppalli AND M/s R.B.Green Field & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.12169 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
The Karnataka High Court has directed that when a convict under the Negotiable Instruments Act offers himself for settlement of the dispute in appeal on the basis of which conviction is set aside, Courts shall mandatorily observe that deviation from the terms of compromise will automatically result in restoration of conviction order.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “Failing which, the accused who get away with conviction on compromise like in the case at hand, take advantage of the laborious rigmarole of procedure of getting the compromise decree executed.”
Case Title: The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & ANR AND K.N. Ningegowda & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 75671 OF 2013
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) questioning the order of the Industrial Tribunal directing the regularisation of 13 workmen.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde confirmed the order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the Tribunal and directed that since the demand for regularisation was pending for close to 20 years, the petitioner Corporation shall take steps to regularise the workmen in terms of the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal.
It said: The claim is not dependent on appointment orders but is based on the actual work done for the Corporation. If the appointment orders are not issued and in the grab of contract labourers (which claim is not established for the reasons recorded supra), and the respondents are made to work since 1991-93 till 2007 and beyond, then the fault lies with the petitioner Corporation in not issuing the appointment orders.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: REV. PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.233 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
The Karnataka High Court has held that extra deductions from the salary of husband like provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, etc., cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount to be granted to the estranged wife.
A single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar dismissed the petition filed by a husband questioning the order of the family court granting maintenance of Rs.15,000 to his wife and Rs.10,000 to his daughter under section 125 CrPC. It said, “What are the compulsorily amounts to be deducted are income tax and professional tax...Considering deductions from the salary of petitioner/husband, those are provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, towards loan obtained by the petitioner/husband, LIC premium and festival advance, these are all deductions accruing to the benefit of petitioner only. These amounts cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount.”
Case Title: Arunkumar R & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 25528 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
The Karnataka High Court has held that to manage and maintain an apartment complex consisting of only residential flats, the association of owners has to be registered under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, and not under the provision of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said “Admittedly, the project referred to above is a residential housing project. There is no commercial unit in the said project. The sale deeds executed in favour of the purchasers of the flats would also indicate that the purchasers have undertaken to subject them to the provisions of the Act of 1972. There is no difficulty in holding that petitioners and members of the proposed respondent No.4 Society are entitled to have registration of an association under the Act of 1972, and there cannot be any association registered under the Act of 1959 to form a society to manage and maintain the Property comprising only residential flats.”
Case Title: Umashankara C & Others AND Registrar General & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 2851 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Registrar General of the Court to reconsider the representation made by 12 Court officers, seeking to cure anomaly in their pay scale with regards to Section 6(b) of the High Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised Pay Rules, 2018.
A single judge bench of Chief Justice P S Dinesh Kumar (now retired) allowed in part the petition filed by Umashankara C and other and said, “The issue requires to be reconsidered by the 1st respondent, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court, which clearly depicts that the junior should not be permitted to draw a higher pay scale to that of the seniors in a solitary cadre.”
Case Title: XXX AND The Registrar General & Others
Case N0: Writ Petition No 25557 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
The Karnataka High Court while directing the registry to mask the name of an accused in the cause title of the case found in the records of the court has observed that “even an accused who has been discharged or acquitted honourably by a competent Court of law has a right to live with dignity.”
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said that Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with law.
Case Title: Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association & Another AND State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: WP 26489/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the notifications issued by the State Government appointing the KSEAB (Karnataka School Examination & Assessment Board) as the competent authority to conduct the Summative Assessment-2 exams for students of classes 5th, 8th, and 9th and the annual examination for class 11th, studying in government, aided and unaided schools and colleges, following the Karnataka State Board Syllabus.
The examination was to commence from March 9.
A single judge bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani said “When Government intends to bring changes to examination system affecting such large number of students, it would be desirable as well as mandatory to follow democratic procedure stipulated. And in case of failure, there need be no further justification to set such faulty measures at naught, regardless of merit policy and object behind such measures.”
Case Title: Dhanayya & Others AND Chandrashekhar
Case No: R.S.A 200252 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing it can only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits.
A single judge bench of Justice G Basavaraja allowed the appeal filed by Dhanayya (since deceased) and his legal heirs questioning the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Afzalpur, by which it dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2014 passed by the trial court.
Case Title: Jayapal K M AND The Management of Shakti Precision Components (India) Limited
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.149 OF 2022 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.52533 OF 2019
Citation No; 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
The Karnataka High Court has held that the act of a workman using abusive language not once, but on several occasions cannot be treated lightly and the imposition of punishment by way of dismissal in such a case cannot be held to be disproportionate.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha made the observation while allowing the petition filed by the Management of Shakti Precision Components (India) Limited. It set aside the order passed by Labour court directing the company to reinstate the workman Jaypal KM.
Case Title: C Girish Naik & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 7893 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the State Human Rights Commission can only recommend and not pass directions to the Government to act against policemen.
A Division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice CM Poonacha partly allowed the petition filed by C Girish Naik who works as Inspector of Police and said “The report dated 12.3.2020 issued by the fourth respondent [Karnataka State Human Rights Commission] shall not be treated as a direction but as a recommendation.”
Case Title: Razorpay Software Private Limited AND Union of India
Case No: Writ Petition No 10329 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the offences of Money laundering initiated against payment gateway company Razorpay, accused of being negligent in setting up the merchant IDs in the name of a co-accused who was involved in illegal money lending business.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by the company and quashed the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate under Sections 3, 70 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the summons issued against it by the Special court.
Case Title: Sunl G & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 16408 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 each on 35 petitioners (collectively Rs 8.75 lakh) for stalling the recruitment process initiated for the post of Veterinary Officer.
A division bench of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K while dismissing the petitions filed by Sunil G and others said “In our considered opinion, we are not able to appreciate the conduct of these petitioners in stalling the recruitment process which was called for as a matter of an emergency situation. Hence, we impose the cost of Rs.25,000 per petitioner which shall be payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.”
Clear Right To Sue Is To Be Made Out In A Suit For Declaration Of Title: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: D N Bhagya AND D A Mallikarjuna & Others
Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.60 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title fails to disclose a clear right to sue, the suit deserves to be rejected.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar made the observation while allowing the petition filed by D N Bhagya challenging the order of the trial court rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking rejection of the suit for declaration of title filed by the respondents who are legal heirs of Appajappa.
S.125 CrPC | Daughter-In-Law Cannot Seek Maintenance From Parents-In-Law: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Abdul Khader & ANR AND Tasleem Jamela Agadi & Others
Case No: REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100026 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a daughter-in-law cannot lay a claim for maintenance against her parents-in-law.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by an elderly couple and set aside the order of the trial court dated 30.11.2021, directing them to pay Rs 20,000 to the wife of their deceased son and Rs 5,000 to his children.
Case Title: DR SHIVAMURTHY MURUGHA SHARANARU AND STATE BY KARNATAKA & ANR
Case NO: CRL.P 4391/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to quash rape charges against the pontiff of Murugha Mutt of Chitradurga, Dr Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru, who is accused of sexually abusing two minor girls staying in the hostels run by the Mutt.
However, the court quashed the order of the trial court framing charges against the accused and directed it to redraw the charges after quashing certain offences levelled against the accused.
Case Title: G Hemanth Chandra AND M/s Infrathon Projects Pvt Ltd
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.247/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
The Karnataka High Court has held that a revision petition against an order passed under Section 148 (3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for the release of interim compensation, is not maintainable before the High Court.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh held “Here is a case of releasing of the amount, which is in deposit under Section 148(3) and the same does not amount to intermediate order and it is only an interlocutory order and hence, revision is not maintainable and the same can be challenged before the appropriate court by filing appropriate petition.”
Case Title: A.H.Makandar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 104356 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a former employee of Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (HESCOM) on whom the company imposed a huge recovery of Rs 86,52,163 and even 11 years after superannuation, denied him a pension and other terminal benefits.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by A.H.Makandar and quashed all the amount recovery initiated against him and directed the Company to settle and pay the pension and all the terminal benefits on his superannuation with effect from 31-05-2013 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date they became due, till the date of payment.
Case Title: Mohammed Farughuddin AND Ramchandra Balu Shinde & Others
Case No: Regular First Appeal No 100196 OF 2014
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
The Karnataka High Court has said that the principle that time is not the essence of the contract in a suit for specific performance of immovable property, cannot be applied as if it is a statute. The said principle must be applied by considering the facts and circumstances of each case, it said.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde while partly allowing an appeal filed by one Mohammed Farughuddin, challenging the trial court order rejecting the suit for specific performance, observed, ““In the last couple of decades, the value of the immovable properties is soaring high and that too in a short span of time. Indeed, such equitable consideration had strong justifications in good old times, where hardly there was any change in the property value for a considerable length of time. However, many things concerning real estate have changed beyond comprehension. Perhaps the general principle that the time is not an essence of the contract when it comes to immovable property, certainly calls for a relook in the present-day context.”
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.151/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Registrar General to file a complaint with the Vidhana Soudha police station against a police constable for allegedly playing fraud on the court as well as on the Trial Court, in obtaining bail order in a case of rape registered against him.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh allowed the petition filed by the victim in the case and cancelled the bail granted to the accused Fakirappa Hatti who had allegedly subjected the complainant to sexual acts from 2019 till February 2022 on the promise of marriage.
Case Title: Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd Suvarna News 24/7 & Others AND Divya Spandana @ Ramya
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13558 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the defamation proceedings against Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd, Suvarna News 24/7 and two others which came to be initiated based on the complaint filed by Divya Spandana.
Spandana had filed a private complaint against the petitioners and others with a prayer to punish the accused for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, issued summons to the accused by order dated 13.06.2016.
Case Title: State Of Karnataka & Others AND National Commission For Schedule Caste
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.26690 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the National Commission for Schedule Caste does not have power to adjudicate upon or entertain complaints relating to service matters, specifically those pertaining to seniority and promotion.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “It is axiomatic that the ambit of the NCSC's jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating upon or entertaining complaints relating to service matters, specifically those pertaining to seniority and promotion. Such matters, by their very nature, fall within the realm of administrative law and are subject to adjudication by specialised adjudicatory bodies such as administrative tribunals with competence in service-related disputes.”
Case Title: Mahesh AND Ishwar & Others
Case No: C.R.P. No.100106 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 129
The Karnataka High Court has held that a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff is maintainable if he was not impleaded as party respondent in the earlier suit wherein a compromise was arrived and court passed a decree without allocating any share in the property to the plaintiff.
A single judge bench of Justice CM Poonacha made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Mahesh who had sought to question the order of the trial court rejecting his application made under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking to reject the plaint filed by Iswar and others as barred by law.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.26295 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 130
The Karnataka High Court has said that there should be strong prima facie evidence to consider an application filed by the husband who is seeking divorce, to refer the wife to a Board of Psychiatrists for medical examination on the ground of her being of unsound mind.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by a husband who questioned the order of the family court which kept in abeyance his application seeking to refer the wife to a Board of Psychiatrists at NIMHANS for medical examination. It also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner (husband) to be paid to the wife.
Case Title: M/S MARGADARSI CHITS (K) PVT. LTD AND H SRINIVAS REDDY & Others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 66982 OF 2011
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is only one statutory appeal against an order passed under Section 69 of the Chit Funds Act and an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 70 of the Act is final and no appeal lies against it before the High Court.
A single judge bench of Justice M.I. Arun dismissed the petition filed by M/s Margadarsi Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd which had challenged the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Chits.
Case Title: Bhuvaneshwari AND Prashanth Kumar
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18433 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 132.
The Karnataka High Court has held that a photostat copy of an unregistered agreement to sell cannot be admitted as secondary evidence in a trial under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only because the accused claims the signature on the document is his.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed a petition filed by one Bhuvaneshwari challenging an order of the trial court 29.12.2022, dismissing his plea to permit him to mark the said document.
Case Title: Alfa S AND The Chief Secretary & Others
Case No: R.S.A.NO. 359 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) C/W R.S.A.NO. 340 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
The Karnataka High Court has held that if the relief sought in the plaint is restricted to seeking a direction to rectify school records based on caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, the plaintiff's remedy is only under common law before the competent civil Court.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum while allowing an appeal filed by Ms Alfa S and others, challenging the order of the first appellate court, dismissed the suits seeking relief of mandatory injunction by way of direction to defendants to amend caste in the school records, on the ground that the reliefs were barred under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code.
Case Title: Nawaz Pasha & Others AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5913 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 552/2021, 1008/2021, 5799/2022, 5821/2022, 5832/2022 AND 5893/2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal prosecution initiated against 375 people alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly, armed with weapons in the Padarayanapura area on 19.4.2020 when there was a Covid-19 lockdown.
They allegedly stopped BBMP personnel from doing their official duty of securing 58 COVID-19-infected persons for being shifted to quarantine centres.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petitions filed by the accused and said “The Criminal proceedings against these petitioners in the above 5 cases are liable to be quashed without going to the veracity of the offence committed by the accused, whether one offence or different offences, in different place of occurrence. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed.”
Default Bail | Oral Request For Extension Of Custody Period Permissible: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Mohammed Jabir AND National Investigation Agency
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.7388 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an oral request by an investigating agency to extend the custody period is permissible, if the accused fails to seek default bail on expiry of statutory period.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil also said that the right to get default bail under Section 167 of Criminal Procedure Code is an indefeasible right which the court cannot deny if an accused is ready to furnish bail, but this right should be exercised before the investigating agency files charge sheet or seeks extension of time to complete the investigation.
Karnataka High Court Quashes PMLA Case Against Former Chancellor Of Alliance University
Case Title: Dr Madhukar G Angur AND Directorate of Enforcement.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13205 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate against Former Chancellor of Alliance University, Dr Madhukar G Angur initiated under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty quashed the case taking note of the Apex court judgment in the case of Pavana Dibbur vs The Directorate of Enforcement, CRL.P NO.13205 OF 2023.
Case Title: Sudha Katwa AND The Registrar General & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11387 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
The Karnataka High Court has removed HK Jagadish as incharge 'Director of Prosecution and Government Litigation', holding his appointment to be illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 25A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit said the provision prescribes specific qualifications and conditions for appointment to the august office and there is no dispute that Jagadish does not possess the same.
Case Title: Abdul Basheer & Others AND Inspector General of Police (Prisons) & Others
Case No: Writ Petition 7755 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to ensure that in all the prisons where the undertrial prisoners or convicts are housed, there shall be a robust video conferencing facility so that any inmate would be in a position to interact with the defence counsel or family members.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that privacy must be maintained when the accused is speaking to the defence counsel through video conferencing and directed the government to provide headphones to the accused and the persons on the other side in the conference.
Case Title: THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND UNION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 4273 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a circular issued by the Controller and Auditor General of India (CAG) by which it prohibited salary drawing and disbursing officers from deducting the amount due to the Accountant General's Office Employees Cooperative Bank Ltd (established by the employees of the Accountant General's Office), from the salary of the employee even if they had consented for such deduction.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said “The impugned clause conflicts with the binding provision of law. Thus, the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can certainly strike down the said clause even if it is the policy decision, as such decision seeks to override the provision of law and seeks to take away certain rights conferred under the Statute. The right conferred under the Statute can be taken away only in the manner known to law and not by any executive decision taken by any authority which has no authority to meddle with the statutory rights.”
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others And REGISTERED UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION KARNATAKA & others.
Case No: WA 379/2024 c/w WA 380/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single bench order which stopped the State government from conducting board exams for students of 5, 8 and 9 and 11 standard of the schools affiliated to the State Board.
A division bench of Justice K Somashekhar and Justice Rajesh Rai K thus allowed the State's appeal and directed the government to hold the remaining Assessment for classes 5,8,9 students. Board exams for Class 11 were already completed during the litigation. The Court has asked the State to resume the process for 11th standard also.
Case Title: Jayashree AND Mahaningappa & Others
Case No: MFA 202275 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
The Karnataka High Court has held that if income tax returns are available the same should be considered as best a piece of evidence and if variations are found in the income tax returns, considered for different assessment years, it would be appropriate to consider the average income of three assessment years to arrive at the annual stable income of the claimant seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
A division bench of H.T.Narendra Prasad and Justice K V Arvind made the observation while partly allowing the appeal filed by Jayashree questioning the order of the trial court and sought enhancement of compensation granted.
Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Kannada Actor Sudeep's Defamation Complaint Against NM Suresh
Case Title: N M Suresh AND Sudeep S
Case No: Writ Petition 3641 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a defamation complaint filed by Kannada Actor Sudeep S against N M Suresh who is the office bearer of the Kannada Film Producers Association and Secretary of the Film Chamber of Commerce for allegedly making false acquisitions against Sudeep.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition filed by Suresh seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the trial court under sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
Case Title: Amith M Jain AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6425 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal prosecution initiated against one Amith M Jain, Managing director of a company who was charged under sections 3 (1), 13 (2), 19 (b) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, read with Sections 3(2)(d) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajit Shetty said, “The material on record would go to show that the petitioner is only the Managing Director of the company and in view of the Government Order dated 14.02.2002, only persons who are responsible for production of quality control of the fertiliser products can be prosecuted.”
Case Title: Althaf Ahamed AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WA 713/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that contested property rights cannot be dealt with in writ jurisdiction. The writ court can at the best take notice of the property rights of the parties which are already established rights.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed an appeal filed by Althaf Ahamed, challenging an order of the single judge bench which refused to invalidate the gift deed executed in favour of his sisters by their mother.
Case Title: THIMMAPPA AND THE STATE BY HOLALKERE POLICE
Case No: CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE NO.6 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1301 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the death penalty imposed on an accused for murdering his mother by beheading her, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and S Rachaiah partly allowed the appeal filed by accused Thimmappa challenging the conviction and death sentence imposed on him by the trial court under section 302 of the India Penal Code.
The bench said “If we take an analysis of the entire situation, we find that this is not a rarest of rare case though it is a fact that the incident was cruel and brutal. Emotion should not become an influencing factor to impose a death penalty. Degree of criminality matters much while imposing the death penalty.”
Case Title: Veeranna G Tigadi AND High Court of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14053 OF 2015
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the owner of Express Publications (Mudhurai) Ltd, which publishes the New Indian Express newspaper for publishing a report indicating the findings of an inquiring Authority report conducted against a district judicial officer, even when the Administrative Committee, of the High Court had already resolved to not accept the Report of the inquiring Authority dated 30.05.2013.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda said: “I am therefore of the view that this would be an appropriate case to impose costs of Rs.10,00,000 on respondent No.13 (the owner of the Newspaper), payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Case Title: Dr. Sridhara S AND The Director Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.4050 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Medical Superintendent of an Autonomous Medical Institution cannot be given an additional charge of Head of Department.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Dr. Sridhara S and quashed the official memorandum issued by the Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences appointing Dr. T.D. Thimmappa as an in-charge HOD as illegal and quashed the same.
Case Title: Thimmappa & Others AND Bharathi
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7517 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that it is only the husband or wife who marries for the second time during the subsistence of an earlier marriage and the life time of the earlier spouse, who can be prosecuted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj added that the second spouse or their parents can't be prosecuted under the provision.
Case Title: Ravi Kumar & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Authority & Others
Case No: Writ Petition 17967 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to consider the representation of a couple who are Indian Citizens and have adopted a child in Uganda, a country which is not a signatory to the Hague Convention 1995 and seeking to legalise the adoption in India in terms of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Adoption Regulations of CARA, 2022.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and said, “The Union of India not to restrict its magnanimity to issuance of a support letter; it should stretch for issuance of an approval or a no objection under the Regulations, for the reason that, it is a signatory to the Hague Convention. Even though the adoption has not happened under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, and in a country which is not a signatory to Hague Convention, but adoption has happened, the rights of a child of Indian citizens, who have adopted, cannot be left marooned.”
Case Title: Ramanjaneyulu & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.390 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the trial court which rejected a petition for anticipatory bail filed by an accused charged under provisions of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the ground that cognizance had already been taken of the complaint.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the plea challenging the order of the trial court dated February 9, and granted them anticipatory bail on the execution of a Bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000 each, with two sureties.
Case Title: Dr Yogananda A AND The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 21705 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on an Assistant Professor, by the Executive Council of the Visvesvaraya Technological University.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Dr.Yogananda A and said, “The impugned penalty of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed. The respondent No.3-Disciplinary Authority is hereby directed to adhere to the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra and also take cognizance of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India and shall issue a fresh show cause notice.”
Case title: Pooja AND Siddanna & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.205205 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
The Karnataka High Court has held that an order passed by the Lok-Adalat accepting the compromise and directing the decree of the suit is not valid.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by one Pooja and quashed the compromise decree dated 27-10- 2007 passed by the Taluka Legal Authority, Sindagi (Lok Adalat).
Case Title: Yathish M G AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26117 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
The Karnataka High Court has held that the State Government possesses the power to entrust the handling of a disciplinary enquiry in respect of an employee of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board to the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rule.
Further, it held that the recommendation by the Lokayukta to the Government, while making a report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, that the enquiry be entrusted to it, cannot be sustained.
Case Title: M/S. Mvr Constructions Vs M/S. V.M.R Constructions And Others.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 4604 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice M G Uma held that the parties not signatories to the Joint Venture Agreement, stipulating the arbitration clause, cannot be forced to arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: M/s Bellary Nirmithi Kendra v. M/s Capital Metal Industries, Case No: CRP No. 100067 of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
The High Court of Karnataka has held that Section 47 of the CPC does not apply to proceedings for enforcement of arbitral award.
The bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha held that an arbitral award can only be challenged on the grounds mentioned under Section 34 of the Act and not otherwise. It held that the award is deemed to be a decree for the purpose of the enforcement, however, this deeming fiction is limited to its enforcement only.
The Court held that Section 47 of CPC, which provides for determination of question by the executing court in relation to the validity of the decree, does not apply to execution of arbitral awards.
Case Title: M/S Durga Projects Inc Vs Sri. B.G. Babu Reddy
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.434 Of 2014 (A) C/W Criminal Appeal No.433 Of 2014 (A)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice Anil B Katti held that simultaneous proceedings can be carried on under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bench further held that a party cannot be acquitted solely on the basis of presence of an arbitration agreement.
Case Title: Syed Mohammed Hussain AND The Karnataka State Board of AUQAF & Others
Case No: Civil Revision Petition No .200099 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 157
The Karnataka High Court has held that though there is no specific period fixed for preferring the Revision petition under the Waqf Act, 1995 however, as per provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, petitions to revise the order or proceedings of any court shall be presented to the High Court within a period of ninety days from the date of the order.
A single judge bench of Justice G Basavaraja thus dismissed a petition filed by one Syed Mohammed Hussain who had filed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone delay of 593 days in filing this Revision Petition in assailing the order dated 17th August, 2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Karnataka Waqf Tribunal, Kalaburagi.
Case Title: Fr. Valerian Fernandes AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1561 OF 2023
Citation N0: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 158
The Karnataka High Court has said that those who print & publish statutes and statutory instruments should be extra cautious or else, they run the risk of being hauled up for contempt of court, perjury & the like offences in addition to being black-listed from public tenders for the supply of books of their publication.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit made the observation while hearing an appeal filed by Fr. Valerian Fernandes questioned the order of the single judge bench which dismissed his petition seeking a mandamus to the respondents to grant the subject land by issuing Grant Certificate/Saguvali Chit.
Case Title: The Managing Director Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Others and L Mallikarjunappa
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 133/2024 (S-R) C/W WRIT APPEAL NOs. 140/2024 (S-RES), 46/2024(S-RES), 1551/ 2023 (S-RES), 1546/2023 (S-RES), 1545/2023 (S-RES), 1532/2023 (S-RES), 1531/2023 (S-R), 1523/2023 (S-R), 1518/2023 (S-RES), 1431/2023 (S-RES), 136/2024 (S-RES)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 159
The Karnataka High Court has said that Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) being a cent per cent public sector undertaking of the Government of Karnataka, falls within the definition of 'State' under Article 12, and an employer in a Welfare State is expected to treat pensioners with soft gloves since they are in the evening of life, having retired after putting in a long & spotless service during their productive years.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed an appeal filed by the Corporation challenging the order of the single judge bench which directed it to re-fix the salary of the petitioners by granting them the additional annual increment, and consequently, also refit and pay their pension along with the arrears of salary and pension accrued
Case Title: K C Cariappa AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 8599 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 160
The Karnataka High Court has appreciated the efforts of the Ministry of External Affairs, to clear the file pending before the Regional Passport Office (Bengaluru) within 60 minutes which facilitated the travel of Karnataka State Cricket team player to England to play cricket.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while disposing of the petition filed by cricketer K C Cariappa said “The efforts of the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, Sri.Shanthi Bhushan H., in keeping up to his assurance merits appreciation. So thus, the Ministry of External Affairs and the second respondent, all for disposal of a file within 60 minutes. This action of the Union of India deserves emulation.”
Case Title: Parvathamma And The Joint Director
Case No: Writ Petition No 416 of 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
The Karnataka High Court has held that a spouse of an ex-serviceman cannot be denied a grant of a widow identity card on the ground that an ex-parte decree of divorce against the wife was granted on a plea by the husband who passed away during the pendency of the application seeking recall of the ex-parte decree.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Parvathamma and directed the Joint Director, Sainik Welfare and Resettlement to issue the petitioner a widow identity card, within two weeks. She is entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the grant of the identity card.
Case Title: Shabnam Parveen Ahmad & ANR AND NIL
Case NO: MFA 4711 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that when the parties (Sunni Muslims) have entered into a Mubarat agreement and have decided to dissolve the marriage entered into between them by the said agreement, the Family Court is empowered to consider the application for divorce by mutual consent.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde allowed the appeal filed by the couple and dissolved the marriage between the parties accepting the Mubarat agreement.
Case Title: Jagan Chandy AND Jagadish K A
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1987 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
The Karnataka High Court has held that the delay caused in taking cognizance by the magistrate court after a private complaint is filed when there is no malafide on part of the complainant is required to be excluded for the purpose of the computation of the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition filed by one Jagan Chandy seeking to quash proceedings initiated against him under section 499 IPC by Jagadish K A.
Case Title: Varun Chopra & ANR AND Shyam Sunder Chopra
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1735 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
The Karnataka High Court has held that a court in Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to try a suit instituted under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, where the cause of action has arisen in Bengaluru, even if the plaintiff or the defendant is not residing in the said place.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde allowed the appeal filed by Varun Chopra and another and set aside the order of the trial court which had rejected the suit on the ground that none of the parties is having any branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru where the suit is instituted. It restored the suit back on the file of the trial court.
Case Title: C Kempanna AND Munichannarayappa & others
Case No: R.S.A.NO.1102/2008
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 165
The Karnataka High Court has held that relief of specific performance can be granted against a defendant who is the Karta of the family when the other members of the joint family are not included in the sale agreement if the sale consideration is used for benefit of the joint family and for clearing the loan availed by joint owners.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh dismissed an appeal filed by C Kempanna challenging the order of the trial court and the first appellate court allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff.
[S.38 Arms Act] All Offences Under Arms Act Are Cognizable Offences: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Srinivas S N AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1858 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. Petitioner-accused contended that a coordinate bench of the Court had ruled that offences under Sections 30 and 35 of the Arms Act were non-cognizable.
In dismissing the plea, a single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty held, "[On that occasion] Section 38 of the ARMS Act was not brought to the notice of this Court and therefore, the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.4567/2018, wherein, this Court has held that the offence under Sections 30 and 35 of the Act are non-cognizable offences is per incuriam.”
Case Title: T.Y. Subramani vs Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C.
Case No. : Civil Writ Petition No. 42748/2014 (L-KSRTC)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 167
A single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice K.S. Hemalekha while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of T.Y. Subramani vs Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. has held that by mere passage of time, a fraudulent practice would not get any sanctity, and equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in such cases as a person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner.
Case Title: Smt. K. C. Nagalambike and Ors. v. The Managing Director KSRTC & Ors
Case No. W.P. No. 29984/2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
A single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice S.G. Pandit while deciding a writ petition in the case of Smt. K. C. Nagalambike and Ors. v. The Managing Director KSRTC & Ors. has held that compassionate appointment cannot be sought as a matter of right and at the same time compassionate appointment cannot be sought against a particular post.
Case Title: Sachin M R AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9727 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 169
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act (Act), it is mandatory to grant reasonable opportunity and also to provide necessary material relied on by the authority to an accused along with the show cause notice issued against whom an externment order is pending issuance.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Sachin M R and quashed the externment order dated 20.03.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
It said “There are several safeguards for passage of an order of externment upon the person against whom it is sought to be passed. These are procedural safeguards. It is trite that procedural safeguards are the lifeblood of liberty, which cannot be treated or taken away in the manner that it is done in the case at hand.”
Case Title: King Solomon David & ANR AND Joint Secretary
Case No: WP 8409/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed the circular issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, which bans the rearing of certain breeds of dogs on the ground of them being ferocious and dangerous to human life.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The High Court of Delhi from which the entire impugned action has sprung has recorded the undertaking of Union of India that they would hear all stakeholders. It is an admitted fact that none of the stakeholders are heard. The composition of the committee is not in consonance with the Rule framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The Union of India could not have imposed the ban without appropriate recommendation from a properly constituted committee.”
Karnataka Excise Act | Police Can't File FIR Solely On Basis Of Seizure Panchnama: High Court
Case Title: Dayananda @ R Babu & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 129 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction handed down to two accused under Sections 32, 34 and 38-A of the Karnataka Excise Act, holding that the police cannot file an FIR on the basis of seizure panchanama.
A single-judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah allowed the revision petition filed by Dayananda @ R Babu and Another and set aside the conviction handed down to them by the trial court which was confirmed by the appellate court.
Case Title: Priyanka Singh AND Pankaj Singh Sengar
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.48615 OF 2013 (GM - FC) C/W WRIT PETITION No.41607 OF 2017 (GM - FC) WRIT PETITION No.41608 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Karnataka High Court has refused to direct a husband with 75% disability to pay maintenance to his estranged wife and also set aside an order of the execution court which, acting on the plea filed by the wife, had issued an arrest warrant or fine levy warrant against the husband.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The husband walks with the help of crutches. Therefore, in the considered view of the Court, no direction can be issued to the husband to pay maintenance to the wife/respondent as he is no longer an able bodied man to search for employment and pay maintenance to maintain the wife and the child.”
Case Title: M/s Pancharathna Enterprises AND The Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.22657 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
The Karnataka High Court has held that insistence on NOC from landlord by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for renewing the trade licence would not fall into the category of permissible restriction envisaged under Article 19(6) of the Constitution and thus insisting on obtaining of NOC cannot be construed to be a mandatory requirement.
A single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav made the observation while allowing a petition filed by M/s Pancharathna Enterprises which runs a Hotel under the name and style of 'Velvette Hotel' challenging the order by which BBMP ordered for sealing of the premises. The said order was also on the premise that the partners viz., Kishan Hegde and others who were the previous licence holders had issued a letter objecting for renewal of licence.
Case Title: Dr Guddadev Yadrami AND The Director & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 205994 OF 2014
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 174
The Karnataka High Court while dismissing a petition filed by an Ayush Medical Officer who secured the job based on submission of a false caste certificate, said that if a fraud has been committed by a person at the inception and obtained benefit thereof, there cannot be any limitation to question the said fraudulent act.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda dismissed a petition filed by Dr. Guddadev Gollappa Yadrami who sought quashing of the order cancelling his Caste Certificate and a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him notionally into service.
Case Title: Rangaswamy AND Ravi Kumar
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 841 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
The Karnataka High Court has held that in a case of dishonour of cheque registered under the Negotiable Instruments Act when the defence of the accused is not believable, inference can be drawn by the court that he made a transaction with the complainant and issued a cheque for the said transaction.
A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Rangaswamy challenging the order of the conviction passed by the trial court under Section 138 of the Act.
Case Title: S.V.T PRODUCTS AND S.S PANDIAN AND SONS
Case No: MFA NO.2680 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by a partnership firm challenging trial court's temporary injunction order restraining it from infringing original plaintiff's registered trademark "Hotel Special", in relation to marketing of asafoetida (Hing).
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde observed that registration of trademark is granted by the authority after due application of mind. Thus, it held, “Once the trade mark is registered, Section 31(1) of the Act of 1999, confers a prima facie validity to the registered trademark. The presumption as to its prima facie validity is of course rebuttable. This being the position, when an interim order is sought to restrain the alleged infringement of a registered trade mark, the burden is on the defendant to rebut the presumption as to the prima facie validity of the trade mark.”
Case Title: Ninganna & Others AND State by Nanjangud Rural Police
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1229 OF 2019
Citation NO: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the murder conviction and life sentence imposed on three accused of setting ablaze a woman. Citing prosecution's failure to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, a Division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice S Rachaiah remarked,
“It appears that the trial court has morally convicted the accused in the absence of legal proof.” The woman, a married lay, allegedly had an affair with the third accused. As per prosecution, all three accused (including parents of third accused) invited the woman to their house and set her on fire. She succumbed to the burn injuries a week later.
Case Title: B Lakshmidevi AND Rizwan Arshad
Case No: ELECTION PETITION No.14/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an election petition filed by a voter in Shivajinagar Assembly Constituency, seeking to declare the election of Rizwan Arshad as Member of Legislative Assembly as void, on allegation of indulging in corrupt practice.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition filed by B Lakshmidevi, saying, “Since for the purpose of Section 123 of the Act, the promise or assurance should be made by the candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, in the absence of any material which would prima facie show that the five guarantees or promises published in the election manifesto by the political party, of which the respondent was a candidate in the assembly election, was published with the consent of the respondent or his election agent, the allegations cannot be termed to be corrupt practice for the purpose of the Act.”
Case Title: Dr Vidyavanthi U Patil AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.100881 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a dentist cannot be appointed to the post of Taluk Health Officer it has to be a General Duty Medical Officer and he/she should possess an MBBS Degree.
A division bench of Justice M I Arun and Justice Umesh M Adiga dismissed the petition filed by Dr Vidyavanthi U Patil challenging the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal which rejected her application questioning the order of transfer as Taluk Health Officer, being cancelled.
Case Title: Prof Dr Kaushik Majumdar AND Indian Statistical Institute & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 264 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
The Karnataka High Court quashed a direction issued by the Indian Statistical Institute Bangalore Centre, to withhold payment of HRA paid to a disabled professor of the institute on the ground that he was staying in the guest house provided by the institute.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Prof. Dr Kaushik Majumdar said, “The duty of an Institute to provide better working conditions to specially disabled persons is not just a moral imperative but also a legal obligation under various disability rights and legislations and international conventions.”
Karnataka High Court Quashes 'Voter Bribery' Case Against MLA Shashikala Jolle
Case Title: Shashikala Jolle And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1560 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against Legislator Shashikala Jolle who was charged under sections 171(E) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 123 of Representation of People Act, 1951 during the 2023 State Assembly elections.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the petition filed by her and said “The proceedings in Crime No.52/2023 of Nipani Town Police Station, now pending in CC No.2990/2023 on the file of learned JMFC, Nipani, for the offences punishable under sections 120(1) & 133 of Representation of People Act, 1951 and also for the offence punishable under Section 171(E) of IPC, 1860 are hereby quashed. Petitioner is set free of the subject case.”
Case Title: H.M. TAMBOURINE APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION & Others AND Bangalore Development Authority & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 17375 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
The Karnataka High Court has held that Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) has the jurisdiction to issue a modified sanction plan for the construction of additional towers subsequent to the development of an Apartment complex and sale of apartments and undivided share in common areas, as per the earlier plan, even when the area is now covered under the City Municipal Corporation limits.
A single-judge bench of Justice M I Arun dismissed a petition filed by the H.M. Tambourine Apartment Owners Association which had questioned the power of the authority to sanction a modified plan based on the maximum floor area ratio (FAR), without taking into consideration the area already sold in favour of the individual apartment owners and further, the property is now within the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and BDA does not have the power to sanction the modified plan.
Case Title: Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt Ltd v. Manyata Infrastructure Developments Pvt Ltd,
Case No: WP. 8654 of 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a writ petition seeking termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 29A of the A&C Act by observing that the arbitrator had proceeded diligently and it was the petitioner itself who had taken various adjournments causing delay. It imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner.
The bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and C.M. Poonacha held that the 12 months period for delivery of an arbitral award under Section 29A would begin from the date of completion of proceedings which would also include a sur-rejoinder statement if permitted.
Case Title: M/s Azeem Infinite Dwelling v. M/s Patel Engineering,
Case No: Commercial Appeal No. 60 of 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
The High Court of Karnataka has held that a termsheet for buyout is only an offer and a contract if it was valid only for a limited period or till the execution of a definitive agreement.
The Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Anant Ramanath Hedge ruled that a termsheet would expire if the specified period for executing a definitive agreement passes without such an agreement being made. It held that an expired termsheet cannot be enforced or acted upon.
No Further Enquiry Can Be Ordered Unless A Case Is Made Out: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes AND K Chandrika
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.4730 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Chairman of Central Board of Direct Taxes challenging an order of Central Administrative Tribunal's whereby it quashed the 'charge sheet' in the disciplinary enquiry against Assistant Income Tax Commissioner and directed it to hold 'Review DPC' within two months to consider her case for promotion.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja dismissed the petition and said “Enquiry Officer has already found her 'not guilty' vide report dated 14.03.2014. Therefore she cannot be subjected to any 'further enquiry'. An argument to the contrary falls foul of fair play and established canons in the realm of law.”
Case Title: M/s Radical Works Pvt Ltd AND Padmanabh T G
Case No: CRL.P.NO. 1291/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
The Karnataka High Court has held that while exercising power under Section 410 CrPC, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cannot transfer two cases pending before two different courts presided by Additional Metropolitan Magistrate to one court presided by the same rank judicial officer.
A single judge bench Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by M/s RadicaL Works Pvt Ltd and quashed the order dated 13-01-2023 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by which it transferred CC No.17424/2020 on the file of XXVIII Additional Chief 3 Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru and CC No.12667/2021 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, were transferred to the Court of XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, for disposal in accordance with law.
Industrial Tribunals Bound To Give Proper And Cogent Reasons For Their Orders: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: P Anandan AND The Divisional Controller
Case No: Writ Petition No 22673 OF 2015
Citation no: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
The Karnataka High Court has observed that Industrial Tribunals must give proper and cogent reasons for their orders. If the tribunals give reasons for an order, it will be an effective restraint on the abuse of power, as the order, if it discloses extraneous or irrelevant consideration, will be subject to judicial scrutiny and correction.
A Single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha said, “The Tribunal, while rejecting the claim statement, must assign proper and cogent reasons, giving reasons introduces clarity and excludes or, at any rate, minimises arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made, and it also enables the Appellate or the Supervisory Courts to keep the Tribunal within bounds. A reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial disposal.”
Case Title: R BHARATH AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 4461/2024 & others
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
The Karnataka High Court on Monday rejected a batch of petitions challenging a government notification banning the sale, consumption, storage, advertisement and promotion of all types of hookah products within the State. In doing so, the Court upheld the ban on all types of hookah products in Karnataka.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna had reserved the judgment on March 11, after hearing both sides. As per the notification, hookah bar is a cause of fire hazards and violates state fire control and fire safety laws. Consumption of hookah in hotels, bars and restaurants makes food items unsafe for public consumption and may adversely affect public health, the notification further states.
Case Title: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
Case No: Writ Petition No 27927/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
The Karnataka High Court has directed that trial against the accused in Belgavi stripping incident, where an elderly woman was assaulted, paraded naked and tied to an electric pole, be completed within a year.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “The trial against the accused persons shall be completed by the competent Court where it is pending, expeditiously within an outer limit of one year. The Registry of this Court shall issue intimation to the Competent Court where the criminal case is pending in this regard.”
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2020/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 190.
The Karnataka High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a national-level hockey player who is charged with offences punishable under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), on the allegation of rape on false pretext of marriage.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar allowed the application filed by the accused and said, “Right of Freedom is a fundamental right and merely on the basis of allegations, the Fundamental Right cannot be curtailed and the matter requires a detailed trial and if the petitioner is found guilty during the course of the trial, then the law will take its own course. However, the pre-trial detention is unwarranted as it will be a serious stigma on the character of a person.”
Case Title: Iranna & ANR AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 5201 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking directions to stop further process for construction of a bypass road connected to National Highway- 367.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “Not only the project of laying roads cannot be arrested as it would be against the public interest, the directions of the kind and nature prayed for by the petitioners are not liable to be granted since they are the functions falling within the realm of the Executive.”
Case Title: Vijayraj Surana AND CBI & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5333 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5354 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
The Karnataka High Court has quashed two cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation against Vijayraj Surana, Promoter Director of Surana Power Limited, registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petitions filed by Surana and said, “Although the CBI has invoked Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is no allegation in the first information report that the accused in connivance with the Bank Officials who come under the ambit of public servants as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act misused funds, source of capital, manipulation in project award, accounting manipulation, and diversion of funds. In the absence of essential elements to constitute the offences under PC Act, the contention of the learned counsel for the CBI that the SFIO cannot investigate the offences under the PC Act is not acceptable, when there is no allegation to investigate the offence under PC Act."
Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Eleven Persons Accused In Belagavi Stripping Incident
Case Title: Raju Naik & Others AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101015 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to 11 accused arrested in the Belgavi incident, where an elderly woman was assaulted, paraded naked and tied to an electric pole, last year.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty sitting at Dharwad bench allowed the petition filed by Raju Naik and others, stating:
“From a perusal of the allegations found in the first information as well as in the charge sheet, it appears that the accused had no motive or ill will against the victim. It is only after the daughter of accused No.1 had eloped with the son of the victim, the alleged incident had taken place. Investigation in the case is complete and a charge sheet has already been filed.”
Case Title: M/s Sujal Pharma AND Karnataka State Medical Supplies Corporation Limited.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20520 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Karnataka State Medical Supplies Corporation Limited, blacklisting a firm for having supplied hand sanitisers during the Covid-19 period which were not of standard quality.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M/s. Sujal Pharma, and said, “I deem it appropriate to give a quietus to the issue and not remit the matter back to the hands of the respondent as the Hand Sanitizers that were supplied have naturally dried up by efflux of time.”
Case Title: Rojamani & Others AND Union Bank of India
Case No: MFA No 3651 of 2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
The Karnataka High Court has held that if a bonafide passenger dies while alighting from a moving train which he/she wrongly boarded, the Railway is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh allowed the appeal filed by Rojamani and others and set aside the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, dated 28-04-2016 and said “The impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. Consequently, the claim application is allowed. The appellants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a., from the date of filing the claim application till its realisation.”
Case Title: KIKKERI KRISHNA MURTHY And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WP 19801/2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition questioning the State government's order prescribing that the State Anthem—Jayabharatha Jananiya Thanujathe be sung for two and half minutes, in a tune composed by Mysore Ananthaswamy.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while rejecting the petition filed by Kikkeri Krishna Murthy, held “Government has done it in executive power, as long as it does not affect you (petitioner) it is always open for the government to do it. As far as students are concerned there are provisions in the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 which I have construed as empowering the government to prescribe a particular raga. Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.”
Case Title: B G Uday AND H G Prashanth
Case No: CRL.RP.NO.1157 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that not every criminal case launched against a candidate contesting elections either by way of registering the FIR or by moving private complaint has to be disclosed in the affidavit accompanying the nomination papers.
Court said cases where charges have not been framed or cognizance of the offences alleged has not been taken need not be disclosed in the affidavit.
Case Title: Smt. N. Bhuvaneshwari vs The Management of M/s Ambuthirtha Power Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 49982/2018 (L-TER) C/W Writ Petition No.6531/2019 (L-RES)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
The High Court of Karnataka single bench of Mrs Justice K.S Hemalekha held that persons carrying managerial and supervisory responsibilities do not fall within the scope of 'workman', as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Once it is determined that the person is not a 'workman' under the Act, the labour court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate whether their termination was proper or not.
Case Title: Shashanka J Sreedhara AND B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan
Case No: ELECTION PETITION NO.15 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Karnataka High Court has held that a declaration by a party as to the policy that they intend to bring about cannot be considered a corrupt practice for the purpose of Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M I Arun dismissed an election petition filed by a voter Shashanka J Sreedhara from Chamrajpet Assembly Constituency challenging the selection of the successful candidate B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan, from the said constituency in the 2023 Elections conducted to the Karnataka State Legislature.
Case Title: The Divisional Controller (South), N.W.K.R.T.C. vs Vasant B Jogi
Case Number: WP No. 105424 of 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
The Karnataka High Court single-judge bench of Justice Shivshankar Amarannavar held that when an industrial dispute is pending in an adjudicatory body, the employer must seek approval from the Tribunal for the dismissal of the worker, as mandated by Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. If any approval is not sought and granted, such dismissal would be deemed void.
The Issue Of Limitation Is Also Part And Parcel Of The Arbitrable Point: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Shivaraj Kamshetty v. The Managing Director Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board,
Case No: Civil Misc Petition No. 20003 of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
The bench of Justice C.M. Joshi of Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi Bench) has held that the issue of limitation of claims is a part and parcel of the arbitrable point which can be decided by the arbitrator.
The Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in BSNL v. Nortel Neworks, LL 2021 SC 153 wherein the Apex Court held that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which should be decided by the arbitral tribunal. Further, the Court had held that the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act can refuse arbitration only when the claims are ex-facie barred by limitation.
Case Title: SRIVIDYA C G AND SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 4380 OF 2018 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 3624 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 3625 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 3632 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 3642 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 3829 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 3943 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 4381 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 4671 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 6074 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 11889 OF 2018 (GM-RES
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal prosecution initiated in 2015 by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against the accused involved in the merger initiated by Kingfisher Airlines Limited (KFAL) to acquire Deccan Aviation Limited (DAL) by providing fraudulent documents to its shareholders, stakeholders thereby violating various provisions of the Companies Act and the Income Tax Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Srividya C G and others who were charged along with fugitive Vijay Mallya (Not before the court in this proceedings) and quashed the case registered under Sections 36 read with Sections 448 and 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Section 68 read with Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Case Title: Jayashankar AND The Assistant Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.339 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that the concept of fraud or coercion incorporated in the Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to be the ground to declare the gift deed as void is limited to the breach of condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the senior citizen-transferor.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit set aside a part of the order passed by the tribunal whereby it had allowed the complaint filed by K. V. Nanjappa setting aside the gift deed executed by him in favour of his son Jayashankar.
Case Title: Sultan Mohiyuddin & Others AND Habeebunissa & Others
Case No: RFA NO.626 OF 2013
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, does not override Section 2(q) and Article 48 of the Karnataka Stamp Act 1957, which deal with the contract of “settlement” thus, the transfer of property by way of “settlement” is very much permissible even among Mohammedans.
A single-judge bench of Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde allowed an appeal filed by Sultan Mohiyuddin and others and set aside the order of the trial court which had allowed the suit for partition and separate possession filed by Habeebunnissa and others and held that the transfer of property through settlement deed as was done by the father of the appellant is impermissible among the Mohammadans.
Case Title: Somashekar AND State of Karnataka
Case NO: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.126/2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by an accused who was convicted by the trial court for running away from the lawful custody of the police under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh dismissed the petition filed by Somashekar who was convicted by the trial court on 09.06.2014 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000, the order was upheld by the appellate court.
Case Title: Dr Ravikumar N.K AND The State Of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3154 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings initiated against a doctor who runs a private hospital and is alleged of huge scam of illegal termination of pregnancy in the hospital belonging to him.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition filed by Dr. Ravikumar N.K who had approached the court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated for the offences punishable under Sections 312, 313, 315, 316 IPC read with Section 5(b), 5(1)(2) & (3) of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Case Title: David D'souza AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4851 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 207.
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an abetment to suicide charge levelled against a husband accused of hurling abuses at a Father (Priest of a church) who allegedly had an affair with his wife.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one David D'souza and quashed the proceedings registered against him under Sections 306, 506, 504 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench on going through the records said: “The sole accused, husband of the lady with whom the deceased Father had certain relationship and had blunt out his anger and had uttered words 'go and hang yourself' cannot mean that it would become the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC for it to become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC - abetment to suicide.
Case Title: Padpara Patti Syed Basha Aysb and Anr. vs The Labour Department Government of Karnataka Office at Labour Officer and Anr.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 14973 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty held that a company must be accused as a necessary party for its offences under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Persons acting on its behalf, including directors, cannot be criminally prosecuted if the company itself is not named as an accused party.
Case Title: The Management Of Nwkrtc, Gadag Division Vs Manjunath
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 107562 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held that the right to claim interest could be considered a pre-existing right or benefit only if explicitly determined in the contract of employment or in the resolutions governing service conditions. However, it held that neither the contract of employment nor the service conditions of the Workman outlined the payment of interest on delayed service benefits.
Furthermore, the bench held that an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the Labour Court would require a prior adjudication or recognition by an employer of the claim of the Workman to be paid wages at the rate which they claim.
Case Title: V S Manjunath AND Chief Election Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11367 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a writ petition challenging the rejection of a candidate's nomination by the returning officer is not maintainable and the remedy for such candidate is to file Election Petition.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by one V S Manjunath, who teaches in a college as guest lecturer and had challenged the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the Election Returning Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Chitradurga (SC), Lok Sabha Constituency rejecting his nomination.
Case Title: Lokesh Kumar AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 217 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to a POCSO rape accused after he and the guardian of the minor victim girl filed an affidavit in court agreeing for the accused to marry the victim immediately upon her attaining the age of majority.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar allowed the petition filed by Lokesh Kumar who was charged under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 5(L), 5(n), 5(j)(2), 6, 20 and 21 of POCSO Act, 2012.
Case Title: C Ganesh Narayan & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.10923 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
The Karnataka High Court refused to quash a criminal case against C Ganesh Narayan, the Director of C.Krishniah Chetty & Company Private Limited and his wife accused of using pepper spray on the complainant who along with other security personnel is alleged of attempted to interfere with the petitioners' property.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition and said “The 2nd petitioner could not have used pepper spray as private defence, as prima facie there was no imminent threat or danger caused to her life. Therefore, the case at hand would require investigation in the least.”
Case Title: Surya & CO & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: CRL.P.NO.795/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings initiated against licensed and unlicensed bookies operating within the Bangalore Turf Club who allegedly collected GST from the punters and TDS amount from the winning bettors but failed to deposit the same before the competent authority and also failed to maintain proper registers.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition seeking to quash FIR registered under Section 78(1)(a)(i) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Section 12 of Karnataka Race Betting Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.
It said,“The allegations against the accused are of very serious nature and the accused amongst other allegations, allegedly have misappropriated crores of money collected by them towards payment of GST and TDS. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioners for quashing the FIR registered against them cannot be granted.”
Case Title: S Santosh Poojari AND State By Mudigere Police
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 600 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
The Karnataka High Court has refused to reduce sentence of six month simple imprisonment imposed on an ambulance driver convicted for driving in a rash and negligent manner and causing an accident leading to death of one person and injuring three others in the year 2011.
A single judge bench of Justice Umesh M Adiga dismissed the revision petition filed by S. Santhosh Poojari and said, “Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that due to the negligent driving of the ambulance by the petitioner an accident had taken place resulting in death of the driver of the car and grievous injuries to all the three occupants of the car. It indicates the speed in which the ambulance might be driven by the accused. If such an accused is dealt with by imposing a nominal sentence of fine of a few hundred rupees, then it would be injustice to the society as well as victims of the accident.”
Case Title: Stone Hill Education Foundation AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.18486/2012
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 215.
The Karnataka High Court has recently declared as 'unconstitutional' para 83 introduced in the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and para 43A in Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, which covered international workers under the scheme irrespective of the salary drawn by them with effect from 01.10.2008.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha noted that the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act prescribes a ceiling amount of Rs.15,000/- per month salary as a threshold for an employee to be a member to the scheme. However, the Scheme had unlimited threshold for international workers while denying the same benefit to Indian workers.
Case Title: B T Kumar AND B N Kumar & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 21526 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
The Karnataka High Court has held that it is only a subsisting contract with the Panchayat that could lead to a disqualification of a member under Section 12 (h) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and not the previous work done by the member.
A single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav while dismissing the petition filed by B T Kumar challenging the election of B N Kumar as member of the Beeruhalli Gram Panchayat upheld the order of the Election Tribunal which had rejected the election petition.
Case Title: B.M.S College Of Law AND Bar Council of India & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9698 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Bar Council of India, to provide details regarding the current status of affiliation of universities, college names etc on its website.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “The Bar Council of India is directed to add the following columns, the date on which an application for extension of affiliation is made, the date on which the payment was made including the details thereof, the initial affiliation letter issued by the Bar Counsel to the particular college with the PDF copy uploaded. The approved intake of the college and such other and further details as the Bar Council may deem fit taking into account the changed circumstances as on today.”
Case Title: Kalpatharu Breweries And Distilleries Pvt Ltd AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12274 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered under the Karnataka Excise Act against Kalpatharu Breweries and Distilleries Pvt Ltd who allegedly during the Lok Sabha Election 2024, when the Election Code of Conduct was in force, parked trucks loaded with liquor in the company premises.
A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma allowed the petition and said “Even if the first information is accepted as it is in the light of the invoice and the permit produced by the petitioner, no offence either under Section 32 or under Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 is made out.”
Case Title: Kumarvel Janakiram AND National Insurance Company LTD & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5788 OF 2013
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if the claimant has received the amount in full and final settlement of his claim from the insurance company of his vehicle, he cannot claim further payment towards repair of his vehicle from the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani made the observation while dismissing the petition filed by one Kumarvel Janakiram. It said, “Admittedly, damaged vehicle was insured with the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company and the claimant has received the full and final settlement of his claim without any reservation or demur. In the absence of any material to show that the claim paid by his Insurance Company represented a part only of the total damage, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the claim for any further payment.”
Case Title: Nagendra & Others AND Chandrakant Jain & ANR
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100383 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order of the trial court decreeing a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff and rejected the contention of the defendants who are businessmen that they had availed loan from the plaintiffs and had not agreed to sell the schedule property.
A division bench of Justice E S Indiresh and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar dismissed the appeal filed by Nagendra and others and said, “If at all the defendants are of the view that, they have availed loan from the plaintiffs and have not entered into sale agreement and if such being the case, there was no impediment for the defendants to execute the mortgage deed instead of executing a sale agreement and therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court is just and proper.”
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4677 OF 2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
The Karnataka High Court recently held that an appeal filed by a wife challenging the divorce decree granted in favour of the husband by the family court does not stand abated on the husband dying pending hearing of appeal.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde allowed the appeal filed by a woman and set aside order of the family court granting divorce on grounds of cruelty on the petition filed by the husband.
Case Title: The Branch Manager AND Sarojamma & ANR
Case No: MFA NO. 7795 OF 2013
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal claiming that fraud was played by the claimant for the sake of compensation by claiming that advocate Rajappa K S, riding the motorcycle, had knocked her down causing injuries.
A Single Bench of Justice T G Shivashakare Gowda said the insurance company failed to prove MLC report as per which the injuries were a result of self-fall. It said,"On perusal of it nothing is mentioned as such that the petitioner has suffered injuries due to self-fall while triple-riding. When the Insurance Company relies on Ex.R3, it is required to prove the said document through proper evidence. The entry refers to the name of Dr. Manjula who is the Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Anandapura. The contents of Ex.R3 required to be proved through Dr. Manjula. No efforts are made to secure her presence. Who gave the information and who brought the injured to the hospital are not forthcoming. Under such circumstances, it is unsafe to rely upon Ex.R3 which was not even confronted to the petitioner during the course of her cross-examination. Mere production of such a document through the Officer of the Insurance Company is not enough to prove its genuineness.”
Free Bus Service Cannot Be Provided To Enable Voters To Reach Polling Booth: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Sayes Khalil Ulla Hussaini AND Chief Election Commission of India & Others
Case No: WP 13045/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 223.
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday disposed of a public interest litigation filed seeking directions to the Chief Electoral Officer officer to provide free bus services to transport voters on polling dates to enable them to vote.
A vacation bench of Justice R Devdas and Justice J M Khazi said, “If such directions are issued either by the state government or head of the public transport department it would violate express provisions contained in the statute, allegations can also be made against the political party which is running the government that such directions would run counter to express provisions. The Chief Election Commissioner is not empowered to issue such directions either to the state government or the heads of the Public Transport Corporation.”
Case Title: Samiulla Saheb & ANR AND Mohammed Sameer
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.6789 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
The Karnataka High Court recently held that an application seeking custody of a minor child has to be filed only before a court where the minor child ordinarily resides.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the grandparents Samiulla Saheb and another of the minor child and set aside the order of the trial court rejecting their application filed under Order VII Rule, 10 a/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to return the plaint filed by the father of the minor child.
Case Title: Uma & ANR AND Banshankar & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9908 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
The Karnataka High Court recently directed attaching the property of a man by creating a charge over his property to secure payment of maintenance to his estranged wife and differently-abled son.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde allowed the application filed by the wife and child for attaching the property of the husband. It said “Charge is created over the said property to secure payment of maintenance to the plaintiffs. The property standing in the name of the 1st defendant described in the schedule given below, and any other property in the name of the 1st defendant, if the property details are furnished by the plaintiff, shall carry the charge of maintenance ordered by this Court.”
Case Title: Chinnaswamy K AND Theosophy Company (Mysore) Pvt Ltd
Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 483 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
The Karnataka High Court has held that by providing a rent-free accommodation, as a term of employment, would create a jural relationship of a 'landlord and tenant' between an employer and an employee.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda dismissed a petition filed by Chinnaswamy K who had sought quashing of the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2023 passed by the small causes court, allowing the suit filed by Theosophy Company (Mysore) Pvt Ltd and directed the petitioner to vacate the suit schedule property and hand over possession of the same to the respondent herein.
Case Title: The State of Karnataka AND Anil N B
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.106/2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an acquittal order passed by the trial court and convicted a son for offences under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, for assaulting and causing the death of his 60-year-old mother.
A division bench of Justice K S Mudagal and Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda allowed the appeal filed by the state government and set aside the trial court acquitting Anil N B for the charge of murdering his mother Gangamma.
The bench said “The holistic appreciation of the evidence shows that the prosecution discharged its burden of proving that the victim suffered injuries due to the assault by the accused which led to her death. The appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court is contrary to the material on record, the circumstances of the case and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra. Hence the same is perverse or patently illegal.”
Case Title: Nagabhushan Reddy N & ANR AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23631 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
The Karnataka High Court has directed the authorities to implement the Parking Policy 2.0. The Court directed the Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to by June 20 submit a detailed project report on the methodology of implementation of the Parking Policy, before the court.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “Though Parking Policy 2.0 is stated to have come into force in December 2020, the Area Parking Plan, parking charges framework, the streamlining of on-street parking, initiation of a pilot permit system etc., has not been carried out by the BBMP. The inaction on part of BBMP and/or Directorate of Urban Land Transport in doing the needful has resulted in inconvenience to the general public as can be seen in the present matter and inconvenience is being caused to the petitioners.”
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION (H C) NO.41 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
The Karnataka High Court recently disposed of habeas corpus petition filed by a mother of a girl after the detenue girl informed the court that she has married and is staying with her Muslim husband in Kerala and does not intend to go back to her parents.
A division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Venkatesh Naik T said “The concerned Police are directed to hand over the detenue to the custody of respondent no.6 forthwith.” The court also took on record the voluntary undertaking filed by the husband wherein he undertakes to care of the safety, welfare and education of the detenue.
Case Title: Adhilakshmi & Others AND K Chidanand
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 764 OF 2010
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
The Karnataka High Court has held that the wife of an original allottee becomes the absolute owner of the property if, before registration of property, the allottee died and thereafter on making the necessary payment the property is transferred in the woman's name.
A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah dismissed an appeal filed by Adhilakshmi and others challenging a trial court order dismissing their suit for partition and separate possession of the property.
Case Title: Ando Paul AND G Ismail Musliyar
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 2 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
The Karnataka High Court has acquitted an Editor/Publisher of a local magazine who was convicted on charges of defamation holding that cognizance of the offence was taken after 8 years of filing the complaint by the trial court.
A single-judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah acquitted Ando Paul, who was convicted of offences under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench relied on Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which pertains to the bar on taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. It said, “On careful reading of the above said provision, it makes it clear that cognizance should be taken within 3 years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but not exceeding 3 years.”
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2107 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 232
The Karnataka High Court recently allowed an appeal filed by a woman challenging the order of the trial court dismissing her petition seeking divorce and held that unfounded allegation on the character of a spouse causes mental cruelty and can be a ground for dissolution of marriage.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde allowed the appeal filed by the woman and said “The institution of marriage rests on the mutual trust, confidence, love and respect between the couple. When one spouse makes an allegation suspecting the character of the other and if that allegation is not substantiated, the Court has to hold that the allegation is unfounded. The unfounded allegation on the character of a spouse shakes the edifice of the institution of marriage. In such a situation, it would be extremely difficult for the spouse to live peacefully in matrimony.”
Case Title: M Govinda Bhat & ANR AND The Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate and District Election Officer & others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.9932 OF 2024 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.9918 OF 2024 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.9925 OF 2024 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.9941 OF 2024 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.9959 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
The Karnataka High Court recently issued guidelines to be followed by authorities to ensure that orders are not passed demanding the deposit of firearms by licensed holders before Lok Sabha elections.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said “Since the authorities are consistently violating the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India, this Court deems it fit to issue certain directions.”
Case Title: Vasanthi AND Umesh G D
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9791 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
The Karnataka High Court recently held that withdrawal of the suit wherein forged documents were submitted would not automatically result in the quashing of the criminal proceedings lodged against the plaintiff by the respondent to the suit.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “Merely because the suit was withdrawn would not take away the fact of forgery or use of forged documents against the respondent. This aspect would have to be dealt with by the trial Court and the necessary finding to be given in relation thereto.”
Past Conduct Of Workman Must Be Looked Into While Passing Order Of Dismissal: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The Divisional Controller, KSRTC AND N N Mahadeva
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 55722 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Labour Court directing the reinstatement of a conductor working with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, who was charged and dismissed for non-issuing of tickets to passengers travelling on the bus.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani allowed the appeal filed by the corporation and said “The disciplinary authority, while taking into consideration the findings of the inquiry officer and passing the order of penalty, is required to look into the past conduct of the workman. Needless to observe that Regulation 25 of the KSRTC (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 also mandates to refer to the past conduct and history sheet of the workman.”
Case Title: Dr Sharanya Mohan & Others AND Union of India & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.7435 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.10079 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) WRIT PETITION No.10297 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) WRIT PETITION No.10374 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) WRIT PETITION No.10379 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) WRIT PETITION No.10381 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) WRIT PETITION No.10751 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) WRIT PETITION No.13569 OF 2021 (EDN – RES) WRIT PETITION No.2137 OF 2022 (EDN – RES)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
The Karnataka High Court has granted relief to 447 MBBS students from compulsory rural service for one year, as sought under the 2012 amendment of Rule 11 of Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules 2006, as the amended rule was not gazetted for 10 years after it was finalised.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition filed by Sharanya Mohan and quashed the corrigendum dated 17-06-2021, only insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
It said “Only for these petitioners the action is held to be illegal in the teeth of the Rule not being in force as on the date on which it was sought to be implemented/imposed upon every student through execution of bonds.” However, it clarified that the law is no valid and students cannot escape from rural service.
Case Title: Abdul Azeem AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.17396 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Abdul Azeem, a former Chairman of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission, questioning the government decision cancelling the nomination of the petitioner as Chairman of the Commission.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The petitioner is a nominee who is nominated under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 itself indicates that it is at the pleasure of the State. It is exercised and he is denominated. Such de-nomination of a nominee cannot be questioned on the ground that it is arbitrary.”
Case Title: T Bharathgowda AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.7872 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 238
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register a sale certificate issued by the bank to an auction purchaser of property on the ground that certain claims of the Income Tax Department are pending against the original loan borrowers.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a petition filed by T Bharathgowda and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the document brought before him by the petitioner forthwith, the moment a copy of this order is brought to his notice, without any delay.
Case Title: The State of Karnataka & ANR AND Ramiah Reddy
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1640 OF 2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 239
The Karnataka High Court has said that money belonging to a citizen is his property, and if that is retained by the State entities it amounts to temporary acquisition of property for which as a matter of rule compensation has to be paid to the citizen.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar said “Money belonging to a citizen is his property. If that is retained by the State entities falling under Article 12, that amounts to temporary acquisition of property for which as a matter of rule compensation has to be paid going by Article 300A jurisprudence as developed by the Apex Court, precedent by precedent.”
Case Title: Jnana Sarovar Educational Trust AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24579 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 240
The Karnataka High Court has held that provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 are applicable even to Residential schools.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the petition filed by Jnana Sarovar Educational Trust, which runs a residential school without any grant-in-aid offering the Indian School Certificate Examination (ISCE) syllabus, from 21.08.2009, challenging an order dated 23.11.2021 by which the authorities imposed a penalty of Rs 1,61,50,000, for non-compliance with the provisions of registration under the Act.
Case Title: D M Padmanabha & Others AND The State By Karnataka Lokayuktha & ANR
Case No: W.P.No.2413/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 241
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that preliminary enquiry is not mandatory before registering a First Information Report on charges of possessing disproportionate assets to the known sources of income by a government servant if the source report makes out a prima facie case against the accused.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed a petition filed by D M Padmanabha a Panchayat Development Officer at Kundana Grama Panchayat, his wife and mother-in-law seeking to quash FIR registered against them for offences punishable under section 13(1) (b) R/w Section 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: Muralidhara & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No 17118 of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 242
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a Sessions court order directing further investigation to be carried out by police in order to produce medical records of the victim who was physically assaulted by the accused instead of summoning them for the hospital.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed a petition filed by accused Muralidhara and another who had questioned the sessions court order which had set aside the magistrate court and allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. for further investigation in a case which was registered in the year 2013 and is at the fag end of the trial.
Case Title: Jithendra Kumar N M AND T Gururaj
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2158/2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 243
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when in the reply notice issued by the accused to the complainant the transaction of availment of loan is admitted again calling upon the complainant to prove the transaction does not arise at all.
A single-judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar reversed the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the trial court acquitting accused T Gururaj who was charged with the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
Case Title: Amit Chougule AND Megha
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.102123 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 244
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a husband questioning the interim maintenance granted to the estranged and minor child by the trial court.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed the contention of the husband that he is unemployed as he has lost his job. He is not in a position to pay maintenance as he has no independent source of income.
The court said “If the petitioner has deserted the wife irrespective of his financial status, he is bound to maintain his wife and minor children. The petitioner under the garb that he has lost his employment, cannot shy away from his responsibility of maintaining the wife and minor daughter.”
Case Title: K B Lokesh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1267 OF 2014.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 245
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of 1131 licensed surveyors in the Department of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, by directing the State government to settle their claims and pay to them the remuneration in terms of Government Order dated 12.08.2008, after ascertaining the additional work done by them.
As per the government order it was decided to pay Rs.500 for Tatkaal Phodi Work and enhancement of Pre-Mutation Sketch Fee from Rs.403 to Rs.600. This Order was issued as a matter of Government Policy for catering to the needs of agriculturists, subject to them paying the prescribed fees for tapping the services of the appellants.
Construction Of Memorial For Film Actor Cannot Be Subject Matter Of PIL: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: V.S.S VISHNU SENA SANGHATANE & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 29408/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 246
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the state government to grant 10 guntas of land for construction of a memorial for late Kannada film actor Dr Vishnuvardhan, on the land where he has been cremated in 2009.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind said, “Construction of memorial of a film star cannot become subject matter of public interest litigation. It is difficult to visualise as to what public interest will be achieved by the petitioner insisting for grant of land for the said purpose.”
Case Title: Shany Jose AND The Union of India & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8969 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 247
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Regional Passport officer to consider and pass necessary orders within four weeks on the representation to be made by a qualified nurse for return of her passport, which came to be seized as she had travelled from Yemen in violation of a 2017 government notification issued citing national security concerns amid India's strained relationship with the country.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed a petition filed by one Shany Jose who had approached the court seeking a direction for release of her passport, which was seized and withheld by the respondents in terms of the seizure memo dated 20-08-2023.
Case Title: Vivek Jain AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.14704 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 248
The Karnataka High Court has held that a gift deed executed by a senior citizen in favour of his son releasing his property who subsequently sells it, cannot be cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner of Senior Citizen Tribunal, if there is no condition mentioned in the gift deed of maintaining the father (donor).
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Vivek Jain who had purchased the property from CS Harsha, who was gifted the property by his father Srinivas in the year 2019.
Case Tile: Rasheedabanu Mohammed Goush Kwati & ANR AND Ashpakaahamad Abdulasab Mulla & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 100847 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 249
The Karnataka High Court has held that even if the property which is the subject matter of the agreement to sell is the ancestral property, non-alienating members of a joint family have no locus to contest the suit for specific performance.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum sitting at Dharwad bench dismissed the petition filed by Rasheedabanu Mohammed Goush Kwati and another challenging the order of the trial court dismissing their application seeking impleadment.
Case Title: Neetha G AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.11827 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 250
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a petition filed by a wife seeking parole leave for her husband who is a life convict on the ground that she is deprived of her right of progeny.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition of the woman in part and granted general parole for a period of 30 days to the convict which would become operational from 05.06.2024 to 04.07.2024.
Case Title: Vijaya Bank AND M Ravindra Shetty
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 7791 OF 2003
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 251
The Karnataka High Court, while reversing an order of the Single bench directing reinstatement of a delinquent bank employee who was dismissed from service for lending money to fictitious persons without duly securing repayment of loans, has observed that the opinion given by the Central Vigilance Commission to the disciplinary authority need not be shared with the employee.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by Vijaya Bank and agreed with its contention that no error has been committed by the management in taking the opinion of Central Vigilance Officer inasmuch as such a course is internalised vide Regulation 19 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981.
It said, “The CVC is constituted under Section 3 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and it has statutory duties. One such duty is to advice the banks in matters of disciplinary proceedings. We do not subscribe to the views of learned Single Judge that the vigilance opinion should always be shared with the delinquent employee and that his say should be had on that. The object of consulting the Vigilance Commission is not in the interest of the employee but in the larger interest of the banking institution. There is no scope for assuming the contra position, in the absence of any such indication in the Regulations. In taking this view, we are mindful of the presumption that the principles of natural justice are not ordinarily excluded.”
Case Title: Palaniswamy Veeraraja & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4624 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 252
The Karnataka High Court has held that a private complaint filed before a court in Bengaluru complaining about forged documents being submitted by a party before a foreign court is maintainable.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed a petition filed by Palaniswamy Veeraraja and others seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them based upon the private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It said, “The documents were created by the accused who were in Bangalore and running the company at Bangalore. Therefore, the Bangalore Police has jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file the charge sheet.”
Case Title: Annegowda AND State By Yeshvanthapura Police Station & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9009 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 253
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Magistrate court has the power to direct further investigation in a case and merely because the Magistrate did not given any notice to the accused while directing the police to further investigate the matter, that itself is not a ground to quash the order for further probe.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by Aneegowda, challenging the order of the Magistrate dated 26.3.2021 against the application filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C, permitting for further investigation in the case registered against the accused charged for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 420 of IPC.
Case Title: H Channaiah Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath And Ors
Case No.- WRIT PETITION NO.5016 OF 2024 (S-R)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 254
A single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum in the case of H Channaiah Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath And Ors has held that Leave encashment cannot be viewed as discretionary bounties but as legal rights enforceable under the Constitution of India
Case Title: City Municipal Council Channapatna AND Siddaramu & ANR
Case No: WA NO.1983 OF 2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 255
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single bench order which directed the City Municipal Council of Channapatna to extend the lease of a shop allotted to a disabled person to 20 years, instead of the stipulated 12-years lease period.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by the Council by citing a Government Circular dated 26.10.2009 which prescribes a maximum period of 12 years lease of these properties for disabled persons under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. It said, “The learned Single Judge could not have lightly construed such an instrument of law to the prejudice of public interest and conversely to the advantage of a private citizen. No writ can be issued in derogation of law. Writ Courts in the guise of doing justice cannot transcend the barriers of law, to say the least. Obviously, they cannot arrogate to themselves the extraordinary power vested in the Apex Court of the country under Article 142 of the Constitution. After all, we are Judges and therefore, cannot act like mughals of a bygone era. More is not necessary to specify.”
Case Title: The New India Assurance Co Ltd AND Bibi Nafisa & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7683 OF 2014(MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 54 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
The Karnataka High Court has held that the principle of pay and recover is not applicable in case a minor boy drives the vehicle and causes the accident. In such cases, the owner of the vehicle alone shall pay the compensation to the claimants and not the Insurance Company, it held.
A single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar allowed the appeal filed by The New India Assurance Co Ltd and set aside the order of the tribunal dated 11.08.2014 insofar as it relates to fastening liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation.
Case Title: Santhosh Shetty & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.13912 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a rape case registered by a woman against her would-be husband alleging that after the betrothal ceremony on the promise of marriage the accused had forced the complainant to indulge in sexual intercourse and seven months later refused to marry.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Santosh Shetty and his family members who were charged with offences punishable under sections 376, 471, 420, 109, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Rev. Devaraj Bangera And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.67 OF 2015
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 258
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the order of conviction handed down by the trial court to a retired head of a church who had manipulated his date of birth certificate so as to get the benefit of continuing to be head of the church for one more year.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda however upon noting that offence was committed almost 20 years ago in 2004 and accused is aged 80-years, modified the prison term of three years and directed the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till raising of the Court.
Case Title: X AND Karnataka Medical Council & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.4617 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 259
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a doctor-wife questioning the rejection of her application by the Karnataka Medical Council wherein she had sought to appoint an Expert Committee to examine her husband, also a doctor, who was allegedly diagnosed as suffering from a porencephalic cyst (missing brain).
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by the estranged wife. However, it clarified that the issue could be kept open to be urged at a later point in time if the need arises.
Case Title: M/s Akhila Karnataka Hindu Temples Priest Agamikas and Archaks Association And State of Karnataka & Anr
Case No: WP 8722/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 260
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation filed seeking a declaration that temples in the State of Karnataka are not public authorities within the meaning of section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by M/s Akhila Karnataka Hindu Temples Priests Agamikas and Archaks Association.
Case Title: Dr Chethan Kumar S AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4868 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a doctor seeking to quash an offence registered against him under Section 354-A (Sexual Harassment) on the complaint lodged by a patient.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “A doctor should remember that the patients seek their help when they are in a vulnerable state – when they are sick, when they are needy and when they are uncertain about the needs to be done. The unequal distribution of power in the doctor-patient relationship may give rise to opportunities of sexual exploitation. This vulnerability should not be used as a weapon by the doctors, misusing the trust the patient reposes in the doctor.”
Case Title: C B Prakash & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6995 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code registered by a woman against her father and mother-in-law.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by C B Prakash and another said “There are scores and scores of cases where allegations are made that have pointed overt acts by every member of the family which are sustained and further trial is permitted. There are even scores and scores of cases where every member of the family without rhyme or reason is dragged into the web of crime by frivolous complaints registered by the complainant/wife while the entire grievance is against the husband and every imaginary member of the family is dragged in. It is these cases which are to be nipped in the bud.”
Case Title: Nikil Sankla AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4209 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to a 20-year-old who allegedly, after having chats with a minor girl over Instagram, took her intimate photos, committed sexual assault and started blackmailing the victim and her family members.
A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma allowed the bail petition observing that “The petitioner is hardly aged 20 years. If he is detained in custody, there is every possibility of him coming in contact with hardcore criminals, which is not in the best interest of the petitioner.”
Case Title: Uemsha T N and Ors vs. State of Karnataka
Case No. : WP No. 19588 of 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
A single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Justice N S Sanjay Gowda, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Uemsha T N and Ors vs. State of Karnataka, held that employees cannot be granted permanent status if their employment was through outsourcing contracts that were not meant to establish permanent positions.
Case Title: Mrs X AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 807 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
The Karnataka High Court has held that a woman who is a victim of prostitution cannot be punished for offences punishable under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a woman who had been charged under the provision and said, “The provisions, the purpose or the object of the Act is not to abolish prostitution or the prostitute. There is no provision under the law, which penalises a victim who indulges in prostitution. What is punishable is sexual exploitation for commercial purposes and to earn or make a living upon it against such person/s.”
Case Title: Alla Baksha Patel AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against a man who allegedly wrote the number of a married woman on the walls of gents toilet at Majestic bus stand, Bangalore, calling her “a call girl” following which she started receiving unexpected calls at odd hours from various numbers who also threatened to her life.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Alla Baksha Patel and said “In today's digital age one need not cause physical harm, a woman's modesty can be railroaded by sheer circulation of pejorative statements, pictures or videos in the social media. It is therefore, when such cases are projected before this Court seeking quashment, it should not be interfered with, but be dealt with a stern manner. The petitioner has indulged in one of the ingredients of such insult by fresco or a writing on the wall. He, therefore, cannot get away with making such belittling comments on a woman in public.”
Case Title: Invest Karnataka Forum & ANR and M/s BBP Studio Virtual Bharath Pvt. Ltd & Anr
Case No: C.C.C NO.495 OF 2023 (CIVIL) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.1095 OF 2023 (GM-RES) AND WRIT APPEAL NO.1266 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 267
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Single judge bench by which it directed the State government to release balance payments due to M/s BBP Studio Virtual Bharat Pvt Ltd, which was appointed to produce a 3D film during the Global Investors Meet, in November 2022, but the contract was cancelled last minute as the film did not meet required parameters.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the appeal filed by Invest Karnataka Forum and the State of Karnataka and said “It is difficult to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge.”
Consensual Relationship Is No Licence To Assault A Woman: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6913 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 268
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash charges of assault levelled by a woman against a man with whom she was in a consensual relationship for years.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “Any amount of consensus or a consensual relationship between the accused and the complainant will not become a licence to the accused to assault a woman.”
Kidnapping Case:Karnataka HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Prajwal Revanna's Mother
Case Title: Bhavani Revanna AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 5125/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 269
The Karnataka High Court today granted anticipatory bail to Bhavani Revanna, Prajwal Revanna's mother, who has been charged with kidnapping a woman. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while pronouncing the order remarked, "I have marched a step forward in protecting a woman from unnecessary or avoidable custody. In our social setup they are hub of the family."
Teachers Mould Fate Of A Nation And Play Pivotal Role In Nation Building: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Vijayalakshmi H S AND Principal Secretary & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1429 OF 2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 270
The Karnataka High Court has allowed an appeal filed by a teacher and directed the State Higher Education Department to give effect to the Management's order of her absorption as a full-time lecturer in the institution.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by Vijayalakshmi H S and said “Absorption would secure favourable conditions of service to the teachers and that in turn would proliferate their interest in the discharge of their duties. It hardly needs to be stated that it is the teachers that mould the fate of a Nation and they play a pivotal role in Nation building.”
Case Title: Lakkamma & Others AND Jayamma
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2013
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 271
The Karnataka High Court has held that while exercising discretion in a suit for specific performance, the court need not decree the suit merely because it is filed within the period of limitation, by ignoring time limits stipulated in the agreement.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by the Lakkamma @Lakshmamma and others and set aside the trial court order dated 20th October 2012, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff Jayamma against the appellants for the relief of specific performance of the suit agreement dated 02.08.2007.
Case Title: Sagad Kareem Ismael AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11952 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 272
The Karnataka High Court recently held that a foreign national cannot execute a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) sitting elsewhere in the globe for the purpose of filing a writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before any courts in India.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Sagad Kareem Ismael a native of Iraq who had approached the court through SPA with a prayer directing the respondents to consider the Visa application dated 22-02-2024 and grant him an entry for his medical treatment into the country.
Case Title: P Reethi Mune Gowda AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.1508 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
The Karnataka High Court has held that the fifteen-month period for calling for a no-confidence motion under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, is to be counted from the date of election not of the first President but from the date when the new President in the middle of the term of the Panchayat assumes office.
A Division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed an appeal filed by one P Reethi Mune Gowda, and set aside the order of the single judge bench which had held that she had assumed the office of Bengaluru Grama Panchayat, from when the election results were declared. Since fifteen months expired on 26.05.2023 counted from the date 27.12.2021 when the first President was elected, there was no prohibition for moving the no-confidence motion.
Case Title: Parvathamma M AND Chandrakala V
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2015
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
The Karnataka High Court has said that the presumption against an accused under Section 113 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a rebuttable presumption, but the said rebuttable presumption must be rebutted by adducing credible evidence, and merely raising a doubt is not sufficient.
A single judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D Huddar made the observation while allowing the appeal filed by Parvathamma M and setting aside the order passed by the trial court acquitting accused Chandrakala V, who was charged under Section 138 of the Act.
Case Title: ABC & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 88 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by a woman against the paramour of her husband.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the woman and her mother who were arrayed as accused in the case registered under sections 498A, 323, 324, 307, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Case Title: A M Harish Gowda AND Chaluvaraju H S
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.619 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of conviction handed down to an accused who was charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda while dismissing the petition filed by A M Harish Gowda, turned down his contention that the cheque issued in favour of one Prabhakar had been misused by the complainant Chaluvaraju H to file a false case against the accused.
The court said, “It is pertinent to note that said Prabhakar is not even examined on behalf of the accused, nor any material like counterfoil or cheque issuing register is placed on record so as to establish that the cheque has been issued in favour of Prabhakar.”
Case Title: G Nagaraju AND The Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 13892 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order passed by the authorities disqualifying the Director of Janagere Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Ltd on the grounds that the petitioner was a defaulter not having cleared his loan dues to the Society as on the relevant date when he was elected.
A single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav dismissed the petition filed by G Nagaraju and said “The clearing of dues only on 01.06.2020 after the petitioner was elected makes out a case for disqualification.”
Case Title: Paras Jain AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.20076 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a notice issued by the State Bar Council to a 71-year-old Advocate pursuant to 'professional misconduct' allegations levelled against him by the opposite party in a suit, i.e. the judgment debtor.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Advocate Paras Jain, and said, “The complainant (A Ramachandra Reddy) had no locus to file the complaint against the petitioner, as he (petitioner) was neither his (complainant's) Advocate nor there was any engagement of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent at any point in time. He was the counsel who had appeared against the 2nd respondent. The complaint, at best, was maintainable by the decree holders, if there was any allegation against the petitioner and not at the instance of Judgment Debtor.”
Case Title: Karnataka Food And Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Others AND Veena M
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1534 OF 2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
The Karnataka High Court has deprecated the act of public servants causing political influence in a matter of their transfer and postings and said it may constitute a sole ground for declining relief.
A Division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and set aside a single judge bench order which had directed reinstatement of Veena M in service without back wages & consequential benefits, although continuity of service was granted for the limited purpose of retirement accruals.
Case Title: S R Bellary & State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NOS.25653/2022 C/W 25654/2022, 25655/2022, 25660/2022, 25680/2022, 12221/2023, 12229/2023, 17716/2023 AND 17912/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a government resolution dated 29th September 2022 which suspend fourteen quarry leases located within one kilometre boundary of Kappathgudda Wildlife Sanctuary.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the petition filed by SR Bellary and others against the resolution passed by District Task Force Committee (Mines), Gadag District.
It said,“The Kappatgudda Wildlife Sanctuary is a notified Sanctuary and the distance of one kilometre has to be observed, treating it as a prohibited area in which mining activities cannot be allowed. It is also to be noted that the preservation of one kilometre from the protected area is irrespective of the eco-sensitive zone Notification.”
Karnataka HC:Absence Without Leave Constitutes Misconduct in Industrial Employment
Case: Shri G. Ramesh. v. The Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd.
Case No. W.P. (C). No. 36199/2014
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
A single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice Jyoti Mulimani while deciding a writ petition in the case of Shri G. Ramesh. v. The Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd. has held that absence without leave constitutes misconduct in industrial employment and justifies disciplinary punishment.
Karnataka HC:Black Money Act Can't Apply Retrospectively for Foreign Asset Disclosure
Case Title: Dhanashree Ravindra Pandit AND The Income Tax Department
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.101368 OF 2019 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.101369 OF 2019 CRIMINAL PETITION No.101370 OF 2019 CRIMINAL PETITION No.101371 OF 2019 CRIMINAL PETITION No.101372 OF 2019 CRIMINAL PETITION No.101373 OF 2019 CRIMINAL PETITION No.101374 OF 2019 CRIMINAL PETITION No.101375 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal prosecution initiated under Section 50 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, against several businessmen who were charged for violations alleged to have been committed years before the Act came into force.
The provision penalises assessee's failure to furnish any information of an asset located outside India, including financial interest.
Karnataka HC: Minor Rape Victim's Birth Date in School Register Valid if Headmaster Testifies
Case Title: Manikanta @ Puli AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1247 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
The Karnataka High Court has held that entries made in school register indicating the birth date of a ward cannot be disbelieved and it is admissible evidence if the details are proved by examining the school headmaster as witness.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice C M Joshi made the observation while partly allowing the appeal filed accused Manikanta @ Pulli who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under sections 376(2)(i)(n), 506 of IPC and Section 5(j)(ii)(l) r/w Sec.6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act.
Case Title: Mathikere Jayaram Shantharam AND Pramod C
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2998 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
The Karnataka High Court has observed that criminal proceedings should be restored if an accused does not adhere to settlement arrived at between parties in a case registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, with an intention only to dodge the issue after settlement.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by one Mathikere Jayaram Shantharam questioning the order of the Magistrate court dated 17-01-2023, which issued a fine levy warrant and notice for attachment of personal properties of the accused.
Case Title: M R Nagarajan AND The Syndicate Bank & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1337 OF 2015
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
The Karnataka High Court has said that punishment upon a delinquent employee should be commensurate with the gravity of guilt and while awarding punishment, factors like the long and spotless service rendered by the delinquent, the number and nature of promotions earned by him till initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the encomia awarded to him, the shortness of the period remaining for superannuation, etc. be considered.
Case Title: Aravinda Reddy AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.12056 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the trial court rejecting an application filed by a murder accused seeking permission to confront PW-1 (Complainant) by playing video footage recorded by the media in the presence of the Police Officers of witnesses when the deceased was brought to the government hospital after the incident.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by Aravinda Reddy said “The order of the concerned Court holding that it would not be a previous statement and the DVD/DVR/video footage cannot be permitted to be played, is rendered unsustainable. If it leads to discovery of truth and the discovery of truth leads to innocence of the accused, it should be permitted to come on record.”
Case Title: WORKMEN OF BEML LTD & Others AND Union of India & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.573/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 287
The Karnataka High Court has kept in abeyance a recruitment notification issued by the Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML) dated 27.09.2023 calling for recruitment to the Group-C position.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha said “This Court feels it appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances to keep the impugned notification (dated 27-09-2023) in abeyance for a period of one month from today.”
Assessment Order Passed Against Dead Person Is Nullity: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Smt. Sowmya S. Versus ITO
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 25728 Of 2023 (T-IT)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 288
The Karnataka High Court, while quashing the assessment order, held that the assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act amounts to nullity.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav has observed that when the assessee dies during the pendency of the proceedings, proceedings are to be continued through the legal representatives of the deceased.
Case Title: Centre for Wildlife Studies AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.27301 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 289
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs cancelling the certificate of registration issued under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, to a trust Centre for Wildlife Studies, on the grounds that no personal hearing was granted to the trust before passing the order.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the trust whose Chief functionary is Ullas Karanth, grandson of novelist Dr. K Shivarama Karanth and set aside the order dated 04-09-2023.
It said “Principles of natural justice, is trite cannot be stretched to unlimited extent. But, it is equally trite that when consequences thereof are grave, it should be complied with in its entirety even stretching in a little further. Therefore, the words depicted in the Act 'reasonable opportunity of being heard' cannot be restricted to issuance of a show cause notice but a personal hearing in the peculiar facts of the case owing to the peculiarity of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act must have been afforded to the petitioner.”
Case Title: Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 4962/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
The Karnataka High Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a direction on the government for government correspondence at all levels to be done in the Kannada language.
A division bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravinda said “While the Kannada language which is the local language in the state has to be promoted and to be given importance, that itself will not justify entertaining the present public interest litigation, by directing the government and its officials to use Kannada language.”