Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 157 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 206Nominal Index: Syed Mohammed Hussain AND The Karnataka State Board of AUQAF & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 157Fr. Valerian Fernandes AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 158The Managing Director Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Others and L Mallikarjunappa. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 159K C Cariappa AND Union...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 157 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
Nominal Index:
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
Judgments/Orders
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.