Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 457 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 504Nominal Index:Karnataka State Highways Improvement Project AND M/s. KMC - VDB (JV). 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 457Sanju v. The State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 458C G Jagdish AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 459Santhosh Beejadi Srinivas AND Union of India & Another. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 460Srishti Daiv & ANR AND NIL....
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 457 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 504
Nominal Index:
Karnataka State Highways Improvement Project AND M/s. KMC - VDB (JV). 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 457
Sanju v. The State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 458
C G Jagdish AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 459
Santhosh Beejadi Srinivas AND Union of India & Another. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 460
Srishti Daiv & ANR AND NIL. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 461
Hangal Taluka Civil Contractors Association AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 462
Ann Nimmi Sebastian v. State of Karnataka and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 463
Chikkagundappa And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 464
Renuka Yamunappa Golasangi v. Mohan Naik. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 465
Dr Jonathan Jaideep AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 466
Syed Esa Ibrahim & ANR AND State By Channapatna East PS. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 467
Avenue Supermarts LTD AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 468
Mohan Nayak N AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 469
Mohammad Shafiulla AND The D. G. AND I.G.P. Of Police & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 470
Dr V L Nandish AND The Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 471
Anitha H And Principal District and Session Judge. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 472
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 473
Yallappa & Another AND Kallavva Kuriyavar. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 474
Mubeen Unnisa Begum AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 475
Ms X v State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 476
Nikkitha K J AND Union of India & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 477
Rajesh Kumar Shetty And T Subbaya Shetty & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 478
Nitin Kasliwal And Debt Recovery Tribunal I. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 479
Indian Rail Mazdoor Union And The Chairman And Chief Executive Officer Railway Board & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 480
M/s B M Habitat AND The Commissioner And Competent Authority. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 481
Laxman Warad & Others AND Town Municipal Council. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 482
Karnataka Rajya Anganvadi Karya Kartheyara Mathu Sahaya AND Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 483
Muddumadaiah And B Jyothi. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 484
Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi AND Aneesa Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 485
Dr Ambedkar Scheduled Castes Federation Karnataka AND Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 486
Sharmada B K AND The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 487
Mutti AND Kucharu & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 488
Gulihatti D Shekar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 489.
K Madal Virupakshappa AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 490
Mohammed Noman Ahmed Almeri AND Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 491
Pusha AND Y Jansi Rani. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 492
M/s SKF India Limited v. A V Nagabhushana. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 493
D L Ramesh v. Marilingaiah. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 494
M/s Om SLV Constructions AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 495
Vasundhara A.G.K AND The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 496
Anupam Singh Tomar AND State By Kothanur Police & Another. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 497
EIT Services India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 498
M/S Myntra Designs Private Limited Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 499
M/s GROUP 4 SECURITAS GUARDING LIMITED AND The Regional Director, ESI Corporation. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 500
Almas Pasha AND The State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 501
Dr. Annaiah N AND State of Karnataka & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 502.
Kalyanamurthy K AND State Bank of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 503
M/S Tejas Arecanut Traders Versus Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 504
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Karnataka State Highways Improvement Project AND M/s. KMC - VDB (JV)
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29440 OF 2019
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 457
The Karnataka High Court has held that an arbitral award which does not deal with either movable property or immovable property, but awards damages payable to the award holder, does not attract stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
Justice R Nataraj thus dismissed a petition challenging an order of the trial court rejecting its application seeking to impound the award of the arbitrator for non-payment of stamp duty by the respondent. "When the award of the arbitrator deals with a movable property or immovable property, by virtue of the charging clause contained in Article 11 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, such awards are bound to suffer stamp duty before it is brought for execution. In the case on hand, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the award does not deal with either movable property or immovable property, but it awarded liquidated damages payable to the respondent, arising out of a construction contract. Therefore, the award does not attract stamp duty."
Case Title: Sanju v. The State of Karnataka,
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100297/2019
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 458
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment of a man, who ran over his neighbor (Jyothiba) for involvement in an illicit relationship with his wife.
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar dismissed the appellant's plea, noting that the chain of events clearly pointed to the guilt of the appellant, who fled from the spot rather than taking the victims (Jyothiba and his father) to a hospital.
“When the accident occurred, he being the neighbour, if he had not indulged in an act of committing the murder and it was merely an accident, he ought not to have fled away from the place of accident. An ordinary prudent man, when there was an accident, he would have helped to shift injured persons to the hospital, since he is acquainted with victims 1 and 2 being his neighbours. But he has not done so. This conduct has to be taken note of.”
Case Title: C G Jagdish AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 387 of 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 459
The Karnataka High Court has held that inherent power vested under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 with the Deputy Commissioner cannot be invoked casually to rescind orders of conversion of land.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed an appeal filed by C G Jagdish and said “The inherent power vested in a Revenue Court by virtue of Section 25 of the 1964 Act could not have been invoked, even if we agree that the order of conversion was statutorily appealable. A resort to inherent power is not like a drug of choice for a physician.”
Case Title: Santhosh Beejadi Srinivas AND Union of India & Another
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24269 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 460
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a decision of the passport authority rejecting the issuance of a regular passport (Valid for 10 years), to an accused charged with offences of murder and criminal conspiracy in the death of his mother.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while deciding the petition said “the prayer for issuance of a regular passport/normal validity passport for 10 years is rejected. The impugned acknowledgement rejecting issuance of regular passport stands sustained.”
Case Title: Srishti Daiv & ANR AND NIL
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7146/2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 461
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a couple seeking divorce had 18 months to report a settlement between them after filing the petition for divorce by mutual consent.
It further clarified that the trial court cannot on its own dismiss the petition without the request of the parties for such disposal. A division bench of Justice K S Mudagal and Justice K V Arvind allowed an appeal and set aside the order of the trial court dismissing the petition, and directed the parties to appear before the Bengaluru Mediation Centre.
Case Title: Hangal Taluka Civil Contractors Association AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 104062 OF 2022 (GM-TEN) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 103437 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO. 103745 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO. 103755 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO. 104013 OF 2022.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 462
The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with the government's decision to issue tenders under the Amrutha Nagarothana Scheme, wherein various works are clubbed together and the value of each tender was allotted to be more than Rs.1 crore.
A single-judge bench of Justice M I Arun dismissed a batch of petitions filed by the Hangal Taluka Civil Contractors Association and Others.
It said “the State Government taking into consideration the works required is always at liberty to prescribe qualification of tenderers to ensure that contractors have the capacity and resources to successfully execute the work. No person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.”
Case Title: Ann Nimmi Sebastian v. State of Karnataka and Anr.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9212 OF 2021 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4676 OF 2022
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 463
The Karnataka High Court has held that an investor of a company cannot file case for cheating against another investor if he loses his money because the company suffered business losses.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation, while allowing the plea of petitioners who were charged for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 406, 403, 418 read with Section 34 of IPC. As per the allegations, the complainant paid Rs.1.29 crores to petitioner-Thomas Sebastian for commencement of a company, however, the company never took off.
Case Title: Chikkagundappa And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7657 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 464
The Karnataka High Court recently called for an explanation from the Trial Court for not obeying its direction of disposing of a criminal case registered against a man charged with the death of his wife, under Section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda had earlier called for an explanation for the delay in concluding the proceedings while hearing a successive bail application filed by the accused. Notably, although the Trial Court had been directed to dispose of the case within 31st January 2023, it was contended that the Trial itself had not commenced.
Karnataka High Court Dismisses Transfer Plea Of Woman Accused Under Section 138 of NI Act
Case Title: Renuka Yamunappa Golasangi v. Mohan Naik
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200690 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200697 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 465
The Karnataka High Court has rejected the plea of a senior citizen woman, accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ("NI Act"), seeking transfer of case from one court to another.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K Natarajan passed the order in a petition of accused-Renuka Yamunappa Golasangi, who sought transfer of her case from Sagara to Vijayapura.
The issue had arisen when the respondent filed complaints under Section 200 CrPC against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. When this complaint was pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagara, the petitioner moved an application for transfer.
Case Title: Dr Jonathan Jaideep AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14289 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 466
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered under the Arms Act against a man who was flying from Mysuru to Chennai, with seven live bullets in his luggage, without any weapon.
A single-judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Dr Jonathan Jaideep and quashed the case registered against him under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act.
It was alleged that on 26.12.2021, Indigo Airlines staff at Mysore Airport filed a complaint stating that at the time of checking the baggage of the petitioner, who was flying from Mysuru to Chennai, it was discovered by the airline officials that the shaving kit contained seven live bullets which were being carried without any weapon.
Case Title: Syed Esa Ibrahim & ANR AND State By Channapatna East PS
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10483 OF 2022
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 467
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against two persons who allegedly abused police personnel with unparliamentary words, threatened them with dire consequences and restrained them from discharging their official duties when questioned for running their hotel business beyond 11.30 pm.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Syed Esa Ibrahim and Syed Mujahid Mehdi and quashed the case pending against them for offences under sections 341, 353, 506 and 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
Case Title: Avenue Supermarts LTD AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3728 OF 2022 (LB-BMP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 21441 OF 2022(LB-BMP) WRIT PETITION NO. 20383 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 468
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to constitute a Committee comprising of officers such as the Chief Commissioner of the BBMP along with other Stakeholders like the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Principal Secretary, Gram Panchayat, for constant monitoring of storm water drains, more particularly in the rainy season, them from being blocked.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “This aspect being a perennial problem, it would be required that proper monitoring system of the drains constructed by the BBMP is maintained. In the event of any fresh storm water drains required to be constructed depending on the hydrological survey conducted by the BBMP, the BBMP through the state would always have the option to acquire the said land and form such storm water drains for the benefit of the citizens of Bangalore."
Karnataka High Court Allows Bail Plea By Accused In Journalist Gauri Lankesh's Murder
Case Title: Mohan Nayak N AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P.No.7963/2023
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 469
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to an accused involved in the murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh. The accused was alleged to be harbouring Accused nos.2 & 3 who murdered Lankesh by shooting her near her house and being a member of the syndicate involved in committing organised crimes.
On September 5, 2017, journalist and activist Gauri Lankesh was shot dead in front of her residence in south Bengaluru. The police have arrested 18 persons in the case. The first charge-sheet in the case was filed against Naveen Kumar on May 30. On November 23, 2018, the SIT submitted an additional 9,235-page chargesheet in the Principal Civil and Sessions court. The second chargesheet named 18 people as accused in the murder.
Case Title: Mohammad Shafiulla AND The D. G. AND I.G.P. Of Police & Others
Case No: WPHC NO.75 OF 2023
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 470
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order of detention passed by the authorities against a detenu under the Karnataka Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, [Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers And Video Or Audio Pirates] Act, 1985 ("Goonda Act/Preventive Detention Act").
One of the grounds for setting aside the order was the failure of authority to provide copies of documents relied on by it while passing the impugned order in a language known to the detenu. A division bench of Justice K Somashekhar and Justice Rajesh Rai K allowed the habeas corpus petition to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at liberty by quashing the impugned detention order.
BBMP Informs Karnataka High Court Of SOP To Be Followed For Felling Of Dangerous Trees
Case Title: Dr V L Nandish AND The Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17877 OF 2023
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 471
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has adopted a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) guidelines/parameters to be followed by Tree Officers/Deputy Conservator of Forest, BBMP, for felling of dangerous trees.
A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj was informed by the corporation that such a procedure would be followed henceforth. The bench recorded the submission and said “This court has not expressed any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the above SOP.”
Case Title: Anitha H And Principal District and Session Judge
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12609 OF 2023
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 472
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the termination order issued to a typist working at the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class court, Davanagere for allegedly giving incorrect details about her husband's avocation during the selection process.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be reinstated to the post forthwith and be permitted to discharge her services as a Typist. The bench said “The avocation of the petitioner's husband would really have no relevance for comparing the relevant merit of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner possessed the necessary merit and secured the post of Typist on the basis of her own merit and appointment was obviously not given to her on the basis of her husband's avocation.”
Case Title: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 26762/2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 473
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the suo-motu petition taken up acting on the representation made by the Advocates' Association of Bengaluru regarding the alleged incident of an advocate being assaulted by the police in Chikamanagaluru District.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said “We see all necessary steps are taken by the state government. The investigation is handed to CID and the agency has initiated an investigation we see no reason to issue any further direction. The purpose of taking cognizance by this court represented by AAB is duly served and achieved its purpose. Accoridnly we see no reason to keep the petition pending in this court. Accordingly, it is disposed of.”
Case Title: Yallappa & Another AND Kallavva Kuriyavar
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100331 OF 2023
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 474
The Karnataka High Court has held that written statements filed by defendants before a civil court in a declaration suit, denying the relationship of plaintiffs with the deceased, would not amount to defamation.
A single-judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannawar allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code by the respondents.
It said “I hold that this is not a case where the statements are per se defamatory so as to disallow the plea of good faith at this stage so as to allow the respondent to go ahead with the prosecution.”
High Court Grants Parole To Convict In Karnataka Church Attacks Case From 2000
Case Title: Mubeen Unnisa Begum AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16482 OF 2023
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 475
The Karnataka High Court recently granted parole to Mohammed Akhil who has been convicted for his involvement in attacks on churches in Hubli and other parts of the state in the year 2000.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Mubeen Unnissa Begum, the wife of Akhil.
It noted that the petitioner was before the Court seeking the release of her husband on parole since she was suffering from ailments and requested the presence of her husband since her other family members were also aged and suffering from ailments themselves.
Case Title: Ms X v State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No. 27563 OF 2023
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 476
The Karnataka High Court has directed that immediately upon registration of a sexual offence under Section 376 of IPC or the POCSO Act, a medical examination of the victim must be made.
The Court directed for such medical examinations to ascertain amongst others—--if the victim was pregnant or not, the physical and mental status of the victim, and the ability to undergo the medical termination of the pregnancy, if needed, and aggravating factors which may impinge upon the health and wellbeing of the victim.
Case Title: Nikkitha K J AND Union of India & others
Case No: Writ Petition No. 10759 of 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 477
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) to grant membership to practise as a Chartered Accountant to a 23-year-old who pursued multiple courses while pursuing the CA course.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Nikkitha K J and said “I deem it appropriate to bend the arc of justice for a student and direct grant of Membership of the petitioner to the Institute without brooking any further delay.”
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Shetty And T Subbaya Shetty & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 11940 of 2023.
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 478
The Karnataka High Court has held that a writ petition seeking a direction to release funds kept in Fixed Deposits with Karnataka Bank Ltd was not maintainable.
A single judge bench of Justice K V Aravind said “Writ petition is rejected as the same is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the second respondent-Bank is not a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, if so advised.”
Case Title: Nitin Kasliwal And Debt Recovery Tribunal I
Case No: Writ Petition No. 26333 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 479
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, or Civil/Criminal Courts and even the police do not have the power to impound the passport of a citizen.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The civil Court or the criminal Court itself do not have the power to impound the passport. Section 102 or 104 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Police to seize and the Court to impound any document. Impounding of any document produced before the Court cannot stretch to an extent that those Courts can impound the passport also. The Court–either the criminal Court or the civil Court, issuing directions to deposit a passport before it till the conclusion of trial are those orders which are without authority of law. The Tribunal – Debts Recovery Tribunal can hardly have such power.”
Case Title: Indian Rail Mazdoor Union And The Chairman And Chief Executive Officer Railway Board & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No. 24457 OF 2022.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 480
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by the Indian Railway Mazdoor Union alleging misappropriation of Government money, regarding the illegal operation of special trains.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said “On perusal of the Petition papers and the material annexed to the same, we are of the clear opinion that Petition is presented only on assumption, presumption and self impressions of the Petitioner.”
Case Title: M/s B M Habitat AND The Commissioner And Competent Authority
Case No: Writ Petition No 28561 OF 2019
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 481
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for payment of backdated property tax from 2008, on the ground that the building was completed even when the Occupancy Certificate came to be issued on 25.04.2011.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by M/s B M Habitat and quashed the order issued by the corporation dated 15.02.2018 and it directed the corporation to receive the property tax commencing from 25.04.2011.
Case Title: Laxman Warad & Others AND Town Municipal Council
Case No: Regular Second Appeal No 3206 of 2007.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 482.
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a prior notice under provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act is not mandatory while filing a declaratory suit of title and permanent injunction against the Town Municipal Council.
Section 284 (1) reads thus: 284. Previous notice for suits, etc.—(1) No suit shall be instituted against any municipal council, officer, servant or any person acting under the order or direction of such municipal council, officer or servant in respect of any act done or purporting to have been done in pursuance of this Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder until the expiration of sixty days next after notice in writing, stating the cause of action, the nature of the relief sought, the amount of compensation claimed, the name and place of residence of the intending plaintiff and the relief which he claims, has been in the case of a municipal council delivered or left at its office, and in the case of such officer, servant, or person, delivered to him or left at his office or place of residence and unless the plaint contains a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.
Case Title: Karnataka Rajya Anganvadi Karya Kartheyara Mathu Sahaya AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 16212 OF 2012
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 483
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to consider a representation seeking to increase the terminal benefits from Rs.30,000 to Rs.50,000 and from Rs.50,000 to Rs.1,00,000, to the Anganawadi Workers and Helpers, respectively.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda gave the direction while disposing of a petition filed by Karnataka Rajya Anganvadi Karya Kartheyara Mathu Sahaya said “Such consideration shall be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are also permitted to furnish any additional representation if they so desire.”
Case Title: Muddumadaiah And B Jyothi
Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No. 366 OF 2019
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 484
The Karnataka High Court has held that in a cheque bounce case, the onus is on the accused to prove that the cheque was misused after it was issued to another person in lieu of a loan borrowed from them and thus did not amount to a legally enforceable debt.
A single-judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused Muddumadaiah and upheld the conviction handed down under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi AND Aneesa Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi & ANR
Case No: Criminal Petition No 102231 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 485
The Karnataka High Court has held that a husband's non-payment of arrears to his wife and children would not invite prosecution under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar quashed the proceedings initiated against Mohammed Yaseen Naikwadi and said “The approach of learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 31 of the D.V. Act is a glaring legal error and hence, the same will have to be set aside.”
Case Title: Dr Ambedkar Scheduled Castes Federation Karnataka AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 26836 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 486
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to quash the enlistment of certain communities as Scheduled Tribes in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Second Amendment) Act, 1991 & the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2020.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the petition filed by Dr Ambedkar Scheduled Castes Federation Karnataka, through its President Mahendra Kumar Mitra.
Case Title: Sharmada B K AND The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 14352 of 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 487
The Karnataka High Court has suggested the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to implement a system of digitising and credentialing all the documents which are issued by the Corporation including but not limited to a Khata certificate, plan sanction, tax paid receipt, SAS tax paid receipt etc. so that the QR Code is also printed which when scanned the website of the Corporation be visited to verify the authenticity thereof.
A single judge of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “The Chief Commissioner, BBMP along with the Principal Secretary, E-governance, as also the concerned of digilocker are directed to look into the matter and formulate a suitable mechanism to credentialize all documents issued by the BBMP.”
Case Title: Mutti AND Kucharu & Others
Case No: Regular Second Appeal No 2272 of 2008.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 488
The Karnataka High Court has held that bequeathing property, by executing a will, by the tenant of the suit property is permitted before the grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal. The beneficiary of the will in such instances will become the absolute and exclusive owner of the property, it observed.
A single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar allowed the appeal filed by one Mutti, who had challenged the order of the trial court and the first appellate court which had decreed the suit filed by petitioner Kucharu seeking partition and prayer to allot 1/6th share in the suit properties.
Case Title: Gulihatti D Shekar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 16268 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 489.
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation questioning the transfer of investigating officer A.D.Nagaraju who is probing the alleged fraud of multiple crores of rupees which was allegedly perpetrated in the Karnataka Bhovi Development Corporation.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the petition filed by Gulihatti D Shekar and said “The Government being the guardian of the public interest and being the principal employer knows, which official should be transferred to what place and which official should be retained for accomplishing the task. The officials come and go; the process however would continue unhindered.”
Karnataka High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Former BJP MLA K Madal Virupakshappa
Case Title: K Madal Virupakshappa AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No 5633 of 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 490
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal prosecution initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, against former Bharatiya Janata Party legislator, K Madal Virupakshappa.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “There is no allegation of ingredients of Section 7(a) and (b) of the Act against the petitioner. If there is not even a whisper of any demand or acceptance of bribe by the petitioner, it is ununderstandable as to how the proceedings can be permitted to be continued against him.”
Case Title: Mohammed Noman Ahmed Almeri AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 15631 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 491
The Karnataka High court has refused to grant relief to a Yemeni national who had approached the court seeking a direction to the authorities to extend his visa.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Mohammed Noman Ahmed Almeri, rejected his contention that bilateral relations between Yemen and India, be kept in mind while considering the petition's merits.
Case Title: Pusha AND Y Jansi Rani
Case No: Writ Petition No 15979 of 2022.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 492
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a petition filed by the second wife of a railway employee seeking the release of 50% family pension by the authorities on the death of the employee in the course of employment.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Pusha who had approached the court challenging the order dated 29-07-2022 passed by the trial court directing 50% of the pension to be paid to the 1st respondent (first wife) and her children while not answering the claim of the petitioner.
Case Title: M/s SKF India Limited v. A V Nagabhushana
Case No: Writ Appeal No 997 of 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 493
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging a Labour Court award, whereby an employee dismissed from service due to intermittent absence from work for attending to ailing relatives was ordered to be reinstated.
While dismissing the appeal, which was filed against the order of a Single Judge of the court that confirmed the award, the division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit took into account the fact that the employee had put in 20 years of service before the disciplinary proceedings were initiated.
Case Title: D L Ramesh v. Marilingaiah
Case No: Regular Second Appeal No 151 OF 2016
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 494
The Karnataka High Court has held that a mention in promissory note, that the payer is at liberty to proceed against the note creator's property if he fails to repay, is an additional condition that does not contravene Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which stipulates that a promissory note must contain an unconditional undertaking to pay.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed an appeal filed by a defendant against order of the first appellate court, which reversed the decree of the Trial Court and allowed the plaintiff's suit seeking recovery of Rs.66,000 based on a promissory note.
Case Title: M/s Om SLV Constructions AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 3893 of 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 495
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) cannot refuse to clear a Civil contractor's bill, by raising a contention that documents on the work/supply order granted to the contractor were seized by investigating agencies.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “The Departmental Head or Chief Commissioner of the Corporation could always seek for copies from a Court so also could an accused. In the present case, the petitioner also being an accused, the petitioner could make such an application. Instead of making such an application, the Corporation as also the petitioner have been blaming each other and neither having obtained copies to process the bills, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for aforesaid reliefs.”
Case Title: Vasundhara A.G.K AND The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 44252 OF 2015 (LB-BMP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 48639 OF 2015(LB-BMP) WRIT PETITION NO. 48640 OF 2015
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 496
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)/civic body would not be exempted from the payment of service tax on payments made for availing third-party services to impart computer education to persons belonging to economically weaker sections.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petitions filed by Vasundhara A.G.K and others and said “Respondent is directed to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today and calculate the service tax due on the amounts paid and payable by the respondent to the petitioners and release the said amounts to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
Case Title: Anupam Singh Tomar AND State By Kothanur Police & Another
Case No: Criminal Petition No 9997 OF 2022
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 497
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case of criminal intimidation and trespass initiated by a woman against her former husband who visited her house to meet their daughter as per the visitation rights granted to him by the competent court.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a plea under Section 482 of the CrPC by the petitioner who was charged under sections 504, 506 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code.
Reassessment Proceedings Can't Be In The Nature Of Review: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: EIT Services India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case No.: Writ Petition No.15061/2013 (T-IT)
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 498
The Karnataka High Court has held that reassessment proceedings cannot be in the nature of review.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav has observed that the material that has come to light in the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2008–2009 cannot be sufficient grounds to resort to reassessment proceedings.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, seeking to reassess the income that has escaped assessment in terms of Section 147 with respect to the assessment year 2005–2006. The assessee was called upon to deliver a return within 30 days. Subsequently, the reasons for initiating proceedings under Section 147 for reopening the assessment were communicated.
Karnataka High Court Directs NFAC To Refund Rs.29.30 Cr. With Interest To Myntra
Case Title: M/S Myntra Designs Private Limited Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 19995 Of 2023 (T-IT)
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 499
The Karnataka High Court has directed the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to refund Rs. 29.30 crore with interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act to Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd.
The bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad has observed that if indeed a reference to the transfer pricing officer is under investigation, it would suffice for this Court to observe that if the adjudication, after due process, results in a demand, the petitioner, Myntra, will have to answer the demand, but in anticipation of a conclusion for a demand without even recording the reasons, the petitioner cannot be denied the refund.
Appellant Required To Disprove Order U/S 45A Of Employees State Insurance Act, One Year Substantial Oppurtunity For Compliance: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s GROUP 4 SECURITAS GUARDING LIMITED AND The Regional Director, ESI Corporation.
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 7749/2013
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 500
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal by Group 4 Securitas questioning the order of the Employees State Insurance Court, wherein it rejected the application of the appellant that it was not liable to pay a contribution of Rs.65,20,855.18 determined by the ESI Corporation. A Division bench of Justice K S Mudagal and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar dismissed the appeal with a cost of Rs 1 lakh, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
Case Title: Almas Pasha AND The State Of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 11041 of 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 501
The Karnataka High Court has said that the plea of parity raised by an accused in seeking bail is not binding on the court and individual offences and individual overt acts are to be assessed and not to simply follow orders of other accused who are enlarged on bail and on parity grant the same. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while rejecting the second bail application filed by one Almas Pasha who is charged for offence murder (Section 302 IPC).
Case Title: Dr. Annaiah N AND State of Karnataka & others.
Case No. Writ Petition No. 23267/2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 502.
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea to quash an endorsement by the state authorities refusing to issue a registration certificate under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act to a person who pursued para-medical studies and was practising as a doctor for several years at his clinic.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “It is rather strange as to how the petitioner addresses himself as a practising doctor for all these years. Time has come to pull the curtain down on such people who are practising medicine without qualification and hoodwinking poor people in rural areas.”
Case Title: Kalyanamurthy K AND State Bank of India
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.23327/2022
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 503
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a bank cannot forfeit over 25% of the deposit amount made by an auction purchaser who fails to deposit the remaining purchase amount within the stipulated period for completion of the sale. A single judge bench of Justice K V Aravind directed the State Bank of India to refund a sum of Rs.10,00,000, along with applicable interest from the date of payment till refund, within eight weeks to one Kalyanamurthy K.
Case Title: M/S Tejas Arecanut Traders Versus Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 104505 Of 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 504
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority to deposit 10% of the entire amount in dispute, which included tax, interest, a fine, a fee, and a penalty.
The bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has observed that while filing the appeal under Section 107(6) of the GST Act, the appellant is required to deposit only 10% of the disputed tax amount and not 10% of the entire disputed amount, including penalty, fine, and interest.