Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: December 2024 [Citations: 490 - 532]
Citation 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 490 to 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 532Nominal IndexUnion of India & Others AND Government of Karnataka & Others. 2024LiveLaw (Kar) 490DODDABALLAPUR SPINNING MILLS AND THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 491Sourish Bose & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 492Naleen Kumar Kateel v State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw...
Citation 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 490 to 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 532
Nominal Index
Union of India & Others AND Government of Karnataka & Others. 2024LiveLaw (Kar) 490
DODDABALLAPUR SPINNING MILLS AND THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 491
Sourish Bose & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 492
Naleen Kumar Kateel v State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 493
State of Karnataka & ANR AND Dr Madhu Kumar M H. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 494
Chandra AND Chief Superintendent & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 495
KANAKA LAKSHMI B M AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 496
M V Srinivas Gowda AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 497
Vinay Kulkarni And Central Bureau of Investigation & Others and batch. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 498
Sudha Bai & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 499
Akhil Thomas AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 500
K Raja AND V Prabhakar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 501
Axis Bank Ltd AND Assistant Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 502
UnIon of India AND A Mohan & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 503
A J James AND Karnataka State Law University & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 504
Mohammed Aamir Raza AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 505.
Ananda Reddy AND Radhamma & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 506
Ejas PP AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 507
Indiramma & Others AND HAMPAMMA and others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 508
L S Tejasvi Surya AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 509
Basangouda Patil (Yatnal) And State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 510
Darshan v. State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 511
N. Rajgopal Hebbar vs. Mrs. Padmavathi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 512
Satish Jarkiholi AND Dilip Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 513
ACTION FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION, REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 514
Syed Ajaz Ahmed AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 515
SHIVAPRASAD AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 516
B Y Vijayendra AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 517
State of Karnataka & Kalandar Shafi & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 518
Principal Secretary To Government & ANR AND Mahaveen Oswal and Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 519-
Prakash Ramachandra Hegde. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 520
Charulata Somal AND Shriya Muddanna Shetty. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 521
State of Karnataka AND G Ramachari. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 522
Karnataka Employers Association & Others AND All India Trade Union Congress & OThers. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 523
Sachin R & ANR AND Karnataka State Law University & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 524
ABC And State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 525
M Manjula & Others AND Deputy Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 526
Union Bank of India & ANR AND V Harsih D Kamath & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 527
G Swamy AND B Devendrappa. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 528
Ms X AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 529
Chandra @Chandrashekhara Bhat AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 530
SRI.THANGAVELU. R v. SHRI. SANTHOSH. J. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 531
Dr Mohankumar M AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 532
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Union of India & Others AND Government of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26954 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024LiveLaw (Kar) 490
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone) directing Madras Engineering Group, a training Unit of the Indian Army, to pay an environmental compensation of Rs Rs.2,94,63,000 for polluting Ulsoor Lake in Bengaluru.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind said “This Court is inclined to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in limited context and in respect of specific area which is non compliance of principles of natural justice, in as much as the order against the petitioners came to be passed by the NGT imposing the liability of payment of environment compensation without affording hearing to the petitioners.”
Case Title: DODDABALLAPUR SPINNING MILLS AND THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 41048 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 491
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to issue necessary guidelines to be followed by Banks in cases where a demand draft is not presented for clearance during its validity period and whether in such cases the amount covered can be automatically credited to the account of the customer on expiry.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “Reserve Bank of India to issue necessary guidelines as regards the status of a demand draft not presented for clearance during its validity and amongst other things, if the amount covered under the demand draft can be automatically credited to the account of the customer on expiry if the demand draft has purchased the same through her bank account.”
Case Title: Sourish Bose & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10546 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 492
Dismissing a plea filed by two persons seeking quashing of an FIR registered against them for allegedly defrauding Amazon Seller Services Limited to the tune of Rs 69,91,940, the Karnataka High Court said that the facts in the case are "so seriously disputed" that they are like a "maze" and would require a full blown trial.
Dismissing the petition filed by Sourish Bose and Deepanvita Ghosh Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order said, “The Apex Court holds that, when the case is shrouded with seriously disputed questions of fact, the High Court should not interfere.The questions of fact are so seriously disputed in the case at hand; they are maze and it would amaze this Court to interfere on such facts”.
Case title: Naleen Kumar Kateel v State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No: 10321 of 2024.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 493
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 3) quashed proceedings pertaining to an FIR registered against former BJP State president Naleen Kumar Kateel for allegedly extorting money under the guise of electoral bonds
The high court in its order said that the complainant in the case was alien to the alleged transaction and an alien cannot complain of extortion. It further said in its order that the complaint suffers from want of locus to register the complaint. The court further observed in its order that "not even a modicum" of ingredients of the alleged offence have made out even in its "prima facie sense", and what the complainant had projected is a "huge hocus-pocus", but he in fact has "no locus".
Case Title: State of Karnataka & ANR AND Dr Madhu Kumar M H
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 31104 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 494
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of the State Administrative Tribunal which directed the State government to consider representation of Dr Madhu Kumar M H, Specialist (Physician), KR Hospital in Mysuru for permission to go on deputation for higher studies.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice C M Joshi said, “The petitioners are not justified in keeping employee's claim for educational deputation, especially when admission to courses of the kind are time bound and liable to lapse if not availed. Expeditious decision therefore is eminently warranted in matters of the kind. No such expeditiousness nor seriousness warranted in the matter having been shown, the Tribunal is more than justified in granting relief to the respondent – employee.”
Case Title: Chandra AND Chief Superintendent & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29234 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 495
The Karnataka High Court has granted 90-day parole leave to a murder convict to oversee the agricultural activities of the land, which is standing in the name of his father.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by one Chandra who has been in judicial custody for over 11 years and undergoing sentence of life imprisonment for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Case Title: KANAKA LAKSHMI B M AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 12695 of 2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 496
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (December 4) rejected a plea for transfer of investigation to CBI in an abetment to suicide case–concerning the death of an advocate–registered against a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
It however constituted an SIT to investigate into the alleged crime, to be headed by IPS Vinay Verma, Superintendent of police, CBI, ACB Bengaluru and the SIT is to complete the investigation within three months.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while dictating his order said, "Application of the Association to refer matter to CBI stands rejected. However, i deem it appropriate to constitute a SIT to investigate into the crime".
Case Title: M V Srinivas Gowda AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.27154 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 497
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by M V Srinivasa Gowda, challenging an order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, directing initiation of proceedings against him to recover the entire amount paid as honorarium to him under the Karnataka State Freedom Fighters Welfare Rules, 1969.
In doing so the court underscored that the object of the scheme is to provide pension to the genuine freedom fighters who deserve to be treated with reverence, and if applications without proof are entertained the "scheme would be converted into a bounty".
A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar said “All care has to be taken to see that real freedom fighters do not suffer and their claims are accepted, but, at the same time, fictitious claims have to be sternly dealt with on merits.”
Case Title: Vinay Kulkarni And Central Bureau of Investigation & Others and batch
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.12176 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.12188 OF 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION No.12479 OF 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION No.12492 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 498
The Karnataka High Court quashed an order of a special court which had directed a magisterial court to record an accused's statement under Section 164 CrPC in a murder case, pursuant to which he was granted pardon and made an approver, noting that such an order was on the face of it illegal and against the law.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by Congress leader Vinay Kulkarni and others challenging an order passed by the Special Court granting pardon to accused no 1 in the case, Basavaraj Shivappa Muttagi. The accused are charged in the Dharwad Zilla Panchayat member Yogesh Goudar murder case of 2016. The challenge considered by the high court was that the special court's order had now transposed accused No.1 as a witness by and had granted him the status of an approver under Section 306 (Tender of pardon to accomplice) of the Cr.P.C.
Case Title: Sudha Bai & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7090 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 499
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered by a woman against her brother-in-law and others alleging them of causing mental harassment to her when they after she had a feud with her husband called her to the matrimonial home for conciliation.
Single judge Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Sudha Bai and others and quashed the proceedings initiated against them under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case Title: Akhil Thomas AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5952 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 500
Observing that “there cannot be promise of marriage held on to a lady, who was already married,” the Karnataka High Court quashed a rape case registered against a man by a woman whom he met on 'bumble app' where the woman had in her profile projected herself to be a divorced lady.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Akhil Thomas and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner had contended that acts from the date they met till the date of registration of the crime were all consensual, but never on a promise of marriage. The complainant was already married and had projected herself to be a divorced lady in the Bumble app, therefore, when the petitioner came to know the fact that she was not yet divorced, had breached the said promise.
Case Title: K Raja AND V Prabhakar
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7207 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 501
The Karnataka High Court has held that the procedure of affixing a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the housein which the defendant ordinarily resides under Order V Rule 17 CPC, if he is not available to receive it, is a mandatory procedure and not a directory procedure.
Justice H P Sandesh held thus while allowing an appeal filed by one K Raja and set aside the decree passed by the trial court in a suit filed for recovery of money by V Prabhakar, after placing the appellant ex-parte. For context the provision pertains to the procedure to be followed when the defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found.
Case Title Axis Bank Ltd AND Assistant Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.52158 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 502
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan made under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cancelling the gift deed executed by an aged father in favour of his children.
The order came to be passed on the petition filed by a Bank from whom the children had taken a loan by mortgaging the property received as gift, and subsequently defaulted in repayment.
Justice M G S Kamal said, “This Court under the peculiar facts situation of the case, is of the considered view that the petitioner-bank is entitled to maintain the writ petition, more so when it is required to recover the loan amount advanced by it in the larger public interest.”
Case Title: UnIon of India AND A Mohan & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2556/2011
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 503
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order of the Railway Tribunal granting compensation to the claimants of a deceased passenger who had fallen from the train after mistakenly travelling beyond his destination station.
Justice H P Sandesh dismissed an appeal filed by South Western Railways, challenging the order dated December 28, 2010, granting compensation of Rs 4 lakh along with interest to A Mohan.
He said, "The deceased might have fallen while trying to get down and in that process he could have received injuries, which the fact is in line with the statement of witnesses and also the post mortem report. The fact that the deceased was travelling in the train is not in dispute, but only mistakenly he traveled beyond destiny and also the Apex Court in the Prabhakaran's case also held that principles of strict liability applies, the defendant has to pay damages for injury caused to the plaintiff, even though the defendant may not have been at any fault"
Case Title: A J James AND Karnataka State Law University & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.257 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 504
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a Law student challenging an order of the single judge which rejected his petition questioning the re-valuation standards adopted by the Karnataka State Law University.
In doing so the court underscored that in absence of any provision under the University's regulations which provide for revaluation beyond the process already undertaken, the University cannot be directed to conduct revaluation at the student's instance.
Case Title: Mohammed Aamir Raza AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12392 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 505.
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash case registered against founder trustee of a Madarasa who did not report to the police about the alleged incident of unnatural sexual assault committed by two Madarasa teachers on a minor boy.
The court observed that the offences alleged against the accused was "so horrendous" that the petitioner should have reported it immediately when it came to his knowledge adding that he "failed" to report the alleged offence.
Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Mohammed Aamir Raza who is the trustee of Manik Mastan Madarasa and charged for offences punishable under Sections 17(Punishment for abetment) and 21 (Punishment for failure to report or record a case) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Ananda Reddy AND Radhamma & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8803/2013
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 506
The Karnataka High Court has set aside one month's civil imprisonment term imposed on a cancer patient for the willful disobedience of the Court, instead it directed him to pay Rs 3 lakh fine.
A single judge, Justice H P Sandesh partly allowed the appeal filed by Reddy and modified the trial court order. It said, “since the appellant is suffering from cancer and taking note of mental agony on the plaintiffs, it is appropriate to award a fine of Rs.3 lakhs instead of punishment for the willful disobedience of the Court order.”
Case Title: Ejas PP AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12157 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 507
The Karnataka High Court quashed a rape case registered by a woman against her fiance–who had absconded post their engagement after he was booked in a case under the NDPS Act–noting that the complainant's statement that she did not want to pursue the case further.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and quashed the case registered against him under Sections 354(A)(Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment), 376(rape), 493 (Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage) of the Indian Penal Code.
The court after going through the records said, "After the registration of the crime in Crime No.191/2021, it transpires that the jurisdictional Police at Andhra Pradesh filed a 'B report' in the case that was registered in Crime No.87/2021.The realization dawned on both of them that they have to get married and they got married after filing of the 'B report' as aforesaid. By then, the complainant had registered the crime...In these circumstances where the offences are not even met to its remotest sense, permitting the husband now to undergo trial would leave the child and complainant in the lurch. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance of marriage between the petitioner and the complainant, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the crime against the petitioner.”
Case Title: Indiramma & Others AND HAMPAMMA and others.
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100008 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 508
The Karnataka High Court has suggested for use of technology in documenting Wills by suitably amending the process of registration and facilitating video recording of the statement of the testator and attesting witnesses.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, “There is a need to embrace the technology to ensure that there is an unambiguous, credible, and clinching record relating to proof of execution of documents, more particularly the documents such as Will where the author of the instrument will not be available to admit or prove its execution when its execution is disputed.”
Case Title: L S Tejasvi Surya AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 12667 of 2024
Citation no: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 509
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (December 12) quashed a case registered against BJP Member of Parliament Tejasvi Surya for allegedly spreading 'fake news' regarding the suicide of a farmer in Haveri district.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while dictating the order said, "Allowed quashed". The court had reserved its order on December 5 after hearing the parties. During the hearing the senior counsel appearing for Surya said that the allegation is that he has made certain tweets based on certain news items. "Even if it is taken as true there is no ingredient of Section 353 (BNS) made out. As a matter of fact he has deleted the tweet. Criminal proceedings against this petitioner will not survive," he said. He further said that the next day the father of the deceased had also given an interview to the media.
Case Title: Basangouda Patil (Yatnal) And State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 10076/2024
Citation no: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 510
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (December 12) quashed an FIR registered against BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal for making allegedly derogatory remarks against Congress Leader and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said, "Allowed quashed". The court had reserved it order after hearing the parties on November 28.
Patil had told the court that he merely responded to certain statements made by Gandhi when the Congress MP went overseas. Further, no ingredients of the alleged offences registered against him in the FIR are made out and if the Congress leader is "so aggrieved", he may file a defamation complaint which the BJP leader said he will defend.
Case Title: Darshan v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 11096/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 511
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (December 13) granted bail to actor Darshan, Pavitra Gowda and other co accused in Renukaswamy Murder Case.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while pronouncing the order said, "Petitions allowed". A detailed copy of the order is awaited. The court had reserved its verdict earlier this week after hearing detailed arguments from all the parties.
Accused Darshan, Pavitra, Anu Kumar, Lakshman M, V Vinay, Jagadeesh, Pradoosh S Rao and Nagaraju R had moved the high court seeking bail after the sessions court had rejected it. Earlier, the court had granted bail to Keshavamurthy. During the hearing the high court released Darshan on interim medical bail to undergo surgery.
Case Title: Mr. N. Rajgopal Hebbar vs. Mrs. Padmavathi & Ors.
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5460/2016 (AA) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5461/2016 (AA) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5462/2016 (AA) IN M.F.A.NO.5462/2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 512
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh has reiterated that when a reasoned order has been passed by the Arbitrator, the same cannot be interfered with. In the case, the court found that the District Court had properly considered sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, as well as relevant provisions of the Sale of Goods Act in modifying the arbitral award. The court, therefore, refused to interfere with the award under section 37(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Satish Jarkiholi AND Dilip Kumar
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.8574 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 513
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a defamation case registered against Congress Leader and Member of Legislative Assembly Satish Jarikholi, who was charged under Section 500 and 153 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging to have hurt the sentiments of Hindus as he made a statement that the word “Hindu” has a dirty meaning.
A single judge Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Jarkiholi and said, “This is a case where 'not' a definite class of people is alleged to be defamed but an indefinite class. The very concept of defaming an indefinite class cannot lead to the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, as the purport of Section 499 and the Explanation is that it should be against a definite class of people.”
Case Title: ACTION FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION, REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT AND Union of India & Others
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 833 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 514
The Karnataka High Court has said that an order rejecting an NGO's application for renewal of license under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) is to be challenged in revision before the appellate authority and an appeal questioning the order before high court is not maintainable.
Justice K Natarajan held thus while dismissing an appeal filed Action for Community Organisation, Rehabilitation and Development under Section 31/31(2) of the Act appealing against a March 30 order by which the Union dismissed its FCRA certificate renewal.
Case Title: Syed Ajaz Ahmed AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 33213/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 515
Dismissing a PIL for setting aside a government circular which suspended mutation of farmers and private khata properties to the waqf board after complaints were received regarding the same, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 17) said that directions were issued in public interest.
The court was hearing a PIL by one Syed Ajaz Ahmed which prayed for setting aside the directions issued by the State government vide its letter dated November 9, withdrawing the notices issued to change the khata as waqf properties. It further sought directions to the respondents including the State to conduct a judicial enquiry into encroachments of the wakf properties in the state by appointing a retired high court judge of Karnataka to oversee the enquiry pertaining to the encroachments by the government bodies and private individuals and the disposals of properties under the Karnataka Inams Abolition Act and Karnataka land reforms act.
Case Title: SHIVAPRASAD AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 19700/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 516
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 17) quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man booked for allegedly printing a message on his own wedding invite which read 'the gift that you would give me in the marriage is vote for Narendra Modi'.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order on a petition filed by one Shivaprasad. It said “Allowed and quashed.”
The detailed order is awaited. Earlier, the court had while issuing notice to the respondents said, “There shall be an interim order of stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.238/2024, qua the petitioners, till the next date of hearing”
Case Title: B Y Vijayendra AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 13192/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 517
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 17) allowed the petition filed by then Vice President and now BJP State President BY Vijayendra and quashed proceedings pertaining to an FIR registered against him for allegedly extorting money under the guise of electoral bonds.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition following its judgment passed on December 3 in the petition filed by former BJP State president Naleen Kumar Kateel who was a co-accused in the case. Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman is also an accused in the FIR.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Kalandar Shafi & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.13459 OF 2024 C/W WRIT PETITION No.33526 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 518
The Karnataka High Court has held that as per Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the 15-day police custody must be sought within the first forty days in cases of offences which are punishable upto ten years of imprisonment
It clarified that the phraseology used in Section 187 BNSS is an offence punishable "for ten years or more", explaining that 10 years or more would mean that the threshold punishment is 10 years and not a punishment up to 10 years. The court said that if the punishment term is between 1-10 years then Section 187(3) BNSS cannot be pressed for police custody as probe for offences punishable upto 10 years must be completed in 60 days.
Case Title: Principal Secretary To Government & ANR AND Mahaveen Oswal and Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.200165 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 519
The Karnataka High Court has said that an urban development authority would have the right to decline a plea for approval of layout plan of land, only if a notification is duly published as per law for acquisition of the lands for formation of a scheme or a layout.
A division bench of Justice R Devdas and Justice G Basavaraja held thus while dismissing an appeal by the State government challenging an order of the single judge which allowed the petition filed by Mahaveer Oswal and others and which had directed the Vijayapura Urban Development Authority, to consider seeking approval of a layout plan.
Case Title: Prakash Ramachandra Hegde
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.107291 OF 2024 (CS-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.107287 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 520
The Karnataka High Court has recently said that an officer posted as in-charge of a post can discharge the functions/duties of the said post, including statutory functions.
Justice C M Poonacha held thus while dismissing a plea by Prakash Ramachandra Hegde, who had questioned the order of Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies (ARCS), Kumta, who being the officiating/in-charge officer had on November 27 stayed the order of disqualification of one Vivek Subraya Bhat. Bhat was earlier disqualified on November 25 by the Assistant Commissioner.
Case Title: Charulata Somal AND Shriya Muddanna Shetty
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 664 OF 2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 521
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Magistrate court directing the registration of a defamation case against the Assistant Commissioner of Kundapura who while discharging quasi-judicial function, allegedly acted erratically and became furious and shouted at a senior lawyer and a member of Kundapura Bar Association, appearing before him.
Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by Charulata Somal and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate court in 2015.
He said, “The revision petitioner is not an official who was discharging an official function. The facts of the case would depict that the revision petitioner as on the date of the incident was discharging the quasi-judicial function. Therefore, she could be treated as a Judge, as per definition of the word 'Judge' found in Section 2 of the said Judges (Protection) Act.”
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND G Ramachari
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 699 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 522
The Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order discharging a public servant of graft charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act as the Lokayukta police sent the voice sample of the conversation between the official and the complainant wherein he allegedly demanded a bribe, to a private agency instead of sending it to government Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis.
The court said that by sending the sample to a private agency and placing the report on it as "gospel truth" used for filing the chargesheet affected the public servant's rights.
Justice V Srishananda dismissed the State's petition challenging the trial court's December 16, 2016 order by which the court had discharged G Ramachari who was booked for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) of the PC Act.
Case Title: Karnataka Employers Association & Others AND All India Trade Union Congress & OThers
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.23 OF 2024 (L - MW) C/W WRIT APPEAL Nos. 53/2024, 54/2024, 78/2024, 82/2024, 87/2024, 88/2024, 90/2024, 92/2024, 93/2024, 107/2024, 113/2024, 139/2024, 141/2024, 142/2024, 148/2024, 156/2024, 159/2024, 160/2024 , 161/2024 , 162/2024, 165/2024, 166/2024, 170/2024, 177/2024, 216/2024, 316/2024, 413/2024, 438/2024, 502/2024, 511/2024, 533/2024, 542/2024, 543/2024, 545/2024, 553/2024, 565/2024, 567/2024, 570/2024, 572/2024, 573/2024, 574/2024, 575/2024, 576/2024, 577/2024, 578/2024, 579/2024, 580/2024, 581/2024, 583/2024, 644/2024 AND 905/2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 523
The Karnataka High Court has said that while fixing or revising the Minimum Wages to be paid to employees, employers which is a stakeholder and which will be affected in the exercise, should have their say and the stand before the notification is passed by the Government.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind while allowing the appeal filed by employers associations including the Karnataka Employers Association and others, challenging a single judge order dated September 26, 2023 said:
“The class of the employers is a stakeholder and a party who would be affected as their obligations would arise as an end result of the exercise of fixing and revising the minimum wages. When it is a question of revising the minimum wages, a variety of factors would govern the ultimate act of issuance of Notification and incorporating the conditions and stipulations therein, in which, it is legitimate to conclude that the employers should have their say and the stand.”
Case Title: Sachin R & ANR AND Karnataka State Law University & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 34457 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 524
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that law students who have already attended classes for Indian Penal Code and have failed in the examination, it cannot be expected that those students take up the examination for Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which has never been taught to them in the course structure.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while quashing a notification issued by the Karnataka State Law University of December 6 by which the University has proposed to have the supplementary examination for the petitioners Sachin R and others would be in 'Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita' (BNS) instead of IPC.
Case Title: ABC And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.14909 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 525
The Karnataka High Court as an interim measure directed the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) to provide a reservation of 0.5% to transgender persons (half the percentage of reservation provided for TGs in employment in State) with fee waiver, until it implements the 2014 directions of the Supreme Courts by formulating a reservation for transgender candidates.
In 2021 the State government provided a 1 per cent (horizontal) reservation to Transgender candidates in government jobs to be filled through the direct recruitment process. The reservation is applicable to transgender candidates in each category of General merit, SC,ST and in each of the OBC categories.
Justice Ravi V Hosmani directed, "NLSIU is directed to implement directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in NALSA's case (NALSA v. Union of India) by formulating reservation along with measures for providing financial aid to TGs in education before commencement of admission process for next academic year. Until then to provide a reservation of 0.5% (half the percentage of reservation provided for TGs in employment under State) as interim reservation with fee waiver and for which NLSIU may apply to State/Central Government for appropriate grant".
Case Title: M Manjula & Others AND Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 526
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld an order of the single judge which dismissed a petition filed by the original grantee of a land who had sought restoration of land to themselves, 12 years after it was first transferred to private persons.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed an appeal filed by M Manjula and others who are heirs of one late Lakshmaiah, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste and came to be granted the land in question in the year 1981.
It said “In light of the above discussion and the position of law that would emerge, in the facts of the case, the restoration of the land cannot be permitted after 12 years.The question of latches would come into play. 12 years having been passed, it would be highly unreasonable, unjust and inequitable, as well as against law to grant any relief to the original grantee-the petitioner-appellant, permitting restoration of the land and to treat the transfer of the land taken place long back to be null and void.”
Case Title: Union Bank of India & ANR AND V Harsih D Kamath & ANR
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 527
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an order of the single judge which had directed Union Bank of India to release the amount in Term Deposits which came to be appropriated towards the loan taken by a businessman, exercising its power of general lien over such deposits.
A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by the Bank and set aside the order dated May 2, 2023.
The bench said “It is observed in the impugned order in writ petition that, because of issuance of recovery certificate by the DRT the term deposits belongs to the petitioners are crystallized. But when the bank has got general lien over such deposits which is dealing in public money and has exercised its general lien as per the undertaking given by the father of the petitioners as well as now the petitioners the question of releasing the said deposit to the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, the appellants (Bank) have made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.”
Case Title: G Swamy AND B Devendrappa
Case No: ELECTION PETITION NO.19 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 528
The Karnataka High Court has held that Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, does not take away the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide an election dispute questioning the caste of a returned candidate to the Legislative Assembly.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde dismissed the application made under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by B Devendrappa seeking to dismiss the election petition filed by G Swamy challenging Devendrappa's election.
Originally, Swamy–the petitioner had filed an election petition before the high court questioning the Devendrappa's (respondent) election to Jagaluru Vidhanasabha Constituency claiming that the Constituency is reserved for Scheduled Tribe whereas the respondent belongs to Other Backward Community and so is ineligible to contest the election.
Case Title: Ms X AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 55559 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 529
The Karnataka High Court has asked the state government to suggest amendments to the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and the rules framed thereunder to "give effect" to the Transgender Persons(Protection of Rights) Act 2019, in permitting change of name and gender of a transgender person in their birth/death certificate.
In doing so the court directed the Registrar to modify the birth and death certificate of transgender persons on submission of their application, if it is accompanied with requisite certificate concerning change in identity and gender as provided under Sections 6 (Issue of certificate of identity) and 7 (certificate of Change in gender) of the Transgender Persons(Protection of Rights) Act 2019.
Case Title: Chandra @Chandrashekhara Bhat AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition no. 12758 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 530
Closing perhaps the oldest criminal matter in the state, the Karnataka High Court recently quashed a 44-year old murder case registered against a man who is now 68 years old, remarking that permitting a trial would be a futile exercise.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition by Chadra alias V Chandrashekara Bhat, and after taking note of the facts observed that the impossibility of the petitioner looms large. It said:
“Therefore, if acquittal is eminent in a trial, permitting such trial against the accused would be nothing but waste of precious judicial time as is observed hereinabove. In the considered view of this Court, permitting a trial, which would be of no utility would only be an exercise in futility. Thus, ends the oldest case, in the criminal justice system, of the State, perhaps, which is 44 years old.”
Case Title: SRI.THANGAVELU. R v. SHRI. SANTHOSH. J
Case Number: CRP No. 265 of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 531
The Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar has held that a reference application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should have been filed within a period of 120 days from the date of service of summons to the defendant, which was long passed before 20.03.2019. Thus, where the reference application under Section 8 of the Act was made long after the expiry of the outer limit of 120 days from the date of service of summons, such a reference could not be construed to have been made at the earliest.
Case Title: Dr Mohankumar M AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.118/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 532
The Karnataka High Court has said that scope of revision is very limited against the discharge application and the Court has to consider only the material on record collected by the Investigating Officer whether sufficient or not.
Justice H P Sandesh held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Dr Mohankumar M. Referring to judgments of the Supreme Court It said, “The Court cannot conduct a mini trial and defence cannot be considered in a discharge application and the Court has to only look into the material collected by the Investigating Officer whether sufficient material is there or not.”