Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 291 to 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 347Nominal Index:ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 291A Ramesh Babu & Others AND Dharani S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 292Justice B Padmaraj AND Union of India & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 293G Devaraje Gowda AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 294M/S POWER SMART MEDIA PVT LTD & ANR AND Union...
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 291 to 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
Nominal Index:
ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 291
A Ramesh Babu & Others AND Dharani S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
Justice B Padmaraj AND Union of India & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
G Devaraje Gowda AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
M/S POWER SMART MEDIA PVT LTD & ANR AND Union of India & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-3 Versus Transways India Transport. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
Admar Mutt Kaliya Mardana Krishna Devaru v Vishalakshmi & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
C V Mahalingaiah & Others AND The State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
M/S Hitachi Energy India Limited Versus State Of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
ABC AND XYZ & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
Bennett Coleman And Co Ltd & Others AND M/s Bid And Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
ABC & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
Shyamal Mukherjee Vs Pricewaterhousecoopers Services LLP. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
GENERAL ATLANTIC SINGAPORE TL PTE LTD v. BYJU RAVEENDRAN. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
R Shankar AND E Ramamohan Chowdary. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Roopesha & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
UNION OF INDIA & Others AND L. KRISHNAMURTHY & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
Hu Xiaolin AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
P B D'Sa & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
Mohammed Khaleelulla AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
Shreekrishan Ramesh @Sreeki AND State of Karnataka & Other. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
Vanitha & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR . 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
C Niranjan Yadav AND D Ravi Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
M K Thammaiah & Others AND A Mohan Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
Vaibhavaraj Utsav AND State By Chandra Layout P.S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
Union of India & ANR AND B Arulappa. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
Vinod Kumar K AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
Nandini AND The DG & IGP of Police, Bengaluru & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
Thanmay U AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
Inayathulla N AND State By Police Sub Inspector. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
XXX AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
Manjunatha M S AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
S Muniraju And State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
Bylamurthy AND M.G Gangalakshmamma & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
Informatica Business Solutions Private Limited Versus Acit. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 325
State of Karnataka & Others AND Umadevi Hundekar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 326
ABC AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 327
Dhariyappagouda Patil AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
Zaheda Inamdhar AND Dr Fatima Hassina Sayyedha. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
Canara Bank AND Commissioner of Customs & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
Dr. Amrithalakshmi R AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
Thanmay U AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 Live Law (Kar) 332
Dr. Sabeel Ahmed @ Motu Doctor AND National Investigating Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 333
Dhananje Gowda & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 334
Shahrukh Ayub Khan & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 335
Dhanush B N & Others AND Karnataka State Law University & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 336
Siri Srikanth AND The Karnataka Examination Authority & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
Ajay Kumar Behra AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
State By Karnataka Lokayuktha Police AND T Manjunath & ANR. 2024 Live Law (Kar) 339
The Income Tax Department Versus M/S. Jenious Clothing Private Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
Nayamat Ali Khan & ANR AND M Sadananda & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
Byju Raveendran And Think and Learn Pvt Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
Karnataka State Road Corporation & Others AND Mallaiah & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
M/S Akshaya Private Limited Vs M/S S P Sai Technologies. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1803 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 291
The Karnataka High Court has granted liberty to a husband to initiate criminal proceedings for malicious prosecution, under Section 211 of the IPC (Falsely accuse others of committing an offence) against his estranged wife.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a husband and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against him by the wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The wife had claimed that the husband was suffering from Human Papilloma-Virus (HPV), which is a sexually transmitted disease (STD).
Case Title: A Ramesh Babu & Others AND Dharani S
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3578 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
The Karnataka High Court has held that a petition calling in question the entire proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would be maintainable before the High Court, not the Sessions Court.
However, if any particular order is passed on any application filed under Sections 18, 19, 20 or 22 of the Act, those specific orders are to be agitated before the Court of Sessions invoking Section 29 of the Act.
Case Title: Justice B Padmaraj AND Union of India & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.13125 OF 2012
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Union of India to calculate and disburse the leave encashment amount due to a former Judge of the High Court, who on retiring was appointed as Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal and served in the position for over two years.
A Single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum partly allowed the petition filed by Justice B Padmaraj (retired) and said “This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for grant of leave encashment in respect of the earned leave standing to his credit during his tenure as Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal.”
Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Whistleblower Advocate G Devarajegowda In Alleged Rape Case
Case Title: G Devaraje Gowda AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5449 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
The Karnataka High Court on Monday granted bail to Advocate G Devarajegowda in a rape case registered against him at the Holenarasipura Police Station.
A single-judge bench of Justice M G Uma allowed the petition filed by the accused. Gowda is reported to be the whistle-blower of the alleged obscene video scandal involving former JD(S) MP Prajwal Revanna
Case Title: M/S POWER SMART MEDIA PVT LTD & ANR AND Union of India & ANR
Case NO: WA 949/2024 c/w WA 951/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
The Karnataka High Court has denied an appeal filed by M/s Power Smart Media Private Limited which operates Kannada news channel 'Power TV' challenging the interim order passed by a single judge bench, restraining it from broadcasting.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind had earlier heard the parties and reserved the order.
The Bench took into consideration that since 2021 there the channel is operating without a valid licence and several notices alleging violation have been issued to it, and said “Temporary prohibition of broadcast in light of the facts and situation and further in view that competent authorities are to try and deal with on merits the show cause notice could not be said to be violating the right of broadcast.”
Case Title: The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-3 Versus Transways India Transport
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 854 Of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
The Karnataka High Court has held that undervaluation cannot be a ground for seizure of goods in transit by the inspecting authority.
The bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar upheld the single bench order in which the obligation to pay tax and penalty has been quashed coupled with a direction to release the vehicle.
No Law Prohibits Alteration Of Travel Route In Transporting Goods: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & ANR AND M/s Transways India Transport.
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
The Karnataka High Court has held that no law, rule or ruling mandates conveyance of goods from one point to its destination following a particular route only or prohibits alteration of travel route qua the one impressed in the consignment documents.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar dismissed the appeal filed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and said “What is required by law is the furnishing of consignment documents and specified particulars of consignor, consignee, goods, route maps & destinations. Requirement of furnishing particulars of route map, etc., is one thing, compulsive adherence to the impressed route is another. There is law with regard to the former, is true; but latter is non liquet i.e., an area where there is no binding rule.”
Case Title: Admar Mutt Kaliya Mardana Krishna Devaru v Vishalakshmi & Others
Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.12 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
The Karnataka High Court has held that a written statement is not required to be filed by a defendant in a suit to contend that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper and that the defendant's application under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of suit, cannot be dismissed on that ground.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition Shri Admar Mutt Kaliya Mardana Krishna Devaru and said “The filing of a written statement is not a condition precedent for considering an application under Rule 11 of Order VII.”
Case Title: C V Mahalingaiah & Others AND The State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
The Karnataka High Court has observed that delay in conducting elections to the Board of Tumkur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies, due to conduct of Parliamentary Elections (Lok Sabha), is justified.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind made the observation while disposing of an appeal filed by incumbent President of the Milk Society, challenging a single bench order which had disposed of their plea seeking direction to the Co-operative Election Commissioner to conduct elections to the Society.
GST Appeal Filed Online Is Within Time, Karnataka High Court Condones Delay In Physical Filing
Case Title: M/S Hitachi Energy India Limited Versus State Of Karnataka
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 14881 Of 2024 (T-Res)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
The Karnataka High Court has condoned delay in the physical filing of the appeal as the appeal was filed via online mode within time.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav observed that Rule 108(3) was amended to the extent that the date of appeal would be the date of issuance of acknowledgment, which was on June 3, 2022, and the change is in contradistinction to the earlier requirement, which provided that the date of appeal would be the date of furnishing a certified copy of the order if submitted after seven days. If that were to be so, the date of physical filing of the certified copy ought not to have been taken note of.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4710 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
The Karnataka High Court has said that an application made by a woman under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, cannot be dismissed by the trial court without issuing notice to the respondents or carrying out an enquiry.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a woman and set aside the order dated 18-03-2024, passed by the trial which had on going through the application dismissed it by observing that the case does not project any domestic violence.
Case Title: Bennett Coleman And Co Ltd & Others AND M/s Bid And Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3829 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a defamation case registered against Jaideep Bose, Editorial Director of Bennett Coleman and Co Ltd, which publishes the newspaper Times of India.
A single-judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda, however, quashed the proceedings initiated under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the company.
Case Title: ABC & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4308 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case of criminal intimidation registered against two daughters by their father after they undertook before the court that they would not do any such act which would constitute an offence against their father.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda allowed the petition filed by the daughters and quashed the proceedings initiated by their father under sections 506, 504, 448 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Mr. Shyamal Mukherjee Vs Pricewaterhousecoopers Services LLP
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLEANEOUS PETITION NO.96 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice R. Devdas has held that prior involvement as an arbitrator in a dispute or multiple appointments by one of the parties or its affiliate does not automatically disqualify an individual from serving as an arbitrator in subsequent cases. The crucial factor lies in the arbitrator's ability to demonstrate independence and impartiality in past proceedings.
Therefore, the bench dismissed the contention that an arbitrator engaged in a dispute concerning a party and an affiliate of another party is ineligible for appointment.
Karnataka High Court Restricts Byju's Share Allotment Till NCLT Decision On Rights Issue
Case Title: GENERAL ATLANTIC SINGAPORE TL PTE LTD v. BYJU RAVEENDRAN
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 969 OF 2024 A/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 972 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
The Karnataka High Court on Friday restrained edutech company Byju's, MD Byju Raveendrana and parent company Think and Learn Private Limited from making allotment of shares till the proceedings against it pending before the National Company Tribunal is decided.
Byju's investors had approached the NCLT to restrain the company from launching second rights issue, fearing it will dilute their holding.
The Tribunal had in its interim order restrained the company from allotting the shares. The interim order was challenged before the High Court, which set aside the NCLT order as being non-speaking and cryptic.
Case Title: R Shankar AND E Ramamohan Chowdary
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 100487 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
The Karnataka High Court has held that Order XIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which pertains to the return of documents produced during a trial, is not to be strictly limited to the party that physically submits the documents in court, instead, it is to ensure rightful ownership and fair administration of justice.
Case Title: Roopesha & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4941 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings of abetment to suicide of a minor initiated against two school teachers. The girl student committed suicide following the alleged harassment and threats issued by them on the ground that she was talking to a boy studying in the same school.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Roopesha and Sadananda said “Boys and girls are in the same classroom, if they talk to each other or become friends, it is ununderstandable as to how such acts could become subversive of discipline, as the entire projection by the petitioner is that they only wanted to discipline the children, particularly, the victim.”
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & Others AND L. KRISHNAMURTHY & Others
Case No: WA 1556/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging a single bench order permitting a former State Information Commissioner to avail medical treatment and Hospital facilities as provided in the Central Government Health Scheme.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the appeal saying, “The appeal is dismissed.We have concurred with the view taken by the Ld Single judge.” The detailed order will be made available in due course.
Case Title: Hu Xiaolin AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.455 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Chinese national accused in the infamous Power Bank Scam seeking permission to travel back to China pending trial on the grounds of meeting her ailing father.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by HU Xiaolin while doing so took note that under the Chinese Criminal Code once a person becomes an accused, he or she will never be permitted to move out of the Chinese shores till the trial gets completed.
After Former Judge Apologises, Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Defamation Case Against Him
Case Title: P B D'Sa & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5242 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against former High Court judge, Justice Michael Francis Saldhana, after he tendered an unconditional apology.
The proceedings were initiated under sections 384/385/389 (extortion), 500/501 (defamation) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC on a complaint filed by Advocate MP Noronha.
Case Title: Mohammed Khaleelulla AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 7545/2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
The Karnataka High Court today dismissed a PIL filed by a civil contractor, seeking action against several state BJP leaders including MP Renukacharya, CT Ravi, Tejasvi Surya and Prathap Simha for allegedly making Hate speeches.
Petitioner Mohammed Khaleeulla claimed he came across the alleged speeches through social media platforms.
However, division bench headed by Chief Justice NV Anjaria found the allegations were too general, lacking authentication and said the PIL appeared to be "politically motivated".
"Why are you misusing the platform of High Court by filing such petitions? Why are you wasting time of courts by filing such petitions with omnibus prayers?" the Judge sternly remarked while dismissing the plea.
Karnataka High Court Quashes KCOCA Charges Against Bitcoin Scam Accused Sirkrishna
Case Title: Shreekrishan Ramesh @Sreeki AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15943 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 15622 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the addition of stringent charges under the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 against accused Sirkrishna and Robin Khandelwal, in connection with the Bitcoin scam case.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar said “The filing of two charge sheets and taking of cognizance of two offences within a period of 10 years prior to and preceding the date of commission of the offence under KCOCA is a sine qua non for invocation of the offence and in the absence of the same, the very invocation of KCOCA would be without jurisdiction or authority of law and deserves to be quashed.”
Case Title: Vanitha & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5522 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a case of cheating registered against a mother and son who are alleged of fabricating documents in order to acquire title in a property.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Vanitha and Venkatesh M and said, “It is no law that merely because an issue brought before the Court appears to be civil and is standing on the heels of crime, it should be obliterated.”
Case Title: C Niranjan Yadav AND D Ravi Kumar
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.814 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
The Karnataka High Court has held that a legal notice regarding dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if sent by registered post to the address of the accused which is known to the complainant, would be deemed to have been served and it is for the accused to say as to why he could not receive the cover.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda held thus while dismissing the petition filed by C Niranjan Yadav challenging an order by the trial court which had held him guilty under the Act and imposed a fine of Rs.75,000.
Case Title: M K Thammaiah & Others AND A Mohan Kumar
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5232 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a trial court order taking cognizance of a private complaint filed against seven police officers under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code, as no sanction for prosecution was granted by the government.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed ADGP Seemanthkumar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) MK Thammaiah, Inspector SR Veerendra Prasad, DySP Prakash R, Inspector Manjunath H Hugar, DySPs Vijay H and Uma Prashant, who were attached to the now-disbanded Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).
Imposing Condition To Furnish Bank Guarantee While Granting Bail Illegal: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Vaibhavaraj Utsav AND State By Chandra Layout P.S
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5847 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that imposing a condition that the accused should furnish a bank guarantee of any quantum for grant of bail by the trial court is on the face of it illegal.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that it has come across a plethora of cases where the concerned courts while granting bail are imposing conditions of furnishing bank guarantee.
It said, “I deem it appropriate to observe that the concerned Court shall not insist on furnishing of bank guarantee for release of the accused on grant of bail. Except this, the concerned Court would be free to impose any other legally tenable conditions.”
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
Case Title: Union of India & ANR AND B Arulappa
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.25744 OF 2023
The Karnataka High Court has said that directions passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to consider the representation for voluntary retirement made by an employee are binding and authorities cannot instead direct compulsory retirement without considering the plea for voluntary retirement.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, said thus while dismissing a petition filed by Union of India challenging an order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the compulsory retirement order passed against B Arulappa, Commissioner of Income Tax and directing the authority to consider his application for voluntary retirement.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar K AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
Observing that “Forty four years is too long a time to maintain legal action. With passage of such protracted time, the right to relief is lost,” the Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by an appellant questioning the land acquisition proceedings initiated and completed in the year 1978.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the appeal filed by Vinod Kumar K. The appellant had challenged a single judge bench order dismissing his petition praying to call for records pertaining to the proceedings initiated by the Special Land Acquisition officer. Further, direct the authorities to initiate proceedings and pass an award under Section 11 of the Right to Fair, Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Case Title: Nandini AND The DG & IGP of Police, Bengaluru & Others
Case No: WPHC NO.55 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the wife of a detenu questioning his detention under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas (Immoral Traffic Offencers, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates) Act, 1985.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar noted that the man is involved in 45 criminal cases registered at different police stations. It said, “The criminal antecedents of detenue galore on record and they lend credence to the contention of learned SPP that his detention is inevitably ordered after exploring all alternatives.”
Case Title: Thanmay U AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16700 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
The Karnataka High Court has refused to look into the validity of the State government's decision to set up a committee to examine 'out of syllabus' questions asked in the Karnataka CET 2024 exams held in April and its finding to exclude around 50 questions which were out of syllabus.
A single judge bench of Justice S Suni Dutt Yadav while disposing of a petition filed by 18-year-old, Thanmay U who argued the case in person said, “The Court cannot enter into the aspect of validity of decision taken by the Government based on the applicable syllabus which is the decision of the experts.”
Watching Child Pornography Online Will Not Attract Offence U/S 67B Of IT Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Inayathulla N AND State By Police Sub Inspector
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13141 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
The Karnataka High Court has held that a person watching child pornography material online cannot be charged for an offence under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed proceedings initiated against one Inayathulla N and said, “The allegation against the petitioner is that he has watched a pornographic website. This, in the considered view of the Court, would not become publishing or transmitting of material, as is necessary under Section 67B of the IT Act.”
Case Title: Inayathulla N AND State By Police Sub Inspector
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13141 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
The Karnataka High Court on Friday recalled its order passed on July 10, wherein it had held that a person watching child pornography online cannot be charged for an offence under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “This court had passed the order without noticing section 67B (b), it is an error.”
The court had quashed the proceedings initiated against one Inayathulla N stating that watching pornographic website would not amount to "publishing or transmitting of material", as is necessary under Section 67B of the IT Act.
Case Title: XXX AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7704 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that consensual acts between two adults who were in love over a long period of six years will not attract the offence of rape.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a man and quashed the case registered for offences punishable under sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Manjunatha M S AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1620 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
The Karnataka High Court has held that non-compliance with Subsection (4) of Section 115 of the Trade Mark Act, which mandates taking opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks, before carrying out search and seizure is an irregularity for which the infringement proceedings cannot be quashed.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Manjunatha M S who had approached the court questioning the prosecution initiated against him for offences punishable under Sections 482, 483 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 102, 103 and 104 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999.
Case Title: S Muniraju And State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 16180/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Dasarahalli Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) S Muniraju, belonging to Bharatiya Janata Party, seeking a direction to the state government to release an amount of Rs 78 crore for carrying out the developmental work in his constituency.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind said “Petitioner herein is an elected representative, he is an MLA, it is always open for petitioner to flag such issues before the house or before the Government and its competent authorities. Filing a writ petition in the nature of a PIL and seeking relief on such scores would not be said to be justified, no such PIL can be entertained.”
Case Title: Bylamurthy AND M.G Gangalakshmamma & Others
Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1457 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
The Karnataka High Court has said that continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff (purchaser) is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance by the court.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh held thus while dismissing the appeal filed by one Bylamurthy challenging an order of the trial court and the first appellate court rejecting his prayer for specific relief.
Reassessment Notice To Non-Existing Entity Is Not Legally Tenable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Informatica Business Solutions Private Limited Versus Acit
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 17300 OF 2024 (T-IT)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 325
The Karnataka High Court has held that the reassessment notice to a non-existing entity is not legally tenable.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav has observed that the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued on February 28, 2024, with respect to the assessment year 2020–21. The scheme of amalgamation has fixed the appointed date as April 1, 2019, and the entity to which notice is issued is deemed not to be in existence.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others AND Umadevi HundekarCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102121 OF 2024 (S-KAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 102119 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 326
The Karnataka High Court has observed that whenever a beneficial provision is incorporated in a statute, it has to be given effect in favour of the beneficiaries by authorities irrespective of whether the beneficiary has made an application in that regard or not.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice S G Pandit made the observation while dismissing petitions filed by the State Government questioning the order passed by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) setting aside the transfer order passed against Umadevi Hundekar (55) and Prabhavati Ronad (58), as they were found to be surplus teachers.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Rape Proceedings Against POCSO Accused After He Marries Victim
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 4658/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 327
The Karnataka High Court has quashed rape proceedings against an accused who during the pendency of the petition seeking quashing of offence was released on interim bail to allow him to marry the victim, who turned major and gave birth to a child.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the proceedings initiated under sections 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC and Sections 5(L), 5(J)(II), 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused.
Case Title: Dhariyappagouda Patil AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 101705 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on an Assistant Commissioner of the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizen Protection Tribunal, for exceeding his jurisdiction, entertaining a frivolous application under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act and nullifying a sale deed entered into by parties.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, directed the Assistant Commissioner of Savanur Sub-Division to pay the cost with the Advocate Clerks Welfare Fund, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad.
Case Title: Zaheda Inamdhar AND Dr Fatima Hassina Sayyedha
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.3519 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused has no right to tender his evidence by way of an affidavit in a proceedings initiated against him under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the complainant Zaheeda Inamdhar and set aside an order of the trial court permitting the filing of an affidavit by the accused Dr Fatima Hassina Sayeedha and rejecting Inamdhar's application filed under Section 311 of CrPC to cross-examine the accused.
Recovery Of Debt Of Bank Under SARFAESI Act Prevails Over Debts Under FEMA: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Canara Bank AND Commissioner of Customs & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 10895 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
The Karnataka High Court recently held that provisions of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI) will override the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act,(FEMA) which is a subsequent enactment, the debt of a secured creditor–Bank, would have priority and prevail over all other debts.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar held thus while allowing the petition filed by Canara Bank and directed the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate to release a property which was mortgaged to the Bank by one Iqbal Ahmed. ED had seized the property under the provisions of the FEMA and passed the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 directing the seizure of the scheduled property and other properties of Ahmed.
Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging ₹2 Price Hike On Nandini Milk Variants
Case Title: Dr. Amrithalakshmi R AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 18596/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation, questioning the price increase across all variants of Nandini Milk by Rs 2, which came into effect on June 26.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by Dr Amrithalakshmi R and said “Pricing policy is essential in the policy domain and judicial power would not be generally exercised unless shown decision is palpably wrong. What price is to be fixed and determined for products including milk is to be guided by a host of considerations which are commercial in nature. The commercial wisdom of R2 (KMF) in taking a decision to raise price, will not be a consideration before this court in public interest jurisdiction.”
Case Title: Thanmay U AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WA 1070/2024
Citation No: 2024 Live Law (Kar) 332
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal challenging a single judge bench order which refused to look into the validity of the State government's decision to set up a committee to examine 'out of syllabus' questions asked in the Karnataka CET 2024 exams, held in April and its finding to exclude 50 questions which were out of syllabus.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the appeal filed by 18-year-old, Thanmay U. A detailed order would be made available later.
Case Title: Dr. Sabeel Ahmed @ Motu Doctor AND National Investigating Agency
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20806 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 333
The Karnataka High Court has refused to discharge an alleged member of the banned terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), who was charged for conspiring to kill Hindu leaders and government officials in 2012.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice JM Khazi dismissed the petition filed by Dr. Sabeel Ahmed @ Motu Doctor, who challenged the Sessions court order, rejecting his application for discharge which was filed on the ground that he was acquitted in a similar case tried by a court in Delhi.
Case Title: Dhananje Gowda & Others AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6091 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5099 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 334
The Karnataka High Court has observed that instances of persons inducing pregnant ladies to undergo scanning and to abort the female foetus at various medical centres are very rampant in various parts of the state, especially Mysuru and Mandya districts.
A single judge bench Justice M G Uma observed thus while dismissing the anticipatory bail application filed by Dhananje Gowda and two others, who are charged for offences punishable under Sections 312, 314, 315, 316 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, on the complaint filed by the District Health and Welfare officer.
Case Title: Shahrukh Ayub Khan & ANR AND State of KarnatakaCase No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200230 OF 2023 (374) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200147 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 335
The Karnataka High Court has said that it is mandatory for authorities to prepare an inventory of seized contraband material and get it certified before the jurisdictional Magistrate before sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory, for chemical examination.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the appeal filed by two accused Shahrukh Khan and another and acquitted the accused who were charged under sections 20(b)(ii), 20(B) and 20(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Case Title: Dhanush B N & Others AND Karnataka State Law University & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14591 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 17235 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 336
The Karnataka High Court has rejected petitions filed by 9th-semester law students seeking directions on the Karnataka State Law University to permit them to write their examinations, which they were not allowed to do since they did not meet the required attendance criteria.
A single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav dismissed the petitions filed by Dhanush B N and others.
The students are pursuing a Five Year (Semester Scheme) LL.B. Course and had contended that they were promoted to 5th year and attended the classes for the 9th Semester, but they were not permitted to write the examination due to their attendance being below the required 70%.
Case Title: Siri Srikanth AND The Karnataka Examination Authority & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24645 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a student who was illegally denied admission to MBBS course in the academic year 2022-23, against sports quota. The court has directed authorities to admit her to the course this year.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind allowed the petition filed by Siri Srikanth and said “The respondent authorities are directed to admit the petitioner to the MBBS course on a seat in the quota reserved for sports for the academic year 2024-25 without applying any seniority among the candidates eligible for admission under the Sports Quota in the CET/NEET Examination conducted for the academic year 2024-25.”
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Behra AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4074 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
The Karnataka High Court has urged the Central Government to amend Section 184 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to provide that adult victims of rape be examined in hospitals by only female doctors, so as to protect their right to privacy.
A single judge bench of Justice MG Uma directed the Central and State governments to ensure that till the amendment is brought, medical examination of rape victims is conducted only by or under the supervision of a female registered medical practitioner.
Case Title: State By Karnataka Lokayuktha Police AND T Manjunath & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.422/2018 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.599/2018
Citation No: 2024 Live Law (Kar) 339
The Karnataka High Court has held that when a government employee is accused of criminal misconduct for demanding and accepting a bribe, he will have to come out clean in a trial and even if he is exonerated in a departmental enquiry, the same would not come in the way of continuing the criminal trial against him.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh held thus while rejecting the petition filed by T Manjunath who was arrested under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Dept's Appeal Against Inadequate Sentence Lies Before Sessions Court: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The Income Tax Department Versus M/S. Jenious Clothing Private Ltd
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.2104/2023 C/W Crl.A. Nos.1339/2020, 925/2021, 950/2021, 954/2021, 1207/2021, 1222/2021, 1223/2021, 1224/2021, 1229/2021, 1319/2021, 1326/2021, 1330/2021, 1337/2021, 672/2022, 810/2022, 898/2022, 2233/2022, 2245/2022 And 1913/2023.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by the Income Tax Department under Section 377 of Cr.P.C.
The bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar has observed that on a reading of Section 418 of the Bhartiya Nyayik Suraksha Sahita (BNSS), it is in pari materia with Section 377 of Cr.P.C. Even under the BNSS, no provision has been introduced for filing an appeal before the High Court if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate. Sub-Section (3) of Section 415 of BNSS provides for filing an appeal to the Court of Sessions against judgement of conviction on a trial held by the Magistrate. The reasons noted supra will also apply to the appeals filed or to be filed under Section 418 of BNSS.
Case Title: Nayamat Ali Khan & ANR AND M Sadananda & Others
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 557 OF 2016 C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
The Karnataka High Court has held that purchasers of a property from the auction purchaser can make an application before the executing court for obtaining possession of the properties from the owners/occupants.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice J M Khazi held thus while allowing an appeal filed by Nayamat Ali Khan and others. The Court set aside the order of the trial court and allowed their applications made under Order 21 Rule 95 of CPC, directing the executing court to issue delivery warrants.
Case Title: M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2978 OF 2024 (AA)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that an individual who acquires property that is the subject of a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is subject to the principle of lis pendens.
The issue before the High Court was whether the transaction was affected by the principle of lis pendens as outlined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Case Title: Byju Raveendran And Think and Learn Pvt Ltd
Case No: WP 19938/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday disposed of the petition filed by Byju Raveendran seeking to suspend the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order, which admitted his parent company Think and Learn Private Limited (TLPL), into the insolvency resolution process.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar disposed of the matter after it was informed that a special bench is constituted by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and which heard the matter today and further hearing is to continue on Wednesday. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition if the occasion arises.
Case Title: Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15125 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
The Karnataka High Court has said that in the event a notice issued by the police summoning a citizen under Section 35 of the BNSS does not contain the crime number, the offence alleged or the appending of the FIR, subject to just exceptions, the noticee is not obliged to appear before the officer who has directed him to appear and no coercive action can be taken against him.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “Summoning to the Police Station is not summoning a person to a happy place. A citizen must know as to why he is being summoned.”
Case Title: Karnataka State Road Corporation & Others AND Mallaiah & Others
Case No: R.F.A. NO.1653 OF 2011
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the trial court which decreed a suit in favour of private persons, declaring them to be owners of the land, which was notified by the then Mysore Maharaja in 1929 for the formation of a State Reserve Forest.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by the State government and Karnataka State Road Corporation and set aside the order of the trial court dated 29-08-2011, passed in favour of Mallaiah and others.
Case Title: M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2978 OF 2024 (AA)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that a person who is not a party to the arbitration agreement but buys property from someone who is a party to the agreement is still bound by the arbitration clause that applies to their vendors.
The High Court noted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decision in Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP India Private Limited and Another was primarily concerned with whether the phrase "claiming through or under" in Section 8 of the Arbitration Act includes the "Group of Companies" doctrine and whether this doctrine, as previously outlined in Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., constitutes valid law.
Case Title: M/S Akshaya Private Limited Vs M/S S P Sai Technologies
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
The Karnataka High Court division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that the right to enforce the settlement has to be through arbitration as the alleged settlement is in respect of a transaction arising from the contract which contained an arbitration clause.