Nominal IndexJameela And Sullia Afsa & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 198Shivappa Bellad And Superintendent of Open Air Prison & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 199Dr Vinod G Kulkarni And Ministry of Railways & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 200M/s Mangalore New Sultan Beedi Works And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 201Nasim Banu & ANR And Shabas Khan & Others....
Nominal Index
Jameela And Sullia Afsa & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Shivappa Bellad And Superintendent of Open Air Prison & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
Dr Vinod G Kulkarni And Ministry of Railways & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
M/s Mangalore New Sultan Beedi Works And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
Nasim Banu & ANR And Shabas Khan & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
Diocese of Chikkamagaluru And Lancy J Narona & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
Kreetams Pro Bono And Centre For Legal Research And Ministry of Secondary and Primary Education & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
Pramod R S And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
M S Ravi Dixit And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
B S Yeddyurappa And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
Dr. Chandrashekar T B And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
Pavankumar A N & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
Dr M David And Department of High Education & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
ABC v. XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
Abdul Rehman And The Deputy Commissioner & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
PG Setty Construction Technology Pvt Ltd And The Managing Director, Karnataka State Police Housing And Infrastructure Development Corporation & Others 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
M/s. GE T & D India Ltd. Versus State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
Imran Ahmed And National Investigating Agency. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
Byluru Thippaiah And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
Vipul Prakash Patil And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
D K Suresh And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
A Vasudevachar & Others And The District Registrar & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
Mrs Divya Ganesh Nallur & ANR And NIL. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
Allauddin & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
D K SHIVAKUMAR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
Coffee Day Resorts (Msm) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
ABC & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
Mali Rizwan And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
Gururaj Havanur And The Management of Syndicate Bank & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
Sindhu Boregowda And Yashwanth Bhaskar B P. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
Vijesh Pillai And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
The City Municipal Council And Akbar Patel. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
Ramesh Naik. L v. State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
Prajith R And XXX & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 232
V V Singara Velu & ANR And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
Lingasugur Taluk Halumata Abhivrudhi Samiti ( R ) & Others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
Subramani And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
B S Kumar Swamy Versus State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
K P Pushpesh & Others And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
Pramod Mutalik And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 238
Parameshwarappa And The State. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 239
Mrs Gauramma & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 240
Aniruddh v RGUHS & connected matters. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 241
M R Seetharam And State By Anti Corruption Bureau & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 242
Jairam Ramesh & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 243
X Corp v. UNION OF INDIA. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 244
State of Karnataka Versus Aishwarya Fort. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 245
Kailash S Raj & others And State of Karnataka 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 246
Pr Commissioner Of Income-1 Tax (Exemptions) Versus M/S Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 247
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Jameela And Sullia Afsa & Others
Case No: CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.500 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that in a partnership deed that provides for appointment of Arbitrator, the power of Arbitrator to resolve the dispute flows from the clauses of the partnership deed.
A Single Judge bench of Justice S G Pandit, dismissed a petition filed by one Jameela who claimed to be the second wife of deceased partner Hajee Ibrahim and sought dissolution of the firm and sought share in the assets of the firm of which the deceased was the partner. She sought appointment of sole arbitrator in this regard
Case Title: Shivappa Bellad And Superintendent of Open Air Prison & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 8631 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Superintendent of the Open Air Prison to grant emergency parole of three weeks to a convict to meet his ailing mother.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the petition filed by convict Shivappa Bellad. “This Court, being conscious of the shortness of human life and the irreplaceable position and bond between mother and children, is inclined to grant a restrictive & conditional indulgence in the matter inasmuch as petitioner's mother Smt. Gangavva, aged about 75 years, an inpatient in General hospital Kushtagi, is stated to be suffering from ailments natural to old age,” said the court.
Case Title: Dr Vinod G Kulkarni And Ministry of Railways & Others
Case No: WP 15520/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday refused to grant any relief and permitted the withdrawal of a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Union Government to restore the concession in fare for senior citizens in Railways.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal said “Ultimately what should be the fare, whether the concession should be given to a particular class, all these are policy issues, how a court can enter that arena. Time and again the Supreme Court has said "please don’t do that, it is exclusively in the domain of the executive'. You can make a request to your elected representative.”
Case Title: M/s Mangalore New Sultan Beedi Works And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 10870 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
Observing that the Copyright Act provides for both civil remedy and filing of criminal prosecution, the Karnataka High Court said that merely because a civil dispute is being fought between the parties, the criminal proceedings cannot be halted.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said: “The infringement of a copyright gives rise to a cause of action on which a civil proceeding like an Injunctive Suit can be structured; it also can give rise to a cause of action for the institution of a criminal proceeding; in the former, it is preventive, remedial, compensatory or otherwise, whereas, in the latter, it is primarily punitive. The object, nature & outcome of these proceedings, thus are not the same. That is how the statutory scheme is enacted by the Parliament. Merely because a civil dispute is being fought between the parties, the criminal proceedings cannot be halted, per se, on that ground.”
Proceedings For Guardianship, Custody Of Minor Lie Only Before Family Court: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Nasim Banu & ANR And Shabas Khan & Others
Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.273 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a proceeding in relation to the guardianship of a person or the custody of or access to any minor has to be filed before Family court and it cannot be filed before a district court or any subordinate civil court.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh said, “Section 8 of the Family Courts Act is very clear with regard to exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings where a Family Court has been established for any area. The very proviso of Section 8(a) is very clear that no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to that sub-section.”
Case Title: Diocese of Chikkamagaluru And Lancy J Narona & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.98 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an Appellate court order holding that civil courts have jurisdiction to hear a suit filed in individual capacity by few Catholics, seeking a direction to the Religious head of the church to allow them to offer prayers/mass prayers in Konkani Language.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh dismissed the second appeal preferred by Diocese of Chikkamagaluru and said, “Admittedly, the suit is filed for the relief of worshipping in the church in a particular language. It is the contention that there are 42 Parishes of Chikkamagaluru and out of which Parishes of different places are also allowed to do the prayer in different languages and the same is disputed by the appellant herein. When such being the case, the same has to be decided only in full fledged trial and not at the initial stage of considering the averments made in the plaint.”
Case Title: Kreetams Pro Bono And Centre For Legal Research And Ministry of Secondary and Primary Education & ANR
Case No: WP 5724/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
The Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of a PIL seeking directions to the State's Department of Primary and Secondary Education to issue circulars mandating all educations institutes to establish an internal complaint committee (ICC) in the light of Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal disposed of the petition filed by Kreetams Pro Bono and Centre for Legal Research. In doing so, it relied on Aureliano Fernandes vs State Of Goa whereby the Supreme Court issued a slew of directions to fulfil the promise that the PoSH Act holds out to working women all over the country. Further it directed the Union of India, State Governments and Union Territories to file compliance reports within 8 weeks.
Case Title: Pramod R S And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1511 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a husband seeking to quash the complaint registered by his wife under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, after he sent her a legal notice seeking amicable settlement for dissolution of marriage.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “There cannot be a declaration of law as is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the divorce notice is sent by the husband, the complaint registered by the wife thereafter loses its significance. If this contention is accepted, it would have a chilling effect on all the complaints. Therefore, this submission is noted only to be rejected, as it is fundamentally flawed.”
Hereditary Archakship Conferred Only On Paternal Line Of Succession: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M S Ravi Dixit And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: W.P.No.54745/2016 C/W W.P.No.48392/2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
The Karnataka High Court has held that in order to claim hereditary archakship, the line of succession should be on the paternal side and not on the maternal side.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda dismissed a petition filed by one M S Ravi Dixit and his brother M.S.Venkatesh Dixit, who sought to be appointed as Archaks, of Sri Mahabaleshwaraswamy Temple at K.R.Puram, Bangalore East Taluk.
Karnataka High Court Quashes 8 Yrs Old FIR Against Former CM Yeddyurappa In Land Denotification Case
Case Title: B S Yeddyurappa And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1354 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered in the year 2015, against former Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa, on the basis of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for alleged illegal denotification of land and allotment of sites by the Bangalore Development Authority.
The court was informed that a coordinate bench of the high court had in 2015 considered the very allegations and had held that CAG report cannot be used as a foundation to build up a criminal case and cannot be made a part of investigation.
Case Title: Dr. Chandrashekar T B And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8789 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition moved by a Gynaecologist to quash a case registered against him under Section 21 of the POCSO Act for failure to report the incident of sexual assault on a minor.
Section 19 of POCSO Act mandates every person who has knowledge that sexual assault on a minor has been committed, to report it to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police. Failure to do so is punishable under Section 21 with six months imprisonment.
Case Title: Pavankumar A N & ANR And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3765 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 3764 OF 2023, 3770 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
The Karnataka High Court last month granted bail to alleged cow vigilantes Puneeth Kumar alias Puneet Kerehalli and four others, accused of causing the death of one Idris Pasha on April 1.
In the order made available yesterday, a single judge bench of Justice MG Uma took note of the discrepancy in lodging of FIRs.
The petitioners had lodged a FIR against Idris Pasha, Syed Zaheer and others for illegal transportation of cattle. On the same day, Zaheer is said to have lodged FIR no. 53 against petitioners at 5.30 pm. Court noted that another informant lodged FIR against petitioners at 4 pm alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 324, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, but the FIR was numbered 54.
Case Title: Dr M David And Department of High Education & others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.100234 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single bench order which cancelled the appointment of one Dr M. David to the post of Associate Professor, Zoology Department in the Karnataka University on the ground that he cannot claim caste status since he belongs from Andhra Pradesh.
The order was set aside by division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Umesh M Adiga citing lack of of locus standi of the original petitioner, who was declared ineligible in the selection process. Significantly, the contentions regarding caste certificate have not been addressed by the Court.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Case No: WPHC 30/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed the Police to contact the employer of a woman who failed to handover custody of her minor child to her husband despite a judicial order, and ask the employer to hold back her pay.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said the benefits payable to her be held till custody of the daughter is handed over. The bench was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the father. He was aggrieved by non-execution of Family Court order passed in March last year allowing his petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and directing the mother to hand over their 7-yrs old girl child to him.
Case Title: Abdul Rehman And The Deputy Commissioner & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 202519 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, to institute a mechanism for capturing the progress of applications which are filed under Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act for conversion.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Kalaburagi said it has come across several matters where the applications which had been filed for conversion have not been acted upon by the concerned authority resulting in unnecessary litigation.
Case Title: PG Setty Construction Technology Pvt Ltd And The Managing Director, Karnataka State Police Housing And Infrastructure Development Corporation & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 753 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a private contractor seeking refund of bank guarantee encashed by the Karnataka State Police Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation for carrying out "shoddy construction" of police quarters.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna remarked, “The construction if it is of such poor quality, it is high time that such contractor should be penalised; penalised I mean, in a manner known to law, in terms of the contract. That is what was exactly done by the Corporation. The act of penalising the petitioner for such shoddy construction is done by encashing the Bank guarantee. No fault can be found with the act of the Corporation in encashing the Bank guarantee.”
Case Title: M/s. GE T & D India Ltd. Versus State Of Karnataka
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 20035 Of 2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the recovery from the banker and directed the department to reconsider the application under the Karasamadhana Scheme.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav has observed that in the event that the application is rejected, it is needless to state that the petitioner cannot be placed in a position worse off, and the petitioner is entitled to the restoration of his appeal, which would be a logical course of action.
Case Title: Imran Ahmed And National Investigating Agency
Case No: CRL.A.NO.124/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
The Karnataka High Court has refused bail to an accused charged in the 2020 Bengaluru riots citing primacy of public safety and collective interest of the society over individual liberty as constitutionally guaranteed under the Constitution.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur also refuse to apply the 'bail is the rule and jail is an exception' dicta of the Supreme Court stating, "Firstly, such a dicta has to remain miles away when the class of offences which the accused is ascribed of, arise under a special statute of great significance, like the one at hands; secondly, the Parliament in its accumulated wisdom has enacted the clauses in the 1967 (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, that severely restrict the claim for grant of bail. Thirdly the statute also enacts a ‘negative burden’ clause, which places the onus on the shoulders of accused, much in variance with the normal rule i.e., the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.”
Case Title: Byluru Thippaiah And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100170 OF 2020 C/W CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE NO. 100002 OF 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
The Karnataka High Court has confirmed the death sentence handed down to an accused by the trial court for murdering his wife, sister-in-law and three children below the age of 10 years, suspecting the fidelity of his wife.
A division bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice G Basavaraja said the case qualifies the test of rarest of rare cases requiring the award of the death penalty. “The atrocity of the crime resulting in five deaths including of 3 children below 10 years of age and the brutality with which the same has been committed, leaves us no option but to confirm the order of death sentence passed by the trial Court, which we do with a heavy heart,” it remarked.
Case Title: Vipul Prakash Patil And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104152 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
The Karnataka High Court has said that in order to proceed against a person with criminal action, the complainant or prosecuting agency must show prima facie material whereby some nexus could be established to the alleged crime with a person. If such material is not available, very registration of the case against such persons would definitely amount to abuse of process of law affecting the right of a citizen enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda sitting at Dharwad bench allowed the petition filed by one Vipul Prakash Patil and quashed the FIR registered under Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Deposits in Financial Establishment Act.
Election Campaign: Karnataka High Court Quashes 4 Yrs Old Case Against Congress MP DK Suresh
Case Title: D K Suresh And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10599 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered in the year 2019, under sections 171H of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 133 of the Representation of People Act, against Congress MP D.K. Suresh for allegedly campaigning in an open vehicle without obtaining due permission from the authorities.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Suresh and quashed the proceedings. The bench took into account the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that a coordinate bench of the court had quashed the proceedings against co-accused in the case
Case Title: A Vasudevachar & Others And The District Registrar & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.48476 OF 2013
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
The Karnataka High Court has held that when a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement filed by the proposed purchaser is dismissed, the District Registrar directing registration of sale agreement, ignoring the Civil court order, is contrary to law.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha set aside the order of District Registrar directing Sub-Registrar to register the document despite the civil court refusing relief of specific performance. “On perusal of the order of the Registrar would make it evident that the Registrar is sitting over the judgment of the Civil Court by going to an extent of enquiring into the dispute between the parties when the Civil Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract,” the bench observed.
Case Title: Mrs Divya Ganesh Nallur & ANR And NIL
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 24429 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
The Karnataka High Court has held that just because an estranged couple are residing under the same roof, a court cannot reject their plea seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, on this ground alone.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed a petition filed by a couple and set aside the order of the family court dated 15-10-2022 and remitted the matter back to the family court, requesting the judge to pass a judgment & decree in terms of the Compromise Petition and the report of the Mediator at the earliest.
Case Title: Allauddin & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 200126/2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed the proceedings initiated against four persons belonging to the management of Shaheen School in Bidar, where the students belonging to classes 4, 5 and 6 had staged a play on the CAA and NRC in the year 2020.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar sitting at Kalaburagi bench, allowed the petitions filed by Allauddin & others and quashed the prosecution initiated against them under sections 504, 505 (2), 124A, 153A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Case Title: M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9771 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against Samsung India under the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum found the complaint to be self-contradictory and said there is total misinterpretation of relevant provisions of the Act and Packaged Commodities Rules 2011. It said, “This Court is of the view that the complaint does not disclose any offence. The offences indicated in the complaint are applicable to retail packages and not to wholesale packages and therefore, on meticulous examination of the allegations made in the complaint, it is clearly evident that the complaint is tainted with malafides. The allegations made in the complaint are found to be totally frivolous and vexatious. Even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted in entirety, the same does not constitute any substantive offence and prima-facie the allegations are found to be frivolous.”
Case Title: D K SHIVAKUMAR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRL.P 5726/2022, CRL.P 3328/2023, CRL.P 3330/2023, CRL.P 3348/2023, CRL.P 3349/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed the case against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar and others registered under the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code, for carrying out a padyatra in January 2022, demanding implementation of Mekedatu project, when allegedly Covid-19 restrictions were in force.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the case saying, “Whoever would contravene Sub section 1 of Section 5 would be punished is what the statute mandates. In terms of the statute there is no notification was issued by the State government then barring such activities. The notification which the State relies upon is the one issued under the Disaster Management Act and not under the Epidemic Diseases Act. Therefore unless notification under Epidemic Diseases Act is issued barring such activities, taking recourse to the Disaster Management Act and bring it into Epidemic Diseases Act is unavailable.”
Case Title: Coffee Day Resorts (Msm) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 9594 Of 2023 (T-IT)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
The Karnataka High Court has held that a notice and assessment order passed in the name of a non-existing company is substantively illegal and is an order passed without jurisdiction.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, in which it was held that the assessment order framed in the name of a non-existing person was void ab initio.
Non-Consummation Of Marriage Not Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: ABC & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7067 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal complaint filed by a wife against her husband under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that he did not have physical relations after marriage on account of watching spiritual videos and thus it amounted to cruelty.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the husband and his parents and quashed the proceedings registered against them by the wife 28 days after marriage. It said,“Neither the complaint nor the summary charge sheet narrates any factum/incident that would become an ingredient of Section 498A of the IPC. The only allegation is that he is a follower of Brahmakumari, always was watching videos of one sister Shivani, a Brahmakumari; gets inspired by watching those videos, always told that love is never getting physical, it should be soul to soul. On this score, he never intended to have a physical relationship with his wife. This would undoubtedly amount to cruelty due to non-consummation of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and not cruelty as is defined under Section 498A of the IPC.
Case Title: Mali Rizwan And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9709 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that consideration of objective material and subjective satisfaction of the competent authority is necessary before passing an order of externment.
A single judge bench of Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda partly allowed the petition filed by one Mali Rizwan and quashed the order of Sub-divisional Magistrate, externing him from the limits of Kundapura to Sagara Sub-Division for 3 months. It said, “The objective material relied on is only the police report for subjective satisfaction. Non-compliance of Section 56 of the K.P. Act (Karnataka Police Act) is imminent. The impugned order lacks subjective satisfaction and test of reasonableness.”
Case Title: Gururaj Havanur And The Management of Syndicate Bank & ANR
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 109981 OF 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the dismissal order passed by the Management of Syndicate Bank against a former Manager accused of misconduct. A single judge bench Justice S Vishwajith Shetty sitting at Dharwad said, “While considering the question of proportionality of sentence imposed on a delinquent, the Court should also take into consideration the nature of duty performed by him and other relevant circumstances which go into the decision making process...If the delinquent was holding a responsible post and if he has breached the trust and acted with dishonesty he is required to be dealt with iron hands. If honesty and integrity are in built requirements for the post held by him, no lenient view can be taken against him.”
Case Title: Sindhu Boregowda And Yashwanth Bhaskar B P
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.24827 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by Family Court allowing application made by the wife to cross-examine her husband subject to a condition that she would bear his travel expense of Rs 1.65 lakhs, from the USA to Bangalore.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the petition filed by Sindhu Boregowda and said “Putting a condition of the kind would virtually amount to foreclosing petitioner’s right to cross examine/further cross-examine the respondent that too in a serious matter in which her marriage is at stake. Courts of justice cannot stipulate a condition to a party which he or she will not be in a position to comply with.”
Case Title: Vijesh Pillai And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case N0: WRIT PETITION No.11186 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines for Judicial Magistrates to be followed strictly while issuing orders granting permission to the police to investigate non-cognizable cases on requisition made to it either by the police or the complainant.
The court has issued a warning to the Magistrate courts that any deviation from what is directed will be construed that the Magistrates are contributing to the huge pendency of cases by their callous action of passing inappropriate orders and would be viewed seriously.
Case Title: The City Municipal Council And Akbar Patel
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 87922 OF 2012
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 94(1-A)(i) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, an Educational Institution is exempted from payment of property taxes and the institute is not required to obtain an exemption certificate, every year. It said the exemption applies to all the buildings which are used for the purpose of running educational institutions and/or incidental activity.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Kalaburagi bench dismissed the petition filed by erstwhile City Municipal Council, Bijapur, challenging an order of the appellate court which held that the respondent who is an educational institution is exempted from payment of property taxes.
Case Title: Ramesh Naik. L v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 18915/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday permitted the petitioner Advocate Ramesh Naik L to withdraw the public interest litigation filed by him seeking measures to minimise the weight of school bags carried by students of primary education.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal said “The party in person submits that as the petition was filed in a little hurry the necessary information could not be collected and as such seeks prayer to withdrawal the petition with a liberty to file a fresh PIL with all requisite necessary information. Allowed to withdraw, with liberty as prayed for.
Case Title: Prajith R And XXX & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.544 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 232
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the FIR lodged against a man by a married woman, complaining that she was cheated by the man as he failed to keep his promise of marriage to her.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the man's quashing plea and said, “Cheating is alleged on the ground that the petitioner has breached the promise of marriage. The complainant admits that she is already married and has a child from the wedlock. If she is already married, there can be no question of cheating on the breach of promise of marriage. Therefore, the said offence also cannot be laid against the petitioner.”
Case Title: V V Singara Velu & ANR And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3095 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the prosecution initiated against a couple under section 306 IPC, alleged to have abetted the suicide of their nephew by threatening him over a property dispute.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held, “Proximate to the death must be a dynamic act, be it direct or indirect. It should be proximate to the occurrence of death and it should be instigation of the kind that it drives a person to commit suicide.”
Case Title: Lingasugur Taluk Halumata Abhivrudhi Samiti ( R ) & Others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 201552 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a society and its governing body members registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, challenging an order of the Registrar directing enquiry under Section 25 of the Act, on the complaint made by a third party alleging violations regarding the proper running of the society.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Kalaburagi dismissed the petition filed by Lingasugur Taluk Halumata Abhivrudhi Samiti (R) and its members who had challenged the notices issued by the Enquiry officer to them.
Case Title: Subramani And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2097 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
The Karnataka High Court has held that the trial court has the power to find an accused guilty for the lesser offence even though the charges were framed for major offences. But when the charges are framed for lesser offence, the Court cannot convict and sentence for the major offence punishable with imprisonment more than the offence which were charged, without altering the charges as per Section 216 of CrPC.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan set aside the conviction handed down by the trial court under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, to accused Subramani.
Case Title: B S Kumar Swamy Versus State Of Karnataka
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2130 Of 2022 (T-Res)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
The Karnataka High Court has issued directions determining the tax difference calculation for pre-GST works contracts.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav observed that the "tax difference" should be calculated on balance works executed or to be executed after July 1, 2017, separately. The petitioners sought the declaration that the provisions of the GST Act are inapplicable in respect of works contracts where provisions of service are made prior to 01.07.2017.
Case Title: K P Pushpesh & Others And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 879 OF 2016 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2118 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
The Karnataka High Court has acquitted three youths convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for charges of murder, holding that there were material contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses to the incident and the prosecution failed to corroborate their evidence with any other material.
A division bench of Justice K Somashekhar and Justice Rajesh Rai K acquitted KR Pushpesh, PV Vinaya and KR Radish who were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for life, for murdering one Nousheer. The bench said, “The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that, if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused persons and the other to their innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused persons should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice should be prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is not less than the conviction of an innocent.”
Case Title: Pramod Mutalik And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200528 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 238
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated in the year 2017, under Section 153A and Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code, against the Founder President of Sri. Ram Sene, Pramod Mutalik for allegedly making provocative statements while addressing a public gathering.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar sitting at Kalaburagi quashed the proceedings stating, “Section 196 of Cr.P.C. specifies that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 153-A of IPC and Section 295-A of IPC, except the previous sanction of the State Government. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance for the aforesaid offences without there being previous sanction by the State Government. Hence, in the absence of previous sanction, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the above said offences, is one without authority of law.”
Case Title: Parameshwarappa And The State
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2012
Citation; 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 239
The Karnataka High Court recently modified the conviction handed down to an accused for attempt to murder charge and convicted him for a lesser charge of grievous hurt under Section 325, for squeezing the testicles of the complainant during a fight.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan partly allowed the appeal filed by convict Parmeshwarappa who was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. It sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for three years under Section 325 of the IPC.
Case Title: Mrs Gauramma & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4725 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 240
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the Principal and others officials of a school in Kodagu district, challenging the order of the Magistrate court rejecting the ‘B summary report’ filed by the police in relation to alleged abetment to suicide of a student.
The "mischievous" student was suspended for allegedly carrying alcohol to school. Upon his parent's request, he was allowed to appear for examinations online from his home. However, it is alleged that the student kept waiting for exam link but did not receive the same. After the exam and answer sheet collection time got over, he committed suicide, the complaint states.
Case Title: Aniruddh v RGUHS & connected matters
Case No: WP 7019/2023, c/w 9985 OF 2023 (EDN-RES), 7577/2023, 8381/2023, 8655/2023, 8837/2023, 9032/2023, 9433/2023, 9577/2023, 9702/2023 & 9834/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 241
The Karnataka High Court has directed Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) to re-conduct practical/clinical exams in respect of over 70 students, for failing to conduct the practical exams as per regulations prescribed by the Medical Council of India.
A single judge bench of Sachin Shankar Magadum said it is a settled principle of law that MCI which is now known as NMC has prescribed a set of four examiners for theory and practicals. "It goes without saying that every examiner has to independently assess and assign marks which is lacking in the present batch of petitions. Therefore, it is unfortunate that respondent-University and examiners in gross violation of the findings recorded by co-ordinate Bench are again repeating the same mistakes,” it held.
Case Title: M R Seetharam And State By Anti Corruption Bureau & others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7524 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 242
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the proceedings initiated against former legislator and Educationist, MR Seetharam under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 of the IPC.
He is charged in connection with a disproportionate assets case involving TN Chikkarayappa, former Managing Director at the Cauvery Neeravari Nigam.
Seetharam, in the capacity of President of MS Ramaiah Education Society, had signed off Rs. 50 lakh interest free education loan in favour of Chikkarayappa's daughter. When the Lokayukta sought details of the transaction, it was informed that the Society had become defunct and therefore, no records could be traced. Following this the Lokayukta completed its investigation and filed a charge sheet against five persons, naming Seetharam as an accused.
Case Title: Jairam Ramesh & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 25123/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 243
The Karnataka High Court today refused to quash the FIR registered by music company MRT Music against Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi, Jairam Ramesh and Supriya Shrinate over the alleged copyright infringement by the use of song from the Kannada movie "KGF Chapter 2" in the promotional video for the "Bharat Jodo Yatra".
A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "Petitioner appeared to have tampered with source code, which would amount to infringement. Copyright of complainant is taken for granted and therefore prima facie all this requires investigation."
Case Title: X Corp v. UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WP 13710/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 244
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Twitter Inc, challenging the blocking orders issued to it by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY) under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit also imposed cost of Rs. 50 lakh on the microblogging platform, citing its conduct. It also refused Twitter's request to stay the operation of the order. "Your client (Twitter) was given notices and your client did not comply...Punishment for non-compliance is 7 years imprisonment and unlimited fine. That also did not deter your client. So you have not given any reason why you delayed compliance, more than a year of delay...then all of sudden you comply and approach the Court. You are not a farmer but a billon dollar company," the Bench said while pronouncing the verdict.
Sales-Tax Exemption Certificate Has Overriding Effect Over VAT Notification: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: State of Karnataka Versus Aishwarya Fort
Case No.: S.T.R.P. NO. 45 Of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 245
The Karnataka High Court has held that the sales tax exemption certificate is valid for 7 years and could not have been rescinded before the period of eligibility expired as it is a sovereign assurance.
The bench of Justices P.S. Dinesh Kumar and C.M. Poonacha has observed that the State Government discontinued sales tax-based incentives. However, the incentives already offered and committed were saved. By issuing a subsequent Notification under the Karnataka Sales Act, 1957 (KST Act), it was clarified that the incentives offered earlier would remain unaffected.
Case Title: Kailash S Raj & others And State of Karnataka
Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3371 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.3314 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 246
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by owners and two employees of the Karnataka Aromas Company for quashing the FIR filed by Lokayukta police on allegations of offering to pay bribe to Prashanth, son of former Legislator Madal Virupakshappa, in relation to an alleged tender scam.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “It is high time the menace of corruption is plugged and nipped in the bud by making the bribe giver susceptible for such prosecution, like the bribe taker.”
Karnataka High Court Allows Tax Exemption On Voluntary Donation Received By Educational Institution
Case Title: Pr Commissioner Of Income-1 Tax (Exemptions) Versus M/S Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust
Case No.: Income Tax Appeal No. 554 Of 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 247
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a tax exemption on voluntary donations received by educational institutions.
The bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda has observed that the educational institution is carrying out education that is charitable within the meaning of Section 2(15), it has applied or accumulated sums as required by Section 11(1)(a), the explanation thereto, and Section 11(2), it is duly registered under Section 12A, and it has not violated Section 13. There is no private gain, and all the funds are plowed back only into education. Thus, accumulations and applications are as per the provisions of Section 11. Therefore, exemption under sections 11 and 12 has to be granted to the assessee.