Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 106 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156Nominal Index: ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 106Dr Lata Krishnaraddi Mankali AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 107Hemachandra M Kuppalli AND M/s R.B.Green Field & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 108The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & ANR AND K.N. Ningegowda & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 109ABC AND XYZ. 2024...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 106 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Nominal Index:
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
Dr Lata Krishnaraddi Mankali AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
Hemachandra M Kuppalli AND M/s R.B.Green Field & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & ANR AND K.N. Ningegowda & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
Arunkumar R & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
Umashankara C & Others AND Registrar General & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
XXX AND The Registrar General & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association & Another AND State of Karnataka & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
Dhanayya & Others AND Chandrashekhar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
Jayapal K M AND The Management of Shakti Precision Components (India) Limited. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
C Girish Naik & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
Razorpay Software Private Limited AND Union of India. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
Sunl G & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
D N Bhagya AND D A Mallikarjuna & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
Abdul Khader & ANR AND Tasleem Jamela Agadi & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
DR SHIVAMURTHY MURUGHA SHARANARU AND STATE BY KARNATAKA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
G Hemanth Chandra AND M/s Infrathon Projects Pvt Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
A.H.Makandar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
Mohammed Farughuddin AND Ramchandra Balu Shinde & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd Suvarna News 24/7 & Others AND Divya Spandana @ Ramya. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
State Of Karnataka & Others AND National Commission For Schedule Caste. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
Mahesh AND Ishwar & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 129
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 130
M/S MARGADARSI CHITS (K) PVT. LTD AND H SRINIVAS REDDY & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
Bhuvaneshwari AND Prashanth Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 132.
Alfa S AND The Chief Secretary & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
Nawaz Pasha & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
Mohammed Jabir AND National Investigation Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
Dr Madhukar G Angur AND Directorate of Enforcement. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
Sudha Katwa AND The Registrar General & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
Abdul Basheer & Others AND Inspector General of Police (Prisons) & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
State of Karnataka & Others And REGISTERED UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION KARNATAKA & others.2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
Jayashree AND Mahaningappa & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
N M Suresh AND Sudeep S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
Amith M Jain AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
Althaf Ahamed AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
THIMMAPPA AND THE STATE BY HOLALKERE POLICE. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
Veeranna G Tigadi AND High Court of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
Dr. Sridhara S AND The Director Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
Thimmappa & Others AND Bharathi. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
Ravi Kumar & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Authority & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
Ramanjaneyulu & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
Dr Yogananda A AND The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
Pooja AND Siddanna & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
Yathish M G AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
M/S. Mvr Constructions Vs M/S. V.M.R Constructions And Others.2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
M/s Bellary Nirmithi Kendra v. M/s Capital Metal Industries, Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
M/S Durga Projects Inc Vs Sri. B.G. Babu Reddy. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: Writ Petition No 14094 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
The Karnataka High Court has observed that taking care of the children, for a mother, is a whole time job and the husband cannot deny maintenance amount on the ground that she being qualified is not willing to work and earn money and wants to live on the maintenance that the husband pays.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a woman questioning the order of the trial court granting a monthly maintenance amount under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the tune of Rs 18,000 instead of Rs 36,000 sought by her.
Case Title: Dr Lata Krishnaraddi Mankali AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100169 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
The Karnataka High Court has held that Sections 19 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act puts an obligation on a doctor to inform the relevant authorities when she/he has knowledge of an offence under the Act. There is no obligation on this person to investigate and gather knowledge about the offence.
A single judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D Huddar said “The expression used is "knowledge" which means that some information received by such a person gives him/her knowledge about the commission of the crime. There is no obligation on this person to investigate and gather knowledge.”
Case Title: Hemachandra M Kuppalli AND M/s R.B.Green Field & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.12169 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
The Karnataka High Court has directed that when a convict under the Negotiable Instruments Act offers himself for settlement of the dispute in appeal on the basis of which conviction is set aside, Courts shall mandatorily observe that deviation from the terms of compromise will automatically result in restoration of conviction order.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “Failing which, the accused who get away with conviction on compromise like in the case at hand, take advantage of the laborious rigmarole of procedure of getting the compromise decree executed.”
Case Title: The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & ANR AND K.N. Ningegowda & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 75671 OF 2013
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) questioning the order of the Industrial Tribunal directing the regularisation of 13 workmen.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde confirmed the order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the Tribunal and directed that since the demand for regularisation was pending for close to 20 years, the petitioner Corporation shall take steps to regularise the workmen in terms of the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal.
It said: The claim is not dependent on appointment orders but is based on the actual work done for the Corporation. If the appointment orders are not issued and in the grab of contract labourers (which claim is not established for the reasons recorded supra), and the respondents are made to work since 1991-93 till 2007 and beyond, then the fault lies with the petitioner Corporation in not issuing the appointment orders.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: REV. PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.233 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
The Karnataka High Court has held that extra deductions from the salary of husband like provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, etc., cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount to be granted to the estranged wife.
A single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar dismissed the petition filed by a husband questioning the order of the family court granting maintenance of Rs.15,000 to his wife and Rs.10,000 to his daughter under section 125 CrPC. It said, “What are the compulsorily amounts to be deducted are income tax and professional tax...Considering deductions from the salary of petitioner/husband, those are provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, towards loan obtained by the petitioner/husband, LIC premium and festival advance, these are all deductions accruing to the benefit of petitioner only. These amounts cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount.”
Case Title: Arunkumar R & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 25528 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
The Karnataka High Court has held that to manage and maintain an apartment complex consisting of only residential flats, the association of owners has to be registered under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, and not under the provision of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said “Admittedly, the project referred to above is a residential housing project. There is no commercial unit in the said project. The sale deeds executed in favour of the purchasers of the flats would also indicate that the purchasers have undertaken to subject them to the provisions of the Act of 1972. There is no difficulty in holding that petitioners and members of the proposed respondent No.4 Society are entitled to have registration of an association under the Act of 1972, and there cannot be any association registered under the Act of 1959 to form a society to manage and maintain the Property comprising only residential flats.”
Case Title: Umashankara C & Others AND Registrar General & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 2851 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Registrar General of the Court to reconsider the representation made by 12 Court officers, seeking to cure anomaly in their pay scale with regards to Section 6(b) of the High Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised Pay Rules, 2018.
A single judge bench of Chief Justice P S Dinesh Kumar (now retired) allowed in part the petition filed by Umashankara C and other and said, “The issue requires to be reconsidered by the 1st respondent, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court, which clearly depicts that the junior should not be permitted to draw a higher pay scale to that of the seniors in a solitary cadre.”
Case Title: XXX AND The Registrar General & Others
Case N0: Writ Petition No 25557 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
The Karnataka High Court while directing the registry to mask the name of an accused in the cause title of the case found in the records of the court has observed that “even an accused who has been discharged or acquitted honourably by a competent Court of law has a right to live with dignity.”
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said that Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with law.
Case Title: Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association & Another AND State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: WP 26489/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the notifications issued by the State Government appointing the KSEAB (Karnataka School Examination & Assessment Board) as the competent authority to conduct the Summative Assessment-2 exams for students of classes 5th, 8th, and 9th and the annual examination for class 11th, studying in government, aided and unaided schools and colleges, following the Karnataka State Board Syllabus.
The examination was to commence from March 9.
A single judge bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani said “When Government intends to bring changes to examination system affecting such large number of students, it would be desirable as well as mandatory to follow democratic procedure stipulated. And in case of failure, there need be no further justification to set such faulty measures at naught, regardless of merit policy and object behind such measures.”
Case Title: Dhanayya & Others AND Chandrashekhar
Case No: R.S.A 200252 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing it can only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits.
A single judge bench of Justice G Basavaraja allowed the appeal filed by Dhanayya (since deceased) and his legal heirs questioning the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Afzalpur, by which it dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2014 passed by the trial court.
Case Title: Jayapal K M AND The Management of Shakti Precision Components (India) Limited
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.149 OF 2022 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.52533 OF 2019
Citation No; 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
The Karnataka High Court has held that the act of a workman using abusive language not once, but on several occasions cannot be treated lightly and the imposition of punishment by way of dismissal in such a case cannot be held to be disproportionate.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha made the observation while allowing the petition filed by the Management of Shakti Precision Components (India) Limited. It set aside the order passed by Labour court directing the company to reinstate the workman Jaypal KM.
Case Title: C Girish Naik & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 7893 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the State Human Rights Commission can only recommend and not pass directions to the Government to act against policemen.
A Division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice CM Poonacha partly allowed the petition filed by C Girish Naik who works as Inspector of Police and said “The report dated 12.3.2020 issued by the fourth respondent [Karnataka State Human Rights Commission] shall not be treated as a direction but as a recommendation.”
Case Title: Razorpay Software Private Limited AND Union of India
Case No: Writ Petition No 10329 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the offences of Money laundering initiated against payment gateway company Razorpay, accused of being negligent in setting up the merchant IDs in the name of a co-accused who was involved in illegal money lending business.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by the company and quashed the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate under Sections 3, 70 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the summons issued against it by the Special court.
Case Title: Sunl G & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 16408 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 each on 35 petitioners (collectively Rs 8.75 lakh) for stalling the recruitment process initiated for the post of Veterinary Officer.
A division bench of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K while dismissing the petitions filed by Sunil G and others said “In our considered opinion, we are not able to appreciate the conduct of these petitioners in stalling the recruitment process which was called for as a matter of an emergency situation. Hence, we impose the cost of Rs.25,000 per petitioner which shall be payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.”
Clear Right To Sue Is To Be Made Out In A Suit For Declaration Of Title: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: D N Bhagya AND D A Mallikarjuna & Others
Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.60 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title fails to disclose a clear right to sue, the suit deserves to be rejected.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar made the observation while allowing the petition filed by D N Bhagya challenging the order of the trial court rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking rejection of the suit for declaration of title filed by the respondents who are legal heirs of Appajappa.
S.125 CrPC | Daughter-In-Law Cannot Seek Maintenance From Parents-In-Law: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Abdul Khader & ANR AND Tasleem Jamela Agadi & Others
Case No: REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100026 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a daughter-in-law cannot lay a claim for maintenance against her parents-in-law.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by an elderly couple and set aside the order of the trial court dated 30.11.2021, directing them to pay Rs 20,000 to the wife of their deceased son and Rs 5,000 to his children.
Case Title: DR SHIVAMURTHY MURUGHA SHARANARU AND STATE BY KARNATAKA & ANR
Case NO: CRL.P 4391/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to quash rape charges against the pontiff of Murugha Mutt of Chitradurga, Dr Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru, who is accused of sexually abusing two minor girls staying in the hostels run by the Mutt.
However, the court quashed the order of the trial court framing charges against the accused and directed it to redraw the charges after quashing certain offences levelled against the accused.
Case Title: G Hemanth Chandra AND M/s Infrathon Projects Pvt Ltd
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.247/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
The Karnataka High Court has held that a revision petition against an order passed under Section 148 (3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for the release of interim compensation, is not maintainable before the High Court.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh held “Here is a case of releasing of the amount, which is in deposit under Section 148(3) and the same does not amount to intermediate order and it is only an interlocutory order and hence, revision is not maintainable and the same can be challenged before the appropriate court by filing appropriate petition.”
Case Title: A.H.Makandar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 104356 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a former employee of Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (HESCOM) on whom the company imposed a huge recovery of Rs 86,52,163 and even 11 years after superannuation, denied him a pension and other terminal benefits.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by A.H.Makandar and quashed all the amount recovery initiated against him and directed the Company to settle and pay the pension and all the terminal benefits on his superannuation with effect from 31-05-2013 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date they became due, till the date of payment.
Case Title: Mohammed Farughuddin AND Ramchandra Balu Shinde & Others
Case No: Regular First Appeal No 100196 OF 2014
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
The Karnataka High Court has said that the principle that time is not the essence of the contract in a suit for specific performance of immovable property, cannot be applied as if it is a statute. The said principle must be applied by considering the facts and circumstances of each case, it said.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde while partly allowing an appeal filed by one Mohammed Farughuddin, challenging the trial court order rejecting the suit for specific performance, observed, ““In the last couple of decades, the value of the immovable properties is soaring high and that too in a short span of time. Indeed, such equitable consideration had strong justifications in good old times, where hardly there was any change in the property value for a considerable length of time. However, many things concerning real estate have changed beyond comprehension. Perhaps the general principle that the time is not an essence of the contract when it comes to immovable property, certainly calls for a relook in the present-day context.”
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.151/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Registrar General to file a complaint with the Vidhana Soudha police station against a police constable for allegedly playing fraud on the court as well as on the Trial Court, in obtaining bail order in a case of rape registered against him.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh allowed the petition filed by the victim in the case and cancelled the bail granted to the accused Fakirappa Hatti who had allegedly subjected the complainant to sexual acts from 2019 till February 2022 on the promise of marriage.
Case Title: Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd Suvarna News 24/7 & Others AND Divya Spandana @ Ramya
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13558 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the defamation proceedings against Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd, Suvarna News 24/7 and two others which came to be initiated based on the complaint filed by Divya Spandana.
Spandana had filed a private complaint against the petitioners and others with a prayer to punish the accused for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, issued summons to the accused by order dated 13.06.2016.
Case Title: State Of Karnataka & Others AND National Commission For Schedule Caste
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.26690 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the National Commission for Schedule Caste does not have power to adjudicate upon or entertain complaints relating to service matters, specifically those pertaining to seniority and promotion.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “It is axiomatic that the ambit of the NCSC's jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating upon or entertaining complaints relating to service matters, specifically those pertaining to seniority and promotion. Such matters, by their very nature, fall within the realm of administrative law and are subject to adjudication by specialised adjudicatory bodies such as administrative tribunals with competence in service-related disputes.”
Case Title: Mahesh AND Ishwar & Others
Case No: C.R.P. No.100106 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 129
The Karnataka High Court has held that a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff is maintainable if he was not impleaded as party respondent in the earlier suit wherein a compromise was arrived and court passed a decree without allocating any share in the property to the plaintiff.
A single judge bench of Justice CM Poonacha made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Mahesh who had sought to question the order of the trial court rejecting his application made under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking to reject the plaint filed by Iswar and others as barred by law.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.26295 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 130
The Karnataka High Court has said that there should be strong prima facie evidence to consider an application filed by the husband who is seeking divorce, to refer the wife to a Board of Psychiatrists for medical examination on the ground of her being of unsound mind.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by a husband who questioned the order of the family court which kept in abeyance his application seeking to refer the wife to a Board of Psychiatrists at NIMHANS for medical examination. It also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner (husband) to be paid to the wife.
Case Title: M/S MARGADARSI CHITS (K) PVT. LTD AND H SRINIVAS REDDY & Others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 66982 OF 2011
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is only one statutory appeal against an order passed under Section 69 of the Chit Funds Act and an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 70 of the Act is final and no appeal lies against it before the High Court.
A single judge bench of Justice M.I. Arun dismissed the petition filed by M/s Margadarsi Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd which had challenged the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Chits.
Case Title: Bhuvaneshwari AND Prashanth Kumar
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18433 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 132.
The Karnataka High Court has held that a photostat copy of an unregistered agreement to sell cannot be admitted as secondary evidence in a trial under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only because the accused claims the signature on the document is his.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed a petition filed by one Bhuvaneshwari challenging an order of the trial court 29.12.2022, dismissing his plea to permit him to mark the said document.
Case Title: Alfa S AND The Chief Secretary & Others
Case No: R.S.A.NO. 359 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) C/W R.S.A.NO. 340 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
The Karnataka High Court has held that if the relief sought in the plaint is restricted to seeking a direction to rectify school records based on caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, the plaintiff's remedy is only under common law before the competent civil Court.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum while allowing an appeal filed by Ms Alfa S and others, challenging the order of the first appellate court, dismissed the suits seeking relief of mandatory injunction by way of direction to defendants to amend caste in the school records, on the ground that the reliefs were barred under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code.
Case Title: Nawaz Pasha & Others AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5913 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 552/2021, 1008/2021, 5799/2022, 5821/2022, 5832/2022 AND 5893/2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal prosecution initiated against 375 people alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly, armed with weapons in the Padarayanapura area on 19.4.2020 when there was a Covid-19 lockdown.
They allegedly stopped BBMP personnel from doing their official duty of securing 58 COVID-19-infected persons for being shifted to quarantine centres.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petitions filed by the accused and said “The Criminal proceedings against these petitioners in the above 5 cases are liable to be quashed without going to the veracity of the offence committed by the accused, whether one offence or different offences, in different place of occurrence. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed.”
Default Bail | Oral Request For Extension Of Custody Period Permissible: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Mohammed Jabir AND National Investigation Agency
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.7388 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an oral request by an investigating agency to extend the custody period is permissible, if the accused fails to seek default bail on expiry of statutory period.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil also said that the right to get default bail under Section 167 of Criminal Procedure Code is an indefeasible right which the court cannot deny if an accused is ready to furnish bail, but this right should be exercised before the investigating agency files charge sheet or seeks extension of time to complete the investigation.
Karnataka High Court Quashes PMLA Case Against Former Chancellor Of Alliance University
Case Title: Dr Madhukar G Angur AND Directorate of Enforcement.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13205 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate against Former Chancellor of Alliance University, Dr Madhukar G Angur initiated under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty quashed the case taking note of the Apex court judgment in the case of Pavana Dibbur vs The Directorate of Enforcement, CRL.P NO.13205 OF 2023.
Case Title: Sudha Katwa AND The Registrar General & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11387 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
The Karnataka High Court has removed HK Jagadish as incharge 'Director of Prosecution and Government Litigation', holding his appointment to be illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 25A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit said the provision prescribes specific qualifications and conditions for appointment to the august office and there is no dispute that Jagadish does not possess the same.
Case Title: Abdul Basheer & Others AND Inspector General of Police (Prisons) & Others
Case No: Writ Petition 7755 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to ensure that in all the prisons where the undertrial prisoners or convicts are housed, there shall be a robust video conferencing facility so that any inmate would be in a position to interact with the defence counsel or family members.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that privacy must be maintained when the accused is speaking to the defence counsel through video conferencing and directed the government to provide headphones to the accused and the persons on the other side in the conference.
Case Title: THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND UNION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 4273 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a circular issued by the Controller and Auditor General of India (CAG) by which it prohibited salary drawing and disbursing officers from deducting the amount due to the Accountant General's Office Employees Cooperative Bank Ltd (established by the employees of the Accountant General's Office), from the salary of the employee even if they had consented for such deduction.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said “The impugned clause conflicts with the binding provision of law. Thus, the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can certainly strike down the said clause even if it is the policy decision, as such decision seeks to override the provision of law and seeks to take away certain rights conferred under the Statute. The right conferred under the Statute can be taken away only in the manner known to law and not by any executive decision taken by any authority which has no authority to meddle with the statutory rights.”
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others And REGISTERED UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION KARNATAKA & others.
Case No: WA 379/2024 c/w WA 380/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single bench order which stopped the State government from conducting board exams for students of 5, 8 and 9 and 11 standard of the schools affiliated to the State Board.
A division bench of Justice K Somashekhar and Justice Rajesh Rai K thus allowed the State's appeal and directed the government to hold the remaining Assessment for classes 5,8,9 students. Board exams for Class 11 were already completed during the litigation. The Court has asked the State to resume the process for 11th standard also.
Case Title: Jayashree AND Mahaningappa & Others
Case No: MFA 202275 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
The Karnataka High Court has held that if income tax returns are available the same should be considered as best a piece of evidence and if variations are found in the income tax returns, considered for different assessment years, it would be appropriate to consider the average income of three assessment years to arrive at the annual stable income of the claimant seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
A division bench of H.T.Narendra Prasad and Justice K V Arvind made the observation while partly allowing the appeal filed by Jayashree questioning the order of the trial court and sought enhancement of compensation granted.
Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Kannada Actor Sudeep's Defamation Complaint Against NM Suresh
Case Title: N M Suresh AND Sudeep S
Case No: Writ Petition 3641 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a defamation complaint filed by Kannada Actor Sudeep S against N M Suresh who is the office bearer of the Kannada Film Producers Association and Secretary of the Film Chamber of Commerce for allegedly making false acquisitions against Sudeep.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition filed by Suresh seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the trial court under sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
Case Title: Amith M Jain AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6425 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal prosecution initiated against one Amith M Jain, Managing director of a company who was charged under sections 3 (1), 13 (2), 19 (b) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, read with Sections 3(2)(d) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajit Shetty said, “The material on record would go to show that the petitioner is only the Managing Director of the company and in view of the Government Order dated 14.02.2002, only persons who are responsible for production of quality control of the fertiliser products can be prosecuted.”
Case Title: Althaf Ahamed AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WA 713/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that contested property rights cannot be dealt with in writ jurisdiction. The writ court can at the best take notice of the property rights of the parties which are already established rights.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed an appeal filed by Althaf Ahamed, challenging an order of the single judge bench which refused to invalidate the gift deed executed in favour of his sisters by their mother.
Case Title: THIMMAPPA AND THE STATE BY HOLALKERE POLICE
Case No: CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE NO.6 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1301 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the death penalty imposed on an accused for murdering his mother by beheading her, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and S Rachaiah partly allowed the appeal filed by accused Thimmappa challenging the conviction and death sentence imposed on him by the trial court under section 302 of the India Penal Code.
The bench said “If we take an analysis of the entire situation, we find that this is not a rarest of rare case though it is a fact that the incident was cruel and brutal. Emotion should not become an influencing factor to impose a death penalty. Degree of criminality matters much while imposing the death penalty.”
Case Title: Veeranna G Tigadi AND High Court of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14053 OF 2015
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the owner of Express Publications (Mudhurai) Ltd, which publishes the New Indian Express newspaper for publishing a report indicating the findings of an inquiring Authority report conducted against a district judicial officer, even when the Administrative Committee, of the High Court had already resolved to not accept the Report of the inquiring Authority dated 30.05.2013.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda said: “I am therefore of the view that this would be an appropriate case to impose costs of Rs.10,00,000 on respondent No.13 (the owner of the Newspaper), payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Case Title: Dr. Sridhara S AND The Director Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.4050 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Medical Superintendent of an Autonomous Medical Institution cannot be given an additional charge of Head of Department.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Dr. Sridhara S and quashed the official memorandum issued by the Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences appointing Dr. T.D. Thimmappa as an in-charge HOD as illegal and quashed the same.
Case Title: Thimmappa & Others AND Bharathi
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7517 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that it is only the husband or wife who marries for the second time during the subsistence of an earlier marriage and the life time of the earlier spouse, who can be prosecuted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj added that the second spouse or their parents can't be prosecuted under the provision.
Case Title: Ravi Kumar & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Authority & Others
Case No: Writ Petition 17967 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to consider the representation of a couple who are Indian Citizens and have adopted a child in Uganda, a country which is not a signatory to the Hague Convention 1995 and seeking to legalise the adoption in India in terms of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Adoption Regulations of CARA, 2022.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and said, “The Union of India not to restrict its magnanimity to issuance of a support letter; it should stretch for issuance of an approval or a no objection under the Regulations, for the reason that, it is a signatory to the Hague Convention. Even though the adoption has not happened under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, and in a country which is not a signatory to Hague Convention, but adoption has happened, the rights of a child of Indian citizens, who have adopted, cannot be left marooned.”
Case Title: Ramanjaneyulu & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.390 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the trial court which rejected a petition for anticipatory bail filed by an accused charged under provisions of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the ground that cognizance had already been taken of the complaint.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the plea challenging the order of the trial court dated February 9, and granted them anticipatory bail on the execution of a Bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000 each, with two sureties.
Case Title: Dr Yogananda A AND The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 21705 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on an Assistant Professor, by the Executive Council of the Visvesvaraya Technological University.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Dr.Yogananda A and said, “The impugned penalty of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed. The respondent No.3-Disciplinary Authority is hereby directed to adhere to the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra and also take cognizance of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India and shall issue a fresh show cause notice.”
Case title: Pooja AND Siddanna & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.205205 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
The Karnataka High Court has held that an order passed by the Lok-Adalat accepting the compromise and directing the decree of the suit is not valid.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by one Pooja and quashed the compromise decree dated 27-10- 2007 passed by the Taluka Legal Authority, Sindagi (Lok Adalat).
Case Title: Yathish M G AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26117 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
The Karnataka High Court has held that the State Government possesses the power to entrust the handling of a disciplinary enquiry in respect of an employee of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board to the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rule.
Further, it held that the recommendation by the Lokayukta to the Government, while making a report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, that the enquiry be entrusted to it, cannot be sustained.
Case Title: M/S. Mvr Constructions Vs M/S. V.M.R Constructions And Others.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 4604 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice M G Uma held that the parties not signatories to the Joint Venture Agreement, stipulating the arbitration clause, cannot be forced to arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: M/s Bellary Nirmithi Kendra v. M/s Capital Metal Industries, Case No: CRP No. 100067 of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
The High Court of Karnataka has held that Section 47 of the CPC does not apply to proceedings for enforcement of arbitral award.
The bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha held that an arbitral award can only be challenged on the grounds mentioned under Section 34 of the Act and not otherwise. It held that the award is deemed to be a decree for the purpose of the enforcement, however, this deeming fiction is limited to its enforcement only.
The Court held that Section 47 of CPC, which provides for determination of question by the executing court in relation to the validity of the decree, does not apply to execution of arbitral awards.
Case Title: M/S Durga Projects Inc Vs Sri. B.G. Babu Reddy
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.434 Of 2014 (A) C/W Criminal Appeal No.433 Of 2014 (A)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice Anil B Katti held that simultaneous proceedings can be carried on under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bench further held that a party cannot be acquitted solely on the basis of presence of an arbitration agreement.