Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 375 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 418Nominal Index:Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 375ABC & State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 376K Y Nanjegowda & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 377High Court of Karnataka And Dr Ekta Singh. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 378Shivamma & Others AND Govind...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 375 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
Nominal Index:
Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 375
ABC & State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 376
K Y Nanjegowda & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 377
High Court of Karnataka And Dr Ekta Singh. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 378
Shivamma & Others AND Govind Malothu & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 379
Rajesh Totaganti And State of Karnataka & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 380
Megha J And Life Insurance Corporation of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 381
Severine Lobo And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 382
High Court of Karnataka v State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 383
ABC & XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 384.
M/s Chancery Pavilion And M/s Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd & Others.2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 385
Sharada Hanamanth Walagad & ANR AND NIL. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 386
Shreeroopa v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 387
Pramod Hanumanth Rao Muthalik & Anr v State of Karnataka & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 388
Vivek Hebbale And Sahitya Akademi & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 389
Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited And H B Siddarajaiah. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
Informant v State of Karnataka & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 391
Narendra Babu G.V & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 392
Somashekhar And State by Rural Police Station. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 393
M/s Divyajyothi Vidya Kendra And Karnataka Housing Board & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
Rajiv & Others And State Bank of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
Jayashree And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
Rajasingh Takur @ T Raja Singh & Others And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
Sudarshan Ramesh AND Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
T N Susheelamma & ANR AND Chirag Raghavendra & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
Sampanna Mutalik & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 400.
D K Shivakumar AND Central Bureau of Investigation. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
Aslam Pasha AND Chief Commissioner & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 402
Dr Nehal Bansal AND Central Bureau of Investigation. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 403
XYZ And ABC. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 404
Karnataka State Highways Improvement Project AND M/s. KMC - VDB (JV). 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
Umadevi M And Joint Commissioner (East) Zone & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 406
Tayamma @Thippamma & Others AND K Ramappa & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 407
Shivalingappa B. Kerakalamatti And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 408
Sushil Mantri & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
Narayan Jamadar AND Karnataka State Police Department. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 410
Future Gen. India Ins. Co. Ltd AND Zeenath Begum & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 411
Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital And Dr Sanjay Murgod. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 412
Dr Siddaiah S AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 413
Hanamantraya AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 414
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited AND S Kiran. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 415
Ditul Mehta & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 416
CHAMARAJPET NAGARIKAR OKKUTA ® AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
Ramesh B S And Navaneetha. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20404 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 375
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking the removal of the names and photographs of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar, and other concerned ministers from various advertisements and sanction orders related to government schemes called Gruhalakshmi and Gruha Jyothi Schemes.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit acknowledged that in a democratic republic like India, governments regularly communicate their policies and programs to the public, and such advertisements are a part of this process.
Case Title: ABC & State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: W.P.H.C NO.79 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 376
The Karnataka High Court has refused to accept an ex-parte order passed by a court in Germany, granting custody of a 9 year old child to his mother who resides there.
A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda dismissed a petition filed by a woman seeking custody of her child who is presently residing with his father.
The woman had argued that a German Court where she resides now has transferred the right to decide the place of residence and school in her favour. However, the court rejected this contention saying “It is an ex parte order passed by the German Court whilst the child was in India.”
Karnataka High Court Allows Probe Against MLA For Allegedly Granting Govt Land To Ineligible Persons
Case Title: K Y Nanjegowda & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 22072 of 2022.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 377
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Congress MLA K.Y.Nanjegowda and three others seeking to quash a criminal case registered against them alleging the grant of government land worth around Rs 150 crore to ineligible persons in his capacity as Chairman and Members of Malur taluk Land Grant Committee in 2019.
Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition and permitted further investigation against the petitioners noting that investigation should not be paused merely because one of the accused is an MLA.
Merely because one of the petitioners is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, it is no law that no investigation should be conducted. As it is trite that every one, whether individually or collectively, is and are under the supremacy of the law; whoever they may be, however high may be, they are under the law, how powerful they are hardly matters, in a nation governed by rule of law.
Case Title: High Court of Karnataka And Dr Ekta Singh
Case No: 08-09-2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 378
The Karnataka High Court recently dropped the contempt proceedings initiated against a doctor after she tendered her unconditional apology and offered to engage herself a day of every calendar month in Community Services for six months in any Government Hospital of Bengaluru City.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit accepted the statement made by the woman and said “We accept the unconditional apology tendered by the Respondent /Accused treating her assurance as an undertaking given to this Court. We further make it clear that as per the said assurance/undertaking, if the Respondent/Accused approaches any of the Government Hospitals, they will permit her to render community services one full day in a month, for a period of six months from today.”
Case Title: Shivamma & Others AND Govind Malothu & ANR
Case No: MISCL First Appeal No 200517 of 2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 379
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that though driving a vehicle without a licence is an offence but the same by itself, may not lead to a finding of contributory negligence against the driver when met with an accident not caused by him.
A division bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice Rajesh Rai K modified the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which tied 23% contributory negligence to deceased, saying he did not possess any driving licence and the vehicle (Motorcycle driven by deceased) was not having insurance coverage.
Case Title: Rajesh Totaganti And State of Karnataka & Anr
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100659 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 380
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that an attesting witness to a sale deed cannot be dragged into a case of cheating if there is no other allegation against him except that he is an attesting witness.
Justice M Nagaprasanna thus allowed the petition filed by one Rajesh Totaganti and quashed the proceedings initiated against him for offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
"While accused No.1 gets all the benefits, accused No. 2 and 3 have been in active support of acts of accused No.1. The benefit of the forgery is the sale deed. A perusal at the sale deed would indicate that the petitioner is an attesting witness to the sale deed. Except this allegation of the petitioner acting as an attesting witness and a friend of accused No.1, there is no other allegation against the petitioner that would touch upon any of the ingredients of the alleged offences."
No Compassionate Appointment To Married Daughter Residing With Husband: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Megha J And Life Insurance Corporation of India
Case No: Writ Appeal No 891 of 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 381
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the married daughter of a deceased LIC employee seeking compassionate appointment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit observed that the appellant was married long before her father's death and was in any case residing with her husband.
“Our scriptures injunct "bharta rakshati yavvane…" literally meaning that it is the duty of husband to provide maintenance to his dependent wife. That is how our legislations too are structured e.g., Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (applicable to all regardless of religions), Sections 24 & 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (applicable to Hindus, in a broad sense of the term), Section 37 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (applicable to Christians), Section 40 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (applicable to Parsis), Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (applicable to all persons regardless of religion and marital status), Sections 36 & 37 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (applicable to Muslims wives), etc., have been structured,” it observed.
Case Title: Severine Lobo And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 13696 OF 2022, C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 4870 OF 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 382
The Karnataka High Court has held that though the road margin on a State Highway vests with the Public Works Department, it cannot sanction or allot a road margin area to any private party for putting up construction of any nature, even if such construction is for public convenience, without approval from Municipal Authority.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by Severine Lobo, who challenged the order of PWD's Assistant Executive Engineer granting licence to one Saroja for putting a Nandani milk parlour on a State highway margin in front of his property at Mangalore.
Case Title: High Court of Karnataka v State of Karnataka & Others
Case NO: WP 51738/2017
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 383
The Karnataka government has informed the High Court that it has introduced a policy aimed at providing compensation to the next of kin or legal heirs of deceased prisoners who have met with unnatural deaths while in prison.
The submission was made in a suo motu plea initiated to ensure the implementation of directions issued by the Supreme Court on September 15, 2017, in Re Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons aimed at identifying cases of unnatural deaths in prisons and providing compensation to the next of kin of the deceased.
Case Title: ABC & XYZ
Case NO: Criminal Revision Petition No 56 of 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 384
The Karnataka High Court has held that a wife cannot claim maintenance from her husband under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, when she is in an adulterous relationship with another person.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar rejected the revision petition filed by the wife seeking to set aside the order of the Sessions court which in turn had set aside the order of maintenance granted in favour of the wife by the Magistrate court on her making an application.
The bench said, “The oral and documentary evidence produced clearly establishes that the petitioner is not honest towards her husband and she has got extramarital affairs with the neighbour and all along, she asserted that she used to stay with him. When the petitioner is staying in adultery, the question of she claiming maintenance does not arise at all.”
Case Title: M/s Chancery Pavilion And M/s Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd & Others.
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.145/2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 385
The Karnataka High Court has said that a suit filed under Section 60 of the Copyright is not maintainable if a suit seeking action is filed by the copyright holder for infringement against the alleged offender.
Justice V Srishananda clarified that the proviso to Section 60 of the Copyright Act was meant to prevent an alleged infringer from filing a suit when the owner of the copyright had previously filed a suit under Section 55. In this case, the order of events favoured the defendants, as they had filed their suit after the plaintiff had filed its suit.
Jamakhandi Residents Can Adopt Major Person, It's A Legally Recognized Custom: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Sharada Hanamanth Walagad & ANR AND NIL
Case No: W.P. NO. 104785 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 386
The Karnataka High Court has directed the trial court to reconsider the petition filed under Section 8 and 9 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, by a member of the Scheduled Caste community residing at Jamakhandi, seeking to adopt a 19 year old.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said adopting a major child was a legally recognised custom in Jamakhandi governed by the Bombay School of Hindu Law. “If petitioners are permanent residents of Jamakhandi, then I am of the view that since there is no dispute that Jamakhandi which was erstwhile princely State and part of Bombay province, the custom of adopting a major child is judicially recognized and therefore, I am of the view that the proof of the said custom is not necessary.”
Case Title: Shreeroopa v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20132 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 387
The Karnataka High Court has highlighted that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides a protective shield for public servants from investigations related to decisions made in their official capacity.
Justice N S Sanjay Gowda clarified that the approval process is designed to balance the interests of the State and its employees.
“The integrity of a public servant is required to be beyond suspicion as in the proverbial adage that “Caesar's wife must be above suspicion”. If there exists even a shadow of doubt on the integrity of a public servant, it will not only harm his reputation but would also tarnish the entire system of which he is a part. Thus, in such a situation, if the aspersions cast on the integrity of a public servant and an Investigating Officer under the Act harbours a view that an investigation is necessary, it would be in the interests of both the Government and the public servant that such a nagging suspicion is obliterated.”
Case Title: Pramod Hanumanth Rao Muthalik & Anr v State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: WP 22002/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 388
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation filed by the President of Sriram Sena, challenging the alleged poor quality of work being undertaken in constructing the Parshuram Theme Park in the Udupi district.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit found that there was a delay in filing the PIL and that it was riddled with assumptions. “The petition is filed at a very belated stage. Secondly, the petition is nothing but a bundle of assumptions and presumptions of the petitioners and his own impressions."
Case Title: Vivek Hebbale And Sahitya Akademi & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.202397 OF 2022
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 389
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the decision of the Sahitya Akademi to withdraw the job offer letter given to a minor aged about 15 years and 6 months at the time of his appointment.
Justice E S Indiresh ruled that such an age would violate the provisions of Rule 2B of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulations) Amendment Rules, 2017. “The prohibition under the provisions of Rule 2B of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulations) Amendment Rules, 2017 is applicable to the case on hand and accordingly, the respondents-academy rightly withdrawn the appointment.”
Case Title: Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited And H B Siddarajaiah
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.58780 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Industrial Tribunal cannot modify the minor penalty of reduction of basic pay to the minimum, imposed on a tipsy bus conductor found to be misbehaving with passengers.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani allowed the petition filed by Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMCT), set aside the order of the Tribunal and confirmed the order of penalty passed against H.B.Siddarajaiah, by the Corporation.
Case Title: Informant v State of Karnataka & Anr
Case No: CRL.P.No.3701/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 391
In a landmark ruling, the Karnataka High Court has issued a slew of directions to be followed by trial courts and the prosecution to ensure effective compliance with Section 439(1A) of CrPC which mandates victim participation while deciding bail application filed by the accused in sexual assault cases.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty added that the obligation to notify the informant or victim of the bail application was on the court and prosecution and a failure to comply with this requirement led to a violation of the petitioner's rights.
Case Title: Narendra Babu G.V & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.305 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 392
The Karnataka High Court has held that in matters related to the recruitment process, administrative tribunals are the courts of first instance, and High Courts have the role of judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Indian Constitution.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal added that the Administrative Tribunals Act has been promulgated for adjudication or trial of disputes and complaints regarding recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services by the Administrative Tribunals.
Case Title: Somashekhar And State by Rural Police Station.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 7421 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 393
The Karnataka High Court has held that where the offences punishable under the provisions of two special enactments viz, the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and POCSO Act are invoked, the POCSO Act, being a later enactment, should prevail over the Atrocities Act.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty clarified that a petition under Section 439 of the CrPC before the High Court was maintainable when both the Atrocities Act and the POCSO Act were invoked, rather than having to file an appeal as mandated by the Atrocities Act.
Case Title: M/s Divyajyothi Vidya Kendra And Karnataka Housing Board & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 873 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
The Karnataka High Court has observed that where public property is allotted for a specified purpose and if that purpose remains unaccomplished in the prescribed time, the retention of such allotment by the allottee, militates against public interest.
A Division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Divyajyothi Vidya Kendra challenging a single judge bench order which had dismissed its petition questioning the order of cancellation of the allotment of the subject land. Further it had directed the Karnataka Housing Board to pass orders determining the quantum of forfeiture and refund of remaining amount to the appellant within a period of four weeks.
Case Title: Rajiv & Others And State Bank of India
Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6481 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.7203 OF 2022.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
The Karnataka High Court has held in a cheque dishonour case that the legal obligation to repay the amount associated with the cheques is not altered by changes in officeholders, and the burden of proof rests with the company or its officers to rebut the presumption of liability.
Justice M Nagaprasanna added that the chairman of a company or other officers who sign cheques remain liable under Section 139 of the NI Act unless they can present evidence to prove that the cheques were not issued for payment of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
Case Title: Jayashree And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102595 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
The Karnataka High Court has held that promotion to a government employee cannot be denied on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him wherein the chargesheet is not filed, or in cases where Articles of Charge are not issued, on the date of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) Meeting.
A division bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar and Justice G Basavaraja allowed the petition filed by Jayashree and set aside the order dated 30th March 2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench, whereby the application filed by the petitioner questioning the denial of promotion by the authorities, was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Case Title: Rajasingh Takur @ T Raja Singh & Others And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2576 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
The Karnataka High Court has held that without the necessary sanction under Section 196 of the CrPC, the proceedings under Section 153A of the IPC could not continue, thereby clarifying that the absence of sanction was a fundamental defect in the prosecution.
Justice M Nagaprasanna thus quashed the proceedings initiated against Telangana legislator Raja Singh Thakur and other accused for offences punishable under Sections 153A r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 25(1AA) of the Indian Arms Act.
Case Title: Sudarshan Ramesh AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17027 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
The Karnataka High Court has held that summoning of a person repeatedly under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, without probable cause or reasonable ground and only on the ground of suspicion alone is not in accordance with the principles of due causes and fairness.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar said, “Section 50 is a crucial provision and states that a person, who is being summoned for investigation must be provided with a written notice specifying the nature and the reasons for it. While the said provision does not explicitly use the term " Probable cause", it emphasises the importance of providing valid reasons and grounds for summoning an individual. The purpose of this provision is to protect the right of the person being summoned and ensure that investigation is not arbitrary.”
Case Title: T N Susheelamma & ANR AND Chirag Raghavendra & Others
Case No: R.S.A. NO.1090/2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
The Karnataka High Court has held that a mother of a pre-deceased son becomes a Class-I heir in the son's share in the ancestral and joint family properties, even if her husband is alive and can claim a share in the property under the Hindu Succession Act.
Justice H P Sandesh allowed the appeal filed by TN Susheelamma who expired during the pendency of the proceedings and reversed the first appellate court order which held that the mother of the pre-deceased son—Santhosh, is not entitled to any share. “Once impleaded as party and she is also a Class-I heir of the deceased Santhosh, ought not to have answered the same as negative and she is also a necessary party to the said suit, since the deceased passed away leaving behind the mother, wife and son and they are the Class-I heirs of the deceased Hindu male member of the joint family and the original appellant herein is also entitled for a share in the property left by the deceased Santhosh as Class-I heir and the very approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous.”
Case Title: Sampanna Mutalik & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5952 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.5741 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION No.5788 OF 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 400.
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings pending under several provisions of the Wildlife (Protections) Act and the IPC against State's Horticulture minister S.S. Mallikarjun, his brother S S Ganesh and two others.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed their plea observing that there were glaring irregularities in the procedure adopted in the case. “Finding no procedure or the procedure completely topsyturvy in the cases at hand would mean that the entire proceedings need to be obliterated as glaring procedure aberrations noticed cannot be countenanced and further proceedings cannot be permitted to continue by a fiat of this Court as they are all incurable illegalities cutting at the root of the matter and become an abuse of the process of the law.”
Case Title: D K Shivakumar AND Central Bureau of Investigation
Case No: Writ Petition No 15251 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
The Karnataka High Court today dismissed Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar's plea to quash CBI's disproportionate assets case against him under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Single bench of Justice K Natarajan also vacated interim stay on CBI probe and ordered the central agency to complete its investigation and file the final report within 3 months.
The Income Tax department had carried out a raid in August 2017 at various premises of Shivakumar in New Delhi and other places and they collected Rs.8,59,69,100. It is alleged that Rs.41.00 lakhs was recovered from his premises.
Karnataka High Court Directs BBMP To Digitize Old Property Records
Case Title: Aslam Pasha AND Chief Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 21775 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 402
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Chief Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), to initiate digitization of all the old property records, so that the same is available electronically/digitally tagged.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj had directed the Chief Commissioner of BBMP to co-ordinate with the Principal Secretary, e-Governance Department to formulate a mechanism for making available the plan sanctions, katha certificates, tax paid receipts, Self-Assessment forms etc., as regards any particular property to all officers of the corporation who are authorized to take penal action under the Act, by granting them user credentials in terms of user name and password so that the same is not available to any third parties.
Case Title: Dr Nehal Bansal AND Central Bureau of Investigation
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5341 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 403
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated by the CBI against a doctor facing allegations of malpractice in the entrance test conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) for admission to a postgraduate medical course in 2006.
Justice M Nagaprasanna found that the petitioner's discharge was not warranted based on some witness statements and a trial was needed for the petitioner to challenge these statements.“With the statements of CWs-55, 56 and the documents it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for a discharge from the array of accused. Polygraph tests may be the foundation. But, the evidence is on the basis of documents and statements as well. Therefore, these statements will have to be put to test in a trial in which it is for the petitioner to come out clean.”
Case Title: XYZ And ABC
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104251 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 404
The Karnataka High Court has dissolved the marriage between a couple, as the wife did not join the company of the husband even after the trial court passed an order for restitution of conjugal on an application filed by the husband.
A division bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar and Justice G Basavaraja allowed the appeal filed by the husband and set aside the order of the trial court rejecting his petition seeking divorce on grounds of desertion.
Case Title: Karnataka State Highways Improvement Project AND M/s. KMC - VDB (JV)
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29440 OF 2019
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
The Karnataka High Court has held that an arbitral award which does not deal with either movable property or immovable property, but awards damages payable to the award holder, does not attract stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
Justice R Nataraj thus dismissed a petition challenging an order of the trial court rejecting its application seeking to impound the award of the arbitrator for non-payment of stamp duty by the respondent. "When the award of the arbitrator deals with a movable property or immovable property, by virtue of the charging clause contained in Article 11 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, such awards are bound to suffer stamp duty before it is brought for execution. In the case on hand, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the award does not deal with either movable property or immovable property, but it awarded liquidated damages payable to the respondent, arising out of a construction contract. Therefore, the award does not attract stamp duty."
Case Title: Umadevi M And Joint Commissioner (East) Zone & Others.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 406
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike (BBMP) to web host all cause lists, daily orders and judgments of proceedings before the quasi-judicial authorities of the corporation to ensure transparency and accessibility.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj also emphasized that when a matter is adjourned, the next date should be fixed or a notice should be issued to all parties about the next hearing date. “The Chief Commissioner, BBMP in association with the Principal Secretary E-Governance Department set up a system for webhosting all the cause lists and Orders passed in each of the matters on daily basis as done by this Court and the District Courts under E-Courts project and now done by the Revenue Department in respect of the Revenue Court Cases Management System, which is available at rccms.karnataka.gov.in. Detailed project report and implementation report to be placed before this Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the Order.”
Case Title: Tayamma @Thippamma & Others AND K Ramappa & Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 407
The Karnataka High Court has held that an application made before the executing court under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, can be dismissed in limine if the obstructor fails to satisfy the court his prima facie right to show resistance to the execution.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar found that the executing court was correct in dismissing the application because the applicants failed to prove that their father was not alive in 1998 when the sale deed was executed and that they were the legal heirs of Belagalappa.
Case Title: Shivalingappa B. Kerakalamatti And State of Karnataka & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 408
The Karnataka High Court recently while quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against a school headmaster under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by a school teacher, observed,
“Haystack of frivolous cases have mushroomed to a large extent that searching a genuine case in the haystack has become like searching for a needle in a haystack, as most the cases are in abuse and misuse of the process of law, like the kind in hand.”
Case Title: Sushil Mantri & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case for cheating registered by a home buyer against a Developer for delay in delivery of his flat. It added that ED proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act will also stand obliterated.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “Criminal law cannot be set into motion on the said delay in delivery of flats, as those facts arise out of agreements entered into between the parties, at best, it can be breach of agreement. If it is a breach of agreement, it cannot be cheating or criminal breach of trust.”
Case Title: Narayan Jamadar AND Karnataka State Police Department
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 410
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition filed by one Narayan Jamadar, whose application for a position in the police department was rejected as a criminal case was pending against him at the time of filing the application.
A Division bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justicr Rajesh Rai K said, “Even though the petitioner has been acquitted of the said offences, as on the date of filing of the application, the criminal case was pending against him and the same was not disclosed in the application, which was required to be stated. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.”
Case Title: Future Gen. India Ins. Co. Ltd AND Zeenath Begum & Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 411
The Karnataka High Court has said that no contributory negligence can be attributed to the deceased driver, who meets with an accident with a vehicle negligently parked on a National Highway.
The Insurance company Future Gen India INS Co Ltd, had approached the court challenging the order of the tribunal dated 12-11-2019, directing it to pay compensation of Rs 8,74,000 to the claimants of deceased Sadique Hussain.
Case Title: Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital And Dr Sanjay Murgod
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 412
The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act, which pertains to the Retrenchment of Employees, is applicable to unaided educational institutions run by the linguistic minority institution.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit added that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Dentists Act, 1948 are poles apart and could not be read into each other. "The provisions of 1948 Act in essence intend to regulate the standard of professional education whereas, the provisions of Sections 97 & 98 of the 1983 Act in substance intend to secure the service conditions of employees of Educational Institutions. Thus, they are poles apart. By no stretch of imagination, one can be read into the other."
Case Title: Dr Siddaiah S AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7580 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 413
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the former secretary of Taralabalu Kendra, for possessing a pistol furnishing the address of the Kendra and keeping the pistol in the premises of the Kendra, which is a religious institution.
Justice K Natarajan pointed out that the petitioner's ignorance of the law was not a valid excuse, and the possession of a pistol was indeed prohibited under the Act. "If at all the petitioner claims he is ignorance of Section 3 and 4 of the said Act, that he has obtained the license from the police and used it, but 'the ignorance of law is not an excuse' to the petitioner and the petitioner already committed the offence under Section 3 (c), 4 of which is punishable under Section 7 of the Act."
Case Title: Hanamantraya AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200255 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 414
The Karnataka High Court has said that merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note, one cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that he is an offender under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, the contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances have to be examined in a full fledged investigation.
A single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik K, sitting at Kalaburagi bench dismissed the petition filed by Hanamantraya, who named in the suicide note of deceased Basavaraj who committed suicide by hanging.
The bench said, “Generally, the person who commit suicide used to/liked to leave a suicide note naming certain persons as responsible for his committing suicide. Merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note, one cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that, he is an offender under Section 306 of IPC. The contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances have to be examined to find out whether it is abetment within the meaning of Section 306 of IPC read with Section 107 of IPC. But, in order to ascertain this factual aspect, a full fledged investigation is required as well as a trial to be held.”
Case Title: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited AND S Kiran.
Case NO: WA 217/2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 415
The Karnataka High Court upheld an order of a Single Judge which directed the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) to reinstate an employee who was dismissed from service as he remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period on account of his suffering from mental depression.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit orally remarked, “Nobody will go away from the job these days. You are a state entity and you have to be very fair. The single judge bench order is by giving proper reasoning."
Case Title: Ditul Mehta & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2450 OF 2022 CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11718 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 416
The Karnataka High Court has held that the City Crime Branch can investigate a case registered with the city police station and filing of charge sheet on completion of investigation by the CCB police amounts to a final report under Section 173(2) of CrPC.
Justice K Natarajan thus upheld a government notification dated 25-02-2021, appointing CCB police officers and conferring on them power to exercise power of a Station House Officer of all police stations in Bangalore City.
High Court Permits Karnataka Rajyotsava Function To Be Held At Idgah Maidan
Case Title: CHAMARAJPET NAGARIKAR OKKUTA ® AND State of Karnataka
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
The Karnataka High Court has granted permission to Chamarajpet Nagarikar Okkuta to hold the Karnataka Rajyotsava function from November 1 to November 3 at Chamarajpet playground (Idgah Maidan ground).
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit disposed of the petition filed by the organisation observing; "The petitioner organisation must take care by issuing necessary instructions to its members not to indulge in any act whereby the communal harmony or law and order in the city is put to stake.”
Case Title: Ramesh B S And Navaneetha
Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No.1326 of 2015.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
The Karnataka High Court has held that compensation under section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be awarded only when Domestic Violence is established.
It set aside the order of Sessions Court partly allowing the appeal filed by the wife by awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.4,00,000 to her on ground that she is unable to maintain herself.
The bench said, “Under Section 22 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, compensation can be awarded only if Domestic Violence is proved and in fact, in the instant case, after getting converted into Christianity the revision petitioner/wife has lost all the rights vested in her. Under these circumstances, the Appellate Court has committed an error in awarding compensation and the compensation awarded that tune of Rs.4,00,000/- which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.”