Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 337 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 374Project Vruksha Foundation V State Board For Wildlife (SBWL). 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 337Dr Kallappa Mahadevappa Hosmani AND The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukt. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 338A MANJU And PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL R. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 339Abdul Rehman And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw...
Project Vruksha Foundation V State Board For Wildlife (SBWL). 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
Dr Kallappa Mahadevappa Hosmani AND The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukt. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
A MANJU And PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL R. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 339
Abdul Rehman And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
Shrenika And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (kar) 341
XYZ And ABC. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
Usmanshah And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY AND MUGIL ANBU VASANTHA & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
T Ramesh Babu And The Inquiry Authority & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
XYZ & ANR AND NIL. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
Chikkanna And Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
Mrs Saraswathi S P And The Commissioner & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
Umapathi S AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
United Spirits Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 350
ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 351
Pallavi G M And Managing Director & Others. LiveLaw (Kar) 352
Mrs. Eulalia Sequeira Nee Menezes and Cyril Anthony Menezes & Others. LiveLaw (Kar) 353
Alok Kumar v Mallikarjun B M alias Ravi. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 354
Meenakumari K R And Mission Director (NRLM) & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 355
Fathima Richelle Mather v. Registrar of Births and Deaths & Commissioner, BBMP. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 356
ABC AND XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 357
Veerbhadra Gowda & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 358
Mohan Vasudev Chavan And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 359
Vivekananda Kemali And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 360
Chinnaswamy Gowda And Shivramu C M Shivaramu & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 361
D Roopa And Rohini Sindhuri. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 362
Pigeon Education Technology India Private Limited And Directorate of Enforcement & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 363
Girish Bharadwaj & Others And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 364
Santosh & Others And State Through Ashok Nagar PS. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 365
Dr Mohan Bhatta M R And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
Babu s/o Shankarappa Mukkannvar And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 367
Kum Sowmya R AND Registrar General & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 368
Vikram & Others AND Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
The Divisional Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd AND Nagaraj. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
Amrit Paul And State By High Ground PS. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
Rajesh K N & K R Umesh & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
State of Karnataka AND Malleshnaika. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 373
Mangala Gowri And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Project Vruksha Foundation v State Board For Wildlife (SBWL) Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 8067 OF 2020 (GM-RES-PIL) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 8181 OF 2020 (GM-RES-PIL) & WRIT PETITION NO. 12132 OF 2020 (GM-RES-PIL
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
The South-Western Railway has submitted an affidavit before the Karnataka High Court stating that it will submit a revised proposal seeking permission for laying of Hubli-Ankola Railway Line Project after mitigating the gaps and deficiencies in the earlier proposal as is pointed out by the National Board for Wildlife.
The affidavit filed by the Deputy Chief Engineer states, “South Western Railways (SWR), Hubli, shall follow the directions issued by NBWL and shall prepare a mitigation plan for the Hubli-Ankola Railway Line project, in consultation with Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun and follow any other directives of NBWL and MOEF & CC, and shall commence the work only after getting all the clearances/approvals as required under law."
Case Title: Dr Kallappa Mahadevappa Hosmani AND The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 103443 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
The Karnataka High Court has asked the Karnataka Lokayukta to "set its house in order" by directing completion of investigation registered against public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, within a time frame.
A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna sitting at Dharwad said, “This Court has come across several cases where investigation has gone on for ages and no final report was filed. It, therefore, speaks volumes of lackadaisical attitude on the part of the prosecution/ Lokayukta.”
Case Title: A MANJU And PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL R.
Case No: EP 1/2019 C/W EP 2/2019.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 339
The Karnataka High Court on Friday declared the election of MP Prajwal Revanna of the Janatha Dal Secular Party as null and void for filing false information in his election affidavit.
Justice K Natarajan while pronouncing the order said, “Both the Election petitions are allowed in part. The election of returned candidate respondent no. 1 alias Prajwal R, Member of the Parliament, having being declared as returned candidate dated 23-05-2019, is hereby declared as null and void.”
Case Title: Abdul Rehman And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18712 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
Observing that “ordinarily every Muslim Marriage involves certain rituals that are done with the participation of the parents,” the Karnataka High Court granted furlogh leave to a convict Abdul Rehman, to attend his daughters nikah which was scheduled yesterday.
Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit remarked that although sporadically, a convict has to keep in contact with the civil society so that his societal roots do not dry up when he languishes in the jail;. "Otherwise, when he returns from the prison after completing the term of sentence, he may be a total stranger and life may prove hard to him; this is not a happy thing to happen in a Welfare State.”
Case Title: XYZ And ABC
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.795 OF 2015 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1031 OF 2015
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a father is to pay maintenance amount to his daughters only till they attain majority and maintenance cannot be ordered to be paid till their marriage.
Justice Rajendra Badamikar added that upon attaining majority if the daughters are not able to maintain themselves, they can seek maintenance under provisions of the Hindu Adoption Act. “In the instant case, admittedly, the major daughters are not parties and they have not sought any maintenance independently. They have got remedy under the provisions of Hindu Adoption Act to seek the maintenance on attaining majority in case they are unable to maintain themselves. Hence, under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, question of awarding maintenance till marriage of the daughters does not arise at all and the maintenance can be granted till the attainment of age of majority by the child.”
Case Title: Shrenika And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 201957/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (kar) 341
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a detention order passed under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1985 (Goonda Act) on the ground that authorities failed to provide to detenu, the documents relied on by them, in a language known to the detenue.
A Division bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice Rajesh Rai K sitting at Kalaburagi thus ordered immediate release of Huchappa @ Dhanaraj Kalebag. It said, “It is an admitted fact that the detenue has studied upto 3rd standard and does not know English language, as such it is the bounden duty of the detaining authority to provide the translated copies of those documents. Nevertheless, the law contemplates that in order to give an effective representation to the Government and before the Advisory Board, such an opportunity has to be provided to the detenue by the detaining authority. In the case on hand, even the detaining authority has failed to make known the grounds of detention to the detenue within the specified period of 21 days as contemplated under Section 3(3) of the Goonda Act.”
Case Title: Usman Makandar alias Usmanshah And State of Karnataka. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100989 OF 2020
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a prosecution initiated by a woman alleging offences under Section 354A of IPC (sexual harassment) for having filed the complaint three years after the alleged incident took place.
Justice M Nagaprasanna sitting at Dharwad allowed the petition and quashed the prosecution under sections 354A, 354B & 504 of the Indian Penal Code observing that the delay in registering the crime in the peculiar facts of this case was fatal.
Case Title: NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY AND MUGIL ANBU VASANTHA & Others
Case No: WA 1025/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
The Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of an appeal filed by the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) challenging a single bench order directing it to grant provisional admission to a transgender person in the 3-year LLB course for the academic year 2023-24, if found eligible.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “As the issue involved assumes importance being an issue relating to the admission qua reservation to transgender persons, in our opinion it will be in the interest of justice and in the fitness of things that the parties are relegated to single judge to make a request to single judge for hearing petition expeditiously for final disposal.”
Case Title: T Ramesh Babu And The Inquiry Authority & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 101897/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an order passed by the Inquiry Authority of United India Insurance Company declining to accede to the request of a former employee for engaging the services of a legal practitioner to defend him in the departmental enquiry.
Justice M Nagaprasanna sitting at Dharwad bench held that the circumstances of the petitioner, particularly his age and hearing disability, outweighed the rules that prohibit engaging the services of an advocate in department enquiries.
Case Title: XYZ & ANR AND NIL
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3125 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a petition filed by an estranged couple and waived off the statutory cooling period of one year before deciding on the petition for divorce by mutual consent, under the Special Marriage Act.
A division bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil allowed the petition filed by the couple and set aside the order of the family court which dismissed their application under Section 28(2) of the Act. The bench said, “The parties to the proceedings are between the age group of 32 to 37 years and they have specifically averred that they intend to concentrate on their career and decided to move on in their respective life. The said decision of the appellants is a conscious decision and the parties are quite mature about the consequences of the said decision. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, this Court is of the considered view that the possibilities of reconciliation between the appellants are bleak.”
Case Title: Chikkanna And Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat & Others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 39016 OF 2011
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an order of the State Legislative Assembly Secretariat seeking to recover a sum of about Rs. 4 lakh from former legislator Chikkanna who missed a government-funded legal study tour back in 2009.
A single bench of Justice R Nataraj observed,"The tour was scheduled on 23.08.2009 but the request to cancel the tour was made by the petitioner on which was very close to the date of departure. Therefore, the tour operator cannot be expected to refund the tour cost as the operator would have already spent corresponding amounts on the airfare, accommodation etc. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot now contend that he was unable to travel due to reasons beyond his control and also contend that he was not liable to refund a sum of Rs.3,89,800/-."
Case Title: Mrs Saraswathi S P And The Commissioner & Others
Case NO: Writ Petition No. 26850 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a woman by directing the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to issue death certificate of her husband, an excavator operator with BBMP who was washed away in heavy rain while working in a stormwater drain in 2017.
A single bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by Mrs Saraswathi S P and directed the Corporation to issue the death certificate within 30 days.
The bench rejected the contention of the civic body that if the husband of the petitioner were to return alive at a later point of time, the death certificate would amount to a false death certificate. It remarked, “The corporation is clutching at straws to try and justify its inaction. If at all the husband of the petitioner were to return alive, the respondent can always cancel the death certificate. Merely because there is such an apprehension, a living person cannot be deprived of the benefit of a death certificate of a person who is dead.”
Case Title: Umapathi S AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 15257/2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
The Karnataka High Court today dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the appointment of Political Secretaries and Media Advisor to Chief Minister Siddaramiah.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the petition filed by Advocate Umapathi S and said, “For reasons to be recorded separately, the petition is dismissed.” Detailed order to follow.
The petitioner had challenged the appointments of Congress MLCs Dr K. Govindraj and Nazeer Ahmed as Political Secretaries, Sunil Kunagol as Chief Advisor and journalist KV Prabhakar as the Media Advisor to the Chief Minister.
Case Title: United Spirits Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 13953 Of 2020
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 350
The Karnataka High Court has held that no further demand can be made for recovery of the balance amount since a fresh assessment is barred. In other words, the tax paid by the assessee must be accepted as it is, and in the event of the tax paid being in excess of the tax liability duly computed on the basis of the return furnished and the rates applicable, the excess shall be refunded to the assessee.
The bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad, while quashing the demand notice issued in the name of United Spirits (assessee), observed that the time for the AO to consider the question of disallowance of the claims of bad debts and advances written off under Section 14A stood lapsed as of March 31, 2017, and must consider the petitioner’s representation dated November 29, 2020, for refund.
Case Title: ABC And XYZ
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4402 OF 2017 (FC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4403 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 351
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by a man challenging a family court order which allowed the divorce petition filed by his wife on grounds of cruelty, since he made her face criminal proceedings initiated by creditors from whom he borrowed money by issuing cheques in her name, for meeting his lifestyle and addictions.
A Division bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil said, “The appellant-husband in his written statement and evidence has only denied the allegations of cruelty however, he has not taken any stand with regard to using of signed cheques of the respondent-wife, which clearly goes to show that the appellant-husband has made the respondent-wife a scapegoat and made her to face criminal proceedings initiated by his creditors.”
It added “These acts of the appellant-husband have caused humiliation and mental cruelty, which have been properly pleaded and proved by respondent-wife before the Family Court.”
Sister Cannot Seek Compassionate Appointment Upon Death Of Married Brother: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Pallavi G M And Managing Director & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal No 626 of 2023
Citation: LiveLaw (Kar) 352
The Karnataka High Court has held that a sister cannot be appointed on compassionate grounds upon the death of her married brother, who was working as Junior Line Men with Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Bescom).
A Division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit referred to Rule 2(1)(b) of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which stipulates that "family" for the purpose of these rules,- (i) in the case of the deceased male married Government Servant, his widow, son and daughter (unmarried/married/divorced/widowed) who were dependent upon him and were living with him."
Case Title: Mrs. Eulalia Sequeira Nee Menezes and Cyril Anthony Menezes & Others.
Case No: M.F.A. NO.12112/2007
Citation: LiveLaw (Kar) 353
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the burden is on the beneficiary of the will to substantiate the contention of no proper service of notice of probate proceedings on the persons who should have been apprised.
Justice H P Sandesh thus allowed the appeal challenging the order of the trial court which dismissed her petition filed under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, seeking to revoke the probate granted in favour of the respondents.
“The burden is on the respondents to substantiate the contention of proper service, since the person who asserts the same has to be proved.”
Karnataka High Court Quashes Bribery Case Against IPS Officer Alok Kumar
Case Title: Alok Kumar v Mallikarjun B M alias Ravi
Case No: Criminal Petition No 2164 of 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 354
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against senior Indian Police Service (IPS) Officer Alok Kumar under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justice M Nagaprasanna found that the Sessions Judge had not received a valid sanction to prosecute the IPS officer, who was not named as an accused when the case was initially registered. “Since there is no sanction accorded to prosecute the petitioner prior to the order of the learned Sessions Judge taking cognizance of the offence, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner, reserving liberty to the concerned Court to proceed against the petitioner only after a valid sanction from the hands of the Competent Authority is placed before it.”
Case Title: Meenakumari K R And Mission Director (NRLM) & others.
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 3721 of 2022 C/W Miscellaneous First Appeal No 3583 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 355
The Karnataka High Court has enhanced the compensation awarded to an advocate by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, stating that the disability of lower limb certainly hinders her ability to efficiently serve clients and move quickly between courts, potentially impacting her income and professional responsibilities.
A division bench of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Umesh M Adiga partly allowed the appeal filed by a 66-year-old Advocate and increased the compensation amount to Rs.21,78,350, as against Rs.15,78,350 awarded by the Tribunal.
Parents' Mistake Can't Deprive Child Of Birth Certificate For Eternity: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Fathima Richelle Mather v. Registrar of Births and Deaths & Commissioner, BBMP
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18413 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 356
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a petition seeking a direction to the civic body to insert the petitioner's name in her birth certificate observing that 'a mistake by the parents cannot put the child at a disadvantage'.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj thereby quashed the endorsement issued by the civic body rejecting her application holding that the identity and the paternity of the petitioner were not disputed and hence she could not be denied a birth certificate with her name on it.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case NO: WP 2688 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 357
The Karnataka High Court recently granted relief to the daughter of a former High Court judge, enhancing monthly maintenance payable to her by her husband to Rs. 1.5 lakh.
Relying on Apex court judgments, Single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that when the husband is or has been in the realm of luxury lifestyle, the wife and their son cannot be left in the lurch.
The Court rejected the appeal preferred by the husband challenging the family court order directing him to pay Rs 75,000 per month to his wife. Further, it partly allowed the wife's plea seeking enhancement of maintenance. It observed, “The husband is undoubtedly doing well for himself with five Companies in his kitty, and documents are produced which would demonstrate that the Companies are doing well and the loan that is projected is taken only after initiation of proceedings for grant of maintenance by the wife. If the facts in the case at hand are considered, the wife would become entitled to enhancement of maintenance not to the extent of enhancement sought at 2,00,000, per month, but is entitled to enhancement by 75,000, over and above what is granted by the concerned Court.”
Case Title: Veerbhadra Gowda & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17835 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 358
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation questioning a Deputy Commissioner's order reserving 5 acres gomal land in Soraba Taluka, earmarked for village cattle, for establishment of Solid and Liquid Waste Disposal Unit.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit observed, “It is not that the gomal land can never be diverted to other larger public purposes like the one put in challenge. There is absolutely no material on record to substantiate the argument that any provision of law is violated by diversion of the Government land for the purpose of waste management which in turn serves the interest of environment and ecology.”
Case Title: Mohan Vasudev Chavan And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102318 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 359
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Belgavi) resolving to sell a plot reserved for civic amenities by invoking Section 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act.
The provision enables every municipal council to lease or sale or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property owned by the local authority, so far as is not inconsistent with the provisions and purposes of the Act.
Case Title: Vivekananda Kemali And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101804 OF 2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 360
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a complaint registered against a man by his wife under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code after he refused to give money to her to buy necessities for the performance of a pooja.
The Court found that the wife's allegations in the complaint did not meet the essential ingredients required to invoke Section 498A (cruelty) against the husband. “The complaint is so vague as it would fetter vagueness itself. The investigation has led to filing of the charge sheet, without rhyme or reason, fortunately leaving out the parents, in the charge sheet. It is filed only against the husband and against the husband what is found is as afore-quoted. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 498A is recklessly and loosely laid against the petitioner.”
Case Title: Chinnaswamy Gowda And Shivramu C M Shivaramu & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1621 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 361
The Karnataka High Court has said that impleading of proper parties as defendants in a suit filed for specific performance of contract, enables the Court to adjudicate the lis pending before it completely and it will have complete facts and evidence before it, to arrive at a just and proper conclusion
A single judge bench of Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the petition filed by one Chinnaswamy Gowda questioning a trial court order allowing an impleadment application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to bring 45 defendants on record in the suit filed by him. It observed, “In the instant case, the contesting respondents may not be necessary parties but proper parties to the suit. The presence of proposed defendants would enable the Court to adjudicate the lis pending before it completely and will have complete facts and evidence before it, to arrive at a just and proper conclusion with regard to grant of relief sought by the plaintiff.”
Case Title: D Roopa And Rohini Sindhuri
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4575 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 362
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the defamation complaint lodged against IPS officer D Roopa by IAS Officer Rohini Sindhuri for allegedly publishing defamatory content against her.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum rejected the argument made by Roopa that the allegations averred in the private complaint, the statements were made by her in her official capacity and therefore, in the absence of sanction, the Magistrate erred in entertaining the private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC.
Case Title: Pigeon Education Technology India Private Limited And Directorate of Enforcement & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 11532 of 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 363
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the doctrine of alternate remedy cannot be used as a rigid barrier against invocation of its writ jurisdiction, especially by entities falling under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Justice Krishna S Dixit relied on the Supreme Court decision in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd vs. Excise & Taxation Officer to hold so. “In all cases, the entities answering Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot press into service the doctrine of alternate remedy as the China Wall against the invocation of writ jurisdiction.”
Case Title: Girish Bharadwaj & Others And Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 19366 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 364
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking a fresh investigation by either the CBI or Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the 2012 case of rape and murder of a 17-year-old student.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the plea while stating that persons unrelated to the criminal case could not seek a fresh investigation upon acquittal or conviction of the accused.“The acquittal order is not put in challenge in this PIL and rightly so. The same can be put in challenge in an appeal. As long as that order stands, in our opinion a de novo investigation cannot be ordered for an askance by persons who were neither victims, complainants, witnesses or in any way associated with the criminal case in question.”
Case Title: Santosh & Others And State Through Ashok Nagar PS
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200338 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 365
The Karnataka High Court has held that criminal cases cannot be transferred between courts within the State under Section 407 based on mere allegations made by the accused that there is apprehension of injustice.
Justice Venkatesh Naik T ruled that there must be a reasonable apprehension of injustice for a transfer to be successful. "any party can seek the transfer of case within the State under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary based upon conjunctures and surmises. The cases cannot be transferred on mere allegations that, there is apprehension that justice will not be done. For transfer of criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice will not be done."
Case Title: Dr Mohan Bhatta M R And State of Karnataka & Others
Case NO: Writ Appeal No 478 of 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging a single bench order rejecting the petition filed by one Dr Mohan Bhatta M R, who holds a PG Degree from Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, seeking registration certificate to practise under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act 2007.
While doing so, a division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit remarked, “The protection of the Public includes not only matters relating to the health, safety and wellbeing of the public but also the maintenance of public confidence in the medical profession and the maintenance of proper professional standards & conduct.”
Case Title: Babu s/o Shankarappa Mukkannvar And Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No: 111248/2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 367
Observing that “gratuity is not a bounty that can be withheld at the sweet will or whim of the employer,” the Karnataka High Court recently directed State's Health Secretary to disburse the gratuity amount of a former employee which has been pending for the last 16 years, within 30 days.
A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by 74-year-old retired employee and directed release of gratuity amount of Rs 4,09,550 along with interest.
Case Title: Kum Sowmya R AND Registrar General & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal No 1154 of 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 368
The Karnataka High Court has held that a person appointed on probation becomes a permanent employee only after the issue of an express order of confirmation.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the appeal filed by a woman who was not confirmed to the post of stenographer in the Court of Civil Judge, Virajpet on completion of the probation period. It held, “By mere expiry of the period of probation and continuing in service after the expiry of the period of probation, a civil servant does not automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of the service, unless the rules expressly provide for automatic confirmation.”
Case Title: Vikram & Others AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 4352 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation questioning the construction of an Elevated Corridor for Decongestion of traffic at Rani Chennamma Circle in Hubli City.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “Merely because some of the petitioners too have expertise in the matter arguably, they cannot arrogate to themselves all the wisdom & expertise and thereby brand the project in question as being unwise and not feasible.”
Case Title: The Divisional Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd AND Nagaraj
Case No: Writ Petition No 201824 of 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
The Karnataka High Court recently held that when a judgment or award is passed in favour of a party, such party would be entitled to the principal amount and interest thereon till the date of receipt of the amounts.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj added that merely because the judgment debtor was to deposit the amounts in a court of law while filing an appeal against the trial court order, the obligation to pay the interest amount till payment of the compensation amount would not cease.
Case Title: Amrit Paul And State By High Ground PS
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3696 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to IPS Officer Amirt Paul who was arrested in connection to an alleged scam in recruiting police sub-inspectors for the State Police.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz granted bail to Paul who has been in custody since his arrest on 04.07.2022. The bench granted bail to the accused on the execution of a personal bond of Rs 5,00,000, with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
Case Title: Rajesh K N & K R Umesh & ANR
Case No: Criminal Appeal No 1378 of 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
The Karnataka High Court has said that before directing initiation of perjury proceedings against a party for making false statements before the court, it must form an opinion on being satisfied that the person charged has intentionally given false evidence/statements and such formation of opinion must be on consideration of materials duly placed before it.
A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar observed, “It is not every false statement that is intended to be the subject matter of the prosecution...There must be prima facie case of deliberate false on a matter of substance and the Court must be satisfied and there must be reasonable foundation for the charge and the prosecution of the offender is necessary in the interest of justice. Otherwise, time of the Court, which has to be usefully devoted for dispensation of justice, will be wasted on such enquiries.”
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND Malleshnaika
Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No 816 of 2019.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 373
The Karnataka High Court has held that the State Government cannot be construed as a 'victim' under Section 372 CrPC and an appeal filed by it against an acquittal order is not maintainable under the said provision.
A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah pointed that the legislature has provided a separate provision for the State, Section 378 CPC, to prefer appeal against acquittal. It observed,
"When there is separate provision stipulated to file an appeal against the acquittal to the State...the State cannot exercise the jurisdiction which is meant for victim under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. There is a distinction between the two provisions, the victim has to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., against the order of acquittal. Whereas the State has to file an appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. When there is a distinct provision distinctly conferring certain rights to the victim and the State independently, it is necessary to exercise their respective jurisdiction independently.
Case Title: Mangala Gowri And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
The Karnataka High Court has held that insisting the deceased to repay the loan borrowed by him does not amount to abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar added that mere harassment or demands for loan repayment, without the intention to drive the person to suicide, do not constitute abetment.
“There is no evidence to show that the appellant/accused had intention to drive out the deceased Raju to commit suicide. Looking from any angle, the act of the appellant/accused harassing the deceased for repayment of money borrowed and threatening him to take his life does not amount to abetment.”