Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 388 to 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 420Nominal Index:State By Mahadevapura Police Station AND Padmavathamma C. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 388Santhosh K S AND Dilip Kumar H & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 389Deepa Darshan H P & ANR AND Police Inspector & ANR . 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 390R Gopal Reddy AND Mohammed Mukaram. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 391Abdul Rehman & Others AND...
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 388 to 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 420
Nominal Index:
State By Mahadevapura Police Station AND Padmavathamma C. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 388
Santhosh K S AND Dilip Kumar H & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 389
Deepa Darshan H P & ANR AND Police Inspector & ANR . 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
R Gopal Reddy AND Mohammed Mukaram. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 391
Abdul Rehman & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 392
M/S ZIM LABORATORIES LTD & Others AND Union of India. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 393
Santhosh K S AND Dilip Kumar H & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
B.M Venkatappa AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
B S Suresh & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
H Mahadev AND K N Rajamma & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
ABC AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
Priyanka Halamani AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
Muniyappa AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 400
Disha Bhat AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
V Sunil Kumar AND Pramod Mutalik. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 402
Hanumantha & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 403
T N Kumara AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 404
Bharat Jaywant Kurane AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
Lingesh K S & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 406.
PRIYANK KANOONGO AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 407.
M/s.Shangrila Flat Owners Association AND Capt Mohan Prabhu. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 408
SHOBHA KARANDLAJE AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
Abin Thomas Sebastian AND Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 410
Dr Kalyan C Kankanala AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 411
Arptia J AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 412
Siddaramaiah AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 413
Keshavamurthy AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 414
Suresha & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 415
Vishal Raghu & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 416
BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) AND Shivananda S Patil
2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING AND ORS vs. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS CONTRACT WORKERS ASSOCIATION. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
ABC AND Internal Complaints Committee & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 420
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: State By Mahadevapura Police Station AND Padmavathamma C
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7813 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 388
The Karnataka High Court has held that the trial court cannot direct further investigation to be done in a murder case by a different agency, its power is restricted only to order further investigation by the same investigating agency.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing the petition filed by the State Government and set aside the order of the special court directing further investigation to be carried out by CID.
Case Title: Gaurav Dahake AND Union of India
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2926 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 389
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated under the Railways Act against an IIT Graduate and startup founder, who developed a software tool using which Railway Tatkal tickets would be generated within 45 seconds instead of the usual 5 to 7 minutes it would take on the railway website.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Gaurav Dhake who was charged under Section 143 of the Railways act, alleging that he had illegally procured and distributed railway tickets.
Case Title: Deepa Darshan H P & ANR AND Police Inspector & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2585 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings initiated against an astrologer who outraged a woman's modesty by inappropriately touching her under the guise of performing puja to set right her kundali. The Court also declined to quash charges against the woman's husband who took her to the astrologer and threatened her to not reveal her ordeal to anyone else.
A single judge bench of Justice MG Uma dismissed the petition filed by Deepa Darshan H P and Mohandas @Shivaramu who had approached the court seeking to quash the prosecution registered against them under Sections 498A, 354, 354A, 508 R/W 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: R Gopal Reddy AND Mohammed Mukaram
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13943 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 391
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the owner or occupier of a premise only if he knowingly permits it to be used for commission of the offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), would he become punishable.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one R Gopal Reddy and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 22(C), 22(A), 27(B), 25, 27 of the Act.
It said, “There should be more than prima facie material to hold that the owner or occupier of the premises was in complete knowledge of what was happening in the premises, as Section 25 creates a vicarious liability against the person who is the owner who has knowingly permitted usage of premises, knowledge pervades the provision of law.”
Case Title: Abdul Rehman & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 759/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 392
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday orally said that offences under the Wildlife Protection Act should not be kept pending for long and trials against the accused should be completed expeditiously.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by accused Abdul Rehman and others who were booked in 2008, for killing a spotted deer in Bandipur forest under sections 2(36),9,31,34,35(6,8) 48(a)R/W 51 and trial of which is still pending.
Case Title: M/S ZIM LABORATORIES LTD & Others AND Union of India
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8341 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 393
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Drugs Controller General (India) to ensure that an efficient online system is created, whereby the drug samples which are sent for test/analysis are expeditiously tested and analysed by the Government Analyst within sixty days, and the reports sent by them are available online on a real-time basis.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda issued the directions while quashing the prosecution initiated against M/s Zim Laboratories Ltd and its Chairman and Managing Direction and others, under Section 27D of the Act.
Case Title: Santhosh K S AND Dilip Kumar H & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5265 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
The Karnataka High Court has said that compensation under the head of future prospects is provided to claimants even in injury cases.
A single judge bench of Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha held thus while partly allowing the appeal filed by Santhosh K S who had challenged the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had awarded Rs 4,97,732 instead of Rs 25 lakh which was sought for.
The appellant was 22 years old and working as a coolie. He had sustained type B open fracture distal 3rd of the right femur and injury over the right thumb. The said injuries were noted as laceration over the right knee, exposure of the right knee and fracture of the right supra condyle femur in the wound certificate.
Case Title: B.M Venkatappa AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 861 OF 2014
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the conviction handed down to a storekeeper working in the office of ESI for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 1,000 for supplying the required injection prescribed by a Doctor of NIMHANS hospital to the complainant.
A single-judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D Huddar partly allowed the appeal filed by B M Venkatappa and upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence imposed by the trial court on him.
Case Title: B S Suresh & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12339 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
The Karnataka High Court has said that in a complaint where the offence is punishable with a maximum sentence of three years, the limitation for filing the complaint u/s 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is one year from the date of occurrence of the cause of action and any complaint filed beyond that period is not maintainable.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by MLA B S Suresh and another and quashed the offences registered against them in 2019 under Section 285 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Karnataka Fire Force Act.
Case Title: H Mahadev AND K N Rajamma & others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.24 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
The Karnataka High Court has said that a beneficiary of a gift deed has to prove his title over the property received under such a deed by examining witnesses. It held that a presumption in his favour under Section 90 of the Evidence Act cannot be drawn based on producing certified copies of the deed.
Section 90 of the Evidence Act reads thus: Presumption as to documents thirty years old. Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 1364/2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police to communicate to all the state's police stations, the details of a woman complainant who had registered nine complaints/FIRs, against different persons alleging sexual harassment, criminal intimidation and also for offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The details of the woman complainant be available on the database of the police stations, so that they could be cautious when the complainant would want to register a crime against any other man.”
Case Title: Priyanka Halamani AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.105264 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a daughter-in-law, claiming compassionate appointment in the state's rural drinking water and sanitation department.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the plea filed by Priyanka Halamani, who had challenged the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which had rejected her application seeking a direction to the government to appoint her.
Case Title: Muniyappa AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2418 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 400
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash prosecution initiated against a drawing teacher of a private school, accused of recording videos and clicking photographs of minor girl students in the residential school when they were changing their dresses.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Muniyappa who is charged under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
Case Title: Disha Bhat AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.104218 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
The Karnataka High Court has refused relief to a 19-year-old girl who claimed to be visually impaired beyond 40% and sought a direction to the Karnataka Examination Authority to accept her candidature under the visually impaired quota.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the petition filed by Disha Bhat who had sought to void the Ocular Examination Report and accept the Report furnished by the Government Hospital, Dharwad. The Ocular examination report stated that the petitioner's Visual Disability is 0% (Zero Percent) in view of 6/18 Vision in both eyes.
Case Title: V Sunil Kumar AND Pramod Mutalik
Case No: WP 19821/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 402
The Karnataka High Court on Friday refused to quash criminal defamation proceedings initiated against Bharatiya Janata Party leader V Sunil Kumar, on the complaint made by Founder President of Sri Ram Sene, Pramod Muthalik.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition and orally said “This mudslinging should stop, elections are fought on making speeches against each other, not on what the party has done, what the government has done.”
Case Title: Hanumantha & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11994 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 403.
The Karnataka High Court has directed initiation of Disciplinary proceedings/departmental inquiry against three policemen for having filed a false charge sheet against two persons claiming they consumed Ganja, even when the FSL report clearly opined no presence of any form of contraband in their body.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Hanumantha and another and quashed the prosecution lodged against them under Section 27 of the Narcotics Drug And Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).
Case Title: T N Kumara AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2013
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 404
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the conviction handed down to a man 14 years after the accused committed the offence of being in possession of counterfeit currency.
A single judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D Huddar convicted T N Kumara, dismissed the appeal filed by him challenging the conviction under Section 489B and C of the Indian Penal Code in the year 2013.
The court said “The Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.1.2013 passed is hereby confirmed. The accused shall surrender before the trial Court forthwith to undergo sentence (five years). The Trial Court shall take steps to secure his presence in accordance with law and commit him to the prison to undergo sentence.”
Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Four Accused Allegedly Involved In Gauri Lankesh Murder Case
Case Title: Bharat Jaywant Kurane AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7787 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7811/2024, 7809/2024, 7805/2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to four accused allegedly involved in the murder case of journalist Gauri Lankesh.
A single Judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty granted bail to Bharat Kurane, Srikanth Pangarkar, Sujith Kumar and Sudhanva Gondhalekar, on them executing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh each, with two sureties of like amount.
The petitioners are charged under Sections 302, 120B, 118, 203, 35 IPC, Sections 25(1) & 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) & 3(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000.
Case Title: Lingesh K S & Others AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5030 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 406.
The Karnataka High Court refused to quash a cheating and criminal conspiracy case lodged against former MLA Lingesh K S–who was the Chairman of a committee for regularisation of land between 2016-2023, after "prima facie" observing that the committee had bartered away government land as if it was its personal property.
It had been alleged that the committee–Bagair Hukum Saguvali Samithi had created records and bartered away Government lands to an extent of 2750 acres to 1430 bogus beneficiaries, valued at more than 750 crores in Lingesh's constituency at Belur, who was the then Chairman. The plea before the high court, for quashing of the case was moved by Lingesh as well as other members of the committee.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Lingesh and others in its order said, “...I hold that Bagair Hukum Committee has acted Bagair Kanoon, albeit, prima facie”.
Case Title: PRIYANK KANOONGO AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 5840/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 407.
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed the prosecution initiated against National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) chief Priyank Kanoongo, for allegedly trespassing into a Muslim orphanage and comparing the living conditions there with life under Taliban rule.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed Kanoongo's quashing petition. Detailed order is awaited.
Kanoongo and his team had visited the orphanage on November 19, 2023, following which a complaint was filed by Darul Uloom Sayideeya orphanage secretary, Ashraf Khan. The police had registered a case under sections 447, 448, 295A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on November 21, 2023.
Case Title: M/s.Shangrila Flat Owners Association AND Capt Mohan Prabhu
Case No: R.S.A.NO.722 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 408
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a trial court order decreeing a suit filed by an Apartment Owners Association, seeking to recover the outstanding maintenance dues from one of its defaulting members.
A single judge bench of Justice M G S Kamal allowed the appeal filed by M/s.Shangrila Flat Owners Association challenged the order of the first appellate court which had allowed the appeal filed by 70-year-old Capt Mohan Prabhu, and reversed the trial court order.
Case Title: SHOBHA KARANDLAJE AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 2758/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday quashed the criminal case registered against Member of Parliament, Shobha Karandlaje, after she had made a statement during a protest in Bengaluru, linking the suspect in the Rameshwaram cafe blast with Tamil Nadu.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings registered with the Cottenpet Police station under sections 123(3),123(3A), and 125 of the Representation of People Act.
Case Title: Abin Thomas Sebastian AND Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 8912 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 1916 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 8989 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9017 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9029 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9094 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9228 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9333 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9357 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9412 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9459 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9462 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9716 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9718 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9722 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9975 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 10509 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 11801 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 11844 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 14344 OF 2024 (EDN-RES).
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 410
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by undergraduate medical students seeking a grant of five grace marks for the exams conducted in January, which would help them pass their examination.
The primary contention of the students was that under the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2019, provision for grace was available and the benefit of the same should be extended to them.
However, the Guidelines issued by the Undergraduate Medical Education Board, (UGMEB) formed under the National Medical Council Act, on 01.08.2023 did away with the award of grace marks. The students claimed the benefit under the 2019 Regulations ought to prevail and the students ought to be given grace marks as the regulations framed will have precedence over the Guidelines.
Case Title: Dr Kalyan C Kankanala AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.21978 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 411
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks told the Karnataka High Court recently that it is taking steps to ensure that its websites are made accessible to Persons with Disabilities (PwD), in line with prevailing Guidelines issued by the Union of India.
Taking note of the submission, the high court disposed of a plea seeking that websites of the patent, designs and trademarks authority is made accessible to persons with disabilities.
Case Title: Arptia J AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 21704/2024, WP 21452/2024, WP 25149/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 412
The Karnataka High Court on Monday allowed a batch of petitions filed by law students and directed Karnataka State Law University, to grant them full marks which they had obtained in revaluation of their marksheets, which would help them pass in the examination.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petitions filed by Arpita J and others and said “Though several contentions are being urged by both sides in respect of their claims in the light of the disputed facts that if the marks obtained by the petitioner in the revaluation which is the entire full marks are taken into account the petitioner would successfully pass and complete the said examination. Thus without going into the merit or demerits of the rival contention, as regards the validity, legality or correctness of the Regulation 1.3.6 of the impugned notification. I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petitions directing the respondents to grant full marks obtained by petitioners in revaluation, within two weeks.”
Case title: Siddaramaiah AND State of Karnataka & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.22356 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 413
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (September 24) dismissed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's plea against the Governor's decision granting sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for investigation/prosecution against the Chief Minister in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the complainants were justified in registering the complaint or seeking approval from the Governor. The bench further said that it is the duty of complainant to seek approval under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act and the Governor can take independent decision.
"The facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require investigation, in the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all the acts is not anybody outside but the family of the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed," said Justice Nagaprasanna.
Case Title: Keshavamurthy AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9353 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 414
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to one of the accused allegedly involved in the Renukaswamy murder case, in which Kannada actor Darshan Thoogdeep Srinivas is also an accused.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty granted bail to Keshavamurthy on him executing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties of like sum.
The petitioner is accused no 16 in the case, it is alleged that the accused had tried to destroy the evidence after the murder was committed and he had voluntarily surrendered in the place of the actual assailants by receiving a certain amount.
Case Title: Suresha & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5694 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 415
"Sloganeering Bharath Matha Ki Jai would only lead to harmony and never a discord", said the Karnataka High Court while allowing a plea by five men for quashing an FIR lodged against them for allegedly promoting enmity between different groups and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.
The petitioners had claimed that on June 9 after they were coming back from celebrating the oath ceremony of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, they were attacked by 25 persons. The petitioners' alleged that they were questioned by the group as to how the former could raise "slogans of Bharath Matha Ki Jai"; one of those 25 persons allegedly stabbed two of the petitioners. The petitioners' said that the same night they lodged a complaint and an FIR was registered.
Case Title: Vishal Raghu & Others AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 3666/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 416
The Karnataka High Court has rejected the plea filed by Chairman of the State Bar Council Vishal Raghu, Vice Chairman Vinay Mangalekar and another, for quashing a FIR lodged against them for allegedly misappropriating official funds to the tune of several lakhs.
The trio is booked under Sections 37,34,120B,403,406,409,420,465,468,471,477A of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint by a Member of the Council, Senior Advocate Basavaraj S.
Case Title: BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) AND Shivananda S Patil
Case No: CRL.P 7526/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
Clarifying the procedure to be followed by magisterial courts on issuance of notice on complaints under Section 223 BNSS, the Karnataka High Court Friday underlined that the opportunity of hearing to be provided to the accused in the provision is not an empty formality, without which cognizance cannot be taken.
Section 223 BNSS pertains to examination of complaints and states that a magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. It adds that the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses as well as by the Magistrate. The first proviso states that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
Case Title: HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING AND ORS vs. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS CONTRACT WORKERS ASSOCIATION
Case No:WRIT APPEAL NO.1122 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
The Bengaluru Bench of Karnataka High Court has directed Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, (appellant in the writ appeal) to revise the “Comprehensive Contract” in a manner accepted by law and to communicate it to the HAL Contract Workers' Association (respondents in the writ appeal).
HAL was instructed to issue a preliminary notification to consider objections from people who might be affected because of the Contract, review those objections, and then make a final decision.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and G Basavaraja held that the order of the Single Judge was reasonable. However, modifying the order, the Bench directed that an authorized representative of the contract workers or the respondent Union must be notified and given a chance to speak before finalizing the Revised Comprehensive Contract.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11721 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that courts can stay the divorce proceedings instituted by the husband until he pays arrears of maintenance amount to the wife as ordered by the court.
The observations were made, while the high court allowed a petition filed by an estranged wife and set aside the order of the trial court which had dismissed her application seeking stay on the divorce proceedings initiated by the husband for non payment of the arrears of interim maintenance.
Case Title: ABC AND Internal Complaints Committee & Others
Case No: WP 8127/2019
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 420
The Karnataka High Court today directed ANI technologies, which owns and operates OLA Cabs, to pay a sum of Rs 5 lakh towards compensation to a woman who allegedly faced sexual harassment at the hands of their driver, during a trip in 2019.
A single judge bench of Justice M G S Kamal also directed the Internal Complaints Committee of the company to hold an inquiry into the complaint in accordance with provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Woman At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [POSH Act]. The process is to be completed within 90 days and a report is to be submitted to the District Officer.