Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 352Nominal Index:Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344Karnataka State Road Corporation & Others AND Mallaiah & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 345M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 346M/S Akshaya Private Limited Vs M/S S P Sai Technologies. 2024 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 352
Nominal Index:
Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
Karnataka State Road Corporation & Others AND Mallaiah & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
M/S Akshaya Private Limited Vs M/S S P Sai Technologies. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
THE BANGALORE, BANGALORE RURAL AND RAMANAGARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND Assistant Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
ABC AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
Nagamma & Others AND Rudrayya & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 350
Principal Additional Director General Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence Versus M/S Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 351
PARITOSH CHANDRASHEKAR KULKARNI AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 352
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15125 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
The Karnataka High Court has said that in the event a notice issued by the police summoning a citizen under Section 35 of the BNSS does not contain the crime number, the offence alleged or the appending of the FIR, subject to just exceptions, the noticee is not obliged to appear before the officer who has directed him to appear and no coercive action can be taken against him.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “Summoning to the Police Station is not summoning a person to a happy place. A citizen must know as to why he is being summoned.”
Case Title: Karnataka State Road Corporation & Others AND Mallaiah & Others
Case No: R.F.A. NO.1653 OF 2011
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the trial court which decreed a suit in favour of private persons, declaring them to be owners of the land, which was notified by the then Mysore Maharaja in 1929 for the formation of a State Reserve Forest.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by the State government and Karnataka State Road Corporation and set aside the order of the trial court dated 29-08-2011, passed in favour of Mallaiah and others.
Case Title: M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2978 OF 2024 (AA)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that a person who is not a party to the arbitration agreement but buys property from someone who is a party to the agreement is still bound by the arbitration clause that applies to their vendors.
The High Court noted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decision in Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP India Private Limited and Another was primarily concerned with whether the phrase "claiming through or under" in Section 8 of the Arbitration Act includes the "Group of Companies" doctrine and whether this doctrine, as previously outlined in Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., constitutes valid law.
Case Title: M/S Akshaya Private Limited Vs M/S S P Sai Technologies
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
The Karnataka High Court division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that the right to enforce the settlement has to be through arbitration as the alleged settlement is in respect of a transaction arising from the contract which contained an arbitration clause.
Case Title: THE BANGALORE, BANGALORE RURAL AND RAMANAGARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND Assistant Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29196 OF 2014 (SCST) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 17857 OF 2015 (SCST) WRIT PETITION NO. 17858 OF 2015
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
The Karnataka High Court has held that a bank cannot enforce a decree for attachment of property against a land grantee under Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, for loan default made by the Cooperative Society holding the general power of attorney for such land.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "When a grantee has not received any benefit of the loan, the question of there being any privity of contract between the Bank and the grantee would not arise...The Society not having any right in the property has mortgaged the property to the Bank and the Bank has accepted the said mortgage knowing fully well that the Society is not the owner and does not have any right, title or interest."
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102394 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
The Karnataka High court has held that a father cannot be charged for kidnapping his minor child from the custody of his wife, so long as there is no prohibition order passed by a competent court against him.
A single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T allowed the petition filed by the husband and quashed the proceedings initiated against him by his wife for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC.
Case Title: Nagamma & Others AND Rudrayya & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 105278 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 350
The Karnataka High Court has held that once a sale deed has been duly executed and stamped, the agreement of sale can no longer be independently subject to stamp duty as it has merged into the sale deed.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed a petition filed by Nagamma and others and set aside the order of the trial court which in a partition suit, had impounded the agreement of sale dated 11.12.2002, produced by them and directed to pay the deficit stamp duty along with penalty.
University Income From Rentals, Not Exempted From Service Tax: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Principal Additional Director General Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence Versus M/S Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences
Case No.: Writ Appeal No.856 Of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 351
The Karnataka High Court has held that the university is liable to pay service tax on the income earned from the rentals of buildings leased or licensed for banking facilities.
The bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar has observed that when the university rents out its property for running a bank, the profit motive is abundant. It is not the case of the university that the banking services are agreed to be provided on a 'no profit, no loss basis' by prescribing a license fee as contradistinguished from rentals. However, providing banking facilities by no stretch of imagination can be held to be incidental to education. The term 'educational services' has been employed in these exemption notifications in a reasonable sense, if not restrictive.
Case Title: PARITOSH CHANDRASHEKAR KULKARNI AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1850 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 352
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated under provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act against a student who is pursuing higher studies at Columbia University, USA.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The petitioner, who is a student pursuing his Masters elsewhere, beyond the shores of the nation, should not be made to suffer for the voluntary/confessional statements of the co-accused.”