Nominal Index: Rasik Lal Patel & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 297M/s Legal Property & ANR And Chief Manager, State Bank of India & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 298ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 299The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd And Ramu @ Ramesh S/O Yallappa & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 300Nanjamma & Others AND Rajamma...
Nominal Index:
Rasik Lal Patel & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
M/s Legal Property & ANR And Chief Manager, State Bank of India & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd And Ramu @ Ramesh S/O Yallappa & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
Nanjamma & Others AND Rajamma & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
ABC And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
Sanjay P S And Abhishek M. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
Smt. Renuka & Ors. v Sri Venkatesh. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
State By PI MESCON v B Usman Beary. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Judgements/Orders
Case Title: Rasik Lal Patel & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: Criminal Petition no.5497 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the prosecution initiated against two persons under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered by the complainant immediately after the police filed a chargesheet against him on the complaint made by the petitioners, for house trespass and continuous harassment.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by Rasik Lal Patel and another said, “This case would form a classic illustration of misuse of the provisions of the Act and the penal provisions under the IPC. It is such cases which clog the criminal justice system and consume considerable time of the Courts, be it the Magistrates Court, Court of Session or this Court, while genuine cases where litigants have actually suffered would be waiting in the pipeline.”
Case Title: M/s Legal Property & ANR And Chief Manager, State Bank of India & ANR
Case No: WP 11203/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an endorsement issued by the State Bank of India to a partnership firm, stopping the release of loan amount which was sanctioned and partly disbursed.
While the bank resisted the writ petition stating the loan transaction was in the nature of a 'private contract', a single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit observed, “The respondent-bank being an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, even in matters like this, writ remedy can be granted to the aggrieved...A banker who answers description of State under Article 12 of the Constitution cannot act like a private lender; its actions have to be animated with reason & justice, which factors are militantly absent in the impugned endorsement/notice. Therefore the same is liable to be invalidated.”
Case Title: ABC And XYZ
Case NO: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8998 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
The Karnataka High Court has held that a wife insulting the husband on the premise that he is 'dark', moving away from his company for the same reason and levelling false allegations of illicit relationships as a cover up, would constitute cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Anant Ramanath Hegde thus allowed the appeal filed by the husband and set aside the family court order refusing divorce decree. It said, “The wife used to insult the husband on the premise that he is dark. And for the same reason has moved away from the company of the husband without any cause. And to cover up this aspect, has levelled false allegations of illicit relationships against the husband. These facts certainly will constitute cruelty.”
Case Title: The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd And Ramu @ Ramesh S/O Yallappa & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.201961 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
The Karnataka High Court reiterated that Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial legislation, the provisions thereof have to be given beneficial meaning and effect.
It held that benefit under the Act cannot be taken away on a technical aspect that too of limitation under Section 166(3) of the Act, which mandates that no claim petition can be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.
Case Title: Nanjamma & Others AND Rajamma & Others
Case No: M.F.A No 2172/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
The Karnataka High Court recently held that relief of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is a discretionary remedy which requires a careful balance between the need for interim relief and the ongoing legal proceedings.
Justice H.P Sandesh added that this discretion should not be exercised when material facts are suppressed before the Trial Court and that any false or misleading information in obtaining such interim relief can be detrimental to the integrity of the judicial process.
Case Title: ABC And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 11173/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
The Karnataka High Court has upheld State government's decision fixing the admission age for class-I students in Government schools, aided and unaided schools from the academic year 2025-2026 as 6 years.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed a petition filed on behalf of a 4 year old toddler, represented through her father, seeking to quash the notification/order dated 26.07.2022.
Case Title: Sanjay P S And Abhishek M
Case No: Criminal Petition No: 5944/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
The Karnataka High Court has held that a revision petition preferred before the Sessions court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging an order made by the Magistrate Court under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is maintainable.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “An order passed on an application filed under Section 143A of the Act, is not interlocutory order, but an intermediate order, as the application is filed, and the application is closed, under the said provision, determining the rights and liabilities of parties qua the application and revision petition before the Court of Sessions on the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 143A either allowing the application, or rejecting it, would be maintainable for the aggrieved party, be it the complainant or the accused to approach.”
Case Title: Smt. Renuka & Ors. v Sri Venkatesh
Case No: RPFC No. 100033/2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, has held that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C”) do not require proof regarding sufficient cause for living separately.
“It is clear from a clean reading of Section 125 of Cr.P.C, that the proceedings are summary in nature and it is sufficient if negligence or refusal on the part of the husband in providing maintenance to the wife is demonstrated. The proceedings do not contemplate the proof regarding sufficient cause for living separately”, the Court held.
Case Title: State By PI MESCON v B Usman Beary
Case No: Criminal Appeal 1128/2011
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
The Karnataka High Court has enhanced the fine imposed on a convict from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,08,189/- for theft of electricity, while observing that the minimum sentence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for the first conviction cannot be less than three times the financial gain.
The Bench comprising Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar thus allowed an appeal preferred by the State Government praying to enhance the fine amount imposed by the Special Court against an Accused for theft of electricity.