Nominal Index [Citations 385 - 393]:M/s Chancery Pavilion And M/s Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd & Others.2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 385Sharada Hanamanth Walagad & ANR AND NIL. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 386Shreeroopa v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 387Pramod Hanumanth Rao Muthalik & Anr v State of Karnataka & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 388Vivek Hebbale And...
Nominal Index [Citations 385 - 393]:
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
Judgments/Orders
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.