Nominal IndexImran Ahmed And National Investigating Agency. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 215Byluru Thippaiah And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 216Vipul Prakash Patil And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 217D K Suresh And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 218A Vasudevachar & Others And The District Registrar & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 219Mrs Divya Ganesh Nallur...
Nominal Index
Imran Ahmed And National Investigating Agency. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
Byluru Thippaiah And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
Vipul Prakash Patil And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
D K Suresh And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
A Vasudevachar & Others And The District Registrar & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
Mrs Divya Ganesh Nallur & ANR And NIL. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
Allauddin & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
D K SHIVAKUMAR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
Coffee Day Resorts (Msm) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Imran Ahmed And National Investigating Agency
Case No: CRL.A.NO.124/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
The Karnataka High Court has refused bail to an accused charged in the 2020 Bengaluru riots citing primacy of public safety and collective interest of the society over individual liberty as constitutionally guaranteed under the Constitution.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur also refuse to apply the 'bail is the rule and jail is an exception' dicta of the Supreme Court stating, "Firstly, such a dicta has to remain miles away when the class of offences which the accused is ascribed of, arise under a special statute of great significance, like the one at hands; secondly, the Parliament in its accumulated wisdom has enacted the clauses in the 1967 (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, that severely restrict the claim for grant of bail. Thirdly the statute also enacts a ‘negative burden’ clause, which places the onus on the shoulders of accused, much in variance with the normal rule i.e., the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.”
Case Title: Byluru Thippaiah And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100170 OF 2020 C/W CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE NO. 100002 OF 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
The Karnataka High Court has confirmed the death sentence handed down to an accused by the trial court for murdering his wife, sister-in-law and three children below the age of 10 years, suspecting the fidelity of his wife.
A division bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice G Basavaraja said the case qualifies the test of rarest of rare cases requiring the award of the death penalty. “The atrocity of the crime resulting in five deaths including of 3 children below 10 years of age and the brutality with which the same has been committed, leaves us no option but to confirm the order of death sentence passed by the trial Court, which we do with a heavy heart,” it remarked.
Case Title: Vipul Prakash Patil And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104152 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
The Karnataka High Court has said that in order to proceed against a person with criminal action, the complainant or prosecuting agency must show prima facie material whereby some nexus could be established to the alleged crime with a person. If such material is not available, very registration of the case against such persons would definitely amount to abuse of process of law affecting the right of a citizen enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda sitting at Dharwad bench allowed the petition filed by one Vipul Prakash Patil and quashed the FIR registered under Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Deposits in Financial Establishment Act.
Election Campaign: Karnataka High Court Quashes 4 Yrs Old Case Against Congress MP DK Suresh
Case Title: D K Suresh And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10599 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered in the year 2019, under sections 171H of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 133 of the Representation of People Act, against Congress MP D.K. Suresh for allegedly campaigning in an open vehicle without obtaining due permission from the authorities.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Suresh and quashed the proceedings. The bench took into account the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that a coordinate bench of the court had quashed the proceedings against co-accused in the case
Case Title: A Vasudevachar & Others And The District Registrar & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.48476 OF 2013
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
The Karnataka High Court has held that when a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement filed by the proposed purchaser is dismissed, the District Registrar directing registration of sale agreement, ignoring the Civil court order, is contrary to law.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha set aside the order of District Registrar directing Sub-Registrar to register the document despite the civil court refusing relief of specific performance. “On perusal of the order of the Registrar would make it evident that the Registrar is sitting over the judgment of the Civil Court by going to an extent of enquiring into the dispute between the parties when the Civil Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract,” the bench observed.
Case Title: Mrs Divya Ganesh Nallur & ANR And NIL
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 24429 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
The Karnataka High Court has held that just because an estranged couple are residing under the same roof, a court cannot reject their plea seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, on this ground alone.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed a petition filed by a couple and set aside the order of the family court dated 15-10-2022 and remitted the matter back to the family court, requesting the judge to pass a judgment & decree in terms of the Compromise Petition and the report of the Mediator at the earliest.
Case Title: Allauddin & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 200126/2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed the proceedings initiated against four persons belonging to the management of Shaheen School in Bidar, where the students belonging to classes 4, 5 and 6 had staged a play on the CAA and NRC in the year 2020.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar sitting at Kalaburagi bench, allowed the petitions filed by Allauddin & others and quashed the prosecution initiated against them under sections 504, 505 (2), 124A, 153A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Case Title: M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9771 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against Samsung India under the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum found the complaint to be self-contradictory and said there is total misinterpretation of relevant provisions of the Act and Packaged Commodities Rules 2011. It said, “This Court is of the view that the complaint does not disclose any offence. The offences indicated in the complaint are applicable to retail packages and not to wholesale packages and therefore, on meticulous examination of the allegations made in the complaint, it is clearly evident that the complaint is tainted with malafides. The allegations made in the complaint are found to be totally frivolous and vexatious. Even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted in entirety, the same does not constitute any substantive offence and prima-facie the allegations are found to be frivolous.”
Case Title: D K SHIVAKUMAR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRL.P 5726/2022, CRL.P 3328/2023, CRL.P 3330/2023, CRL.P 3348/2023, CRL.P 3349/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed the case against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar and others registered under the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code, for carrying out a padyatra in January 2022, demanding implementation of Mekedatu project, when allegedly Covid-19 restrictions were in force.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the case saying, “Whoever would contravene Sub section 1 of Section 5 would be punished is what the statute mandates. In terms of the statute there is no notification was issued by the State government then barring such activities. The notification which the State relies upon is the one issued under the Disaster Management Act and not under the Epidemic Diseases Act. Therefore unless notification under Epidemic Diseases Act is issued barring such activities, taking recourse to the Disaster Management Act and bring it into Epidemic Diseases Act is unavailable.”
Case Title: Coffee Day Resorts (Msm) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 9594 Of 2023 (T-IT)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
The Karnataka High Court has held that a notice and assessment order passed in the name of a non-existing company is substantively illegal and is an order passed without jurisdiction.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, in which it was held that the assessment order framed in the name of a non-existing person was void ab initio.