Nominal Index:Shashikala & Others And Laxman Yadu Kadam and Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 306N Ravindranath Kamath And Sri Subramanyeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 307SIVA RAMA KRISHNA And MR.SASI NARKIS BABU V & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 308Raufuddin Kacheriwalay & Others And State of Karnataka & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 309Malathy S B &...
Nominal Index:
Shashikala & Others And Laxman Yadu Kadam and Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
N Ravindranath Kamath And Sri Subramanyeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
SIVA RAMA KRISHNA And MR.SASI NARKIS BABU V & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
Raufuddin Kacheriwalay & Others And State of Karnataka & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
Malathy S B & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
Nova Medical Centers Pvt Ltd And Sowmya & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
Girinath B And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
Vinayak Metrani And Gadigevva @ Neelavva & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
Krishnaprasad A AND L Doreswamy. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Shashikala & Others And Laxman Yadu Kadam and Others
Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1832 OF 2005
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
The Karnataka High Court has said the wife of a plaintiff, even in the absence of power of attorney issued to her, is competent enough to depose on behalf of the original plaintiff in a civil suit.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda, sitting at Dharwad, recently dismissed an appeal filed by Shashikala and others challenging an order passed by the First appellate court which reversed the trial court order dismissing the suit filed by Laxman Yadu Kadam, seeking a declaration of right over the disputed property and for restraining the defendants from disturbing the actual possession and lawful wahivat of the plaintiffs.
Case Title: N Ravindranath Kamath And Sri Subramanyeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3791 OF 2021 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Senior Advocate N Ravindranath Kamath, challenging the 'coercive' loan recovery proceedings instituted against him under the SARFAESI Act by the Sri Subramanyeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited for being a chronic loan defaulter.
Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “A borrower is a borrower, whether he is a practising lawyer or a sitting Judge. Loan laws do not provide for favourable treatment to them differential qua other borrowers, when they become chronic defaulters. An argument to the contrary offends equality/parity in matters of loan recovery and therefore, cannot be countenanced.”
Case Title: SIVA RAMA KRISHNA And MR.SASI NARKIS BABU V & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1985 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against 27-year-old, who is accused of leaking the data of the Light Combat Aircraft developed under the Tejas programme by Aeronautical Development Agency, on the dark web for enriching himself.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Siva Rama Krishna Chennuboina seeking to quash proceedings initiated in 2021 against him under sections 66, 66(F), 84(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Section 380 of the IPC.
Haj | Chairman's Tenure Cannot Be Extended Beyond Tenure Of Committee: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Raufuddin Kacheriwalay & Others And State of Karnataka & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.648 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Chairman and Members of the State Haj Committee to extend the tenure of the Chairman and the Committee, beyond three years from the date of election, as the appointment of the Chairman was notified at a belated stage, post directions from the High Court.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the petition filed by Raufuddin Kacheriwalay and others and said, "The office of Chairman ordinarily has a prescribed tenure and such tenure begins from the day one of the Committee regardless of its incumbency. Section 21(1) mandates the government to convene the maiden meeting of the Committee within 45 days of its formation for electing one of its members as the Chairman. If delay is brooked in conducting such a meeting that does not elongate the tenure of the electee as the Chairman. In other words, the tenure of the Chairman is coterminous with that of his membership and once he ceases to be a member by resignation, removal or expiry of his membership, his Chairmanship also stands determined."
Case Title: Malathy S B & Others AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 11745/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against three employees of Lifestyle International Private Limited, accused of teasing their colleague on his sexual orientation, which is alleged to have caused him to commit suicide.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Malathy S B, Deputy General Manager in Marketing; Kumar Suraj, Vice-President in Human Resources and Nitish Kumar, Assistant Manager in Marketing, who are charged under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Nova Medical Centers Pvt Ltd And Sowmya & ANR
Case No: RFA 937/2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a trial court order dismissing a suit filed by Nova Medical Centers Pvt Ltd. on the premise that the dispute is arbitrable. Court noted that the defendant had failed to raise objection as to jurisdiction of Civil Court.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde observed,“It is a well-settled principle of law that the objection to entertain the suit based on the arbitration Clause is to be raised before the Court at the first appearance and not later.”
"Fading Away Of Intimacy" After 6 Yrs Of Consensual Sex Not Rape: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Girinath B And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6863 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.6485 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
“Fading away of the intimacy after six years of consensual acts of sexual intercourse cannot mean that it would become ingredients of Section 375 [Rape] of the IPC,” the Karnataka High Court observed recently.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna thus quashed a rape case registered by a woman against her live-in partner whom she had befriended on Facebook. It added, “They were consensual acts from day one and consensual acts till 27-12-2019. The period is six long years. Therefore, it cannot but be construed that it would not be a rape for it to become punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. If further proceedings are permitted to continue as observed hereinabove, it would run foul of a plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court on the issue.”
Case Title: Vinayak Metrani And Gadigevva @ Neelavva & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106032 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, has held that the purchaser of an undivided interest, who has no locus in a partition suit, has no say at the stage of preliminary decree. The Court was adjudicating a writ petition, wherein the purchaser of an undivided interest had challenged the order of Civil Court passed in a partition suit allowing amendment to the same.
The bench comprising of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed, “It is quite strange to know that petitioner who is purchaser of undivided interest who has no locus in a partition suit has ventured in challenging the order passed on amendment application. While drawing a preliminary decree, a stranger-purchaser has no say in the suit. Merely because, he is impleaded in the suit, will not give a right to him to dictate as to how the suit has to be proceeded with. His rights, if any, in an undivided interest has to be worked out in final decree proceedings.”
Case Title: Krishnaprasad A AND L Doreswamy
Case No: HOUSE RENT REV. PETITION NO.10/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
The Karnataka High Court recently reiterated that the legal rights of parties become established as of the date the legal action is initiated, such as filing a suit and that subsequent events that occur after the initiation of legal proceedings do not affect the jurisdiction of the court.
Justice H P Sandesh added that events such as the tenant approaching the Rent Controller to fix a fair rent, cannot retroactively create rights that affect the court's jurisdiction. “it is well settled principle that right of parties crystallizes to the date of institution of the suit...the date of filing of the petition is the relevant date to consider the jurisdiction and not subsequent any conduct will not oust the jurisdiction."