Nominal Index: M/s Divyajyothi Vidya Kendra And Karnataka Housing Board & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 394Rajiv & Others And State Bank of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 395Jayashree And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 396Rajasingh Takur @ T Raja Singh & Others And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 397Sudarshan Ramesh AND Union of India & Others. 2023...
Nominal Index:
M/s Divyajyothi Vidya Kendra And Karnataka Housing Board & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
Rajiv & Others And State Bank of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
Jayashree And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
Rajasingh Takur @ T Raja Singh & Others And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
Sudarshan Ramesh AND Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
T N Susheelamma & ANR AND Chirag Raghavendra & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
Sampanna Mutalik & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 400.
D K Shivakumar AND Central Bureau of Investigation. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
Aslam Pasha AND Chief Commissioner & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 402
Dr Nehal Bansal AND Central Bureau of Investigation. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 403
XYZ And ABC. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 404
Karnataka State Highways Improvement Project AND M/s. KMC - VDB (JV). 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: M/s Divyajyothi Vidya Kendra And Karnataka Housing Board & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 873 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
The Karnataka High Court has observed that where public property is allotted for a specified purpose and if that purpose remains unaccomplished in the prescribed time, the retention of such allotment by the allottee, militates against public interest.
A Division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Divyajyothi Vidya Kendra challenging a single judge bench order which had dismissed its petition questioning the order of cancellation of the allotment of the subject land. Further it had directed the Karnataka Housing Board to pass orders determining the quantum of forfeiture and refund of remaining amount to the appellant within a period of four weeks.
Case Title: Rajiv & Others And State Bank of India
Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6481 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.7203 OF 2022.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
The Karnataka High Court has held in a cheque dishonour case that the legal obligation to repay the amount associated with the cheques is not altered by changes in officeholders, and the burden of proof rests with the company or its officers to rebut the presumption of liability.
Justice M Nagaprasanna added that the chairman of a company or other officers who sign cheques remain liable under Section 139 of the NI Act unless they can present evidence to prove that the cheques were not issued for payment of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
Case Title: Jayashree And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102595 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
The Karnataka High Court has held that promotion to a government employee cannot be denied on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him wherein the chargesheet is not filed, or in cases where Articles of Charge are not issued, on the date of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) Meeting.
A division bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar and Justice G Basavaraja allowed the petition filed by Jayashree and set aside the order dated 30th March 2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench, whereby the application filed by the petitioner questioning the denial of promotion by the authorities, was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Case Title: Rajasingh Takur @ T Raja Singh & Others And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2576 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
The Karnataka High Court has held that without the necessary sanction under Section 196 of the CrPC, the proceedings under Section 153A of the IPC could not continue, thereby clarifying that the absence of sanction was a fundamental defect in the prosecution.
Justice M Nagaprasanna thus quashed the proceedings initiated against Telangana legislator Raja Singh Thakur and other accused for offences punishable under Sections 153A r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 25(1AA) of the Indian Arms Act.
Case Title: Sudarshan Ramesh AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17027 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
The Karnataka High Court has held that summoning of a person repeatedly under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, without probable cause or reasonable ground and only on the ground of suspicion alone is not in accordance with the principles of due causes and fairness.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar said, “Section 50 is a crucial provision and states that a person, who is being summoned for investigation must be provided with a written notice specifying the nature and the reasons for it. While the said provision does not explicitly use the term " Probable cause", it emphasises the importance of providing valid reasons and grounds for summoning an individual. The purpose of this provision is to protect the right of the person being summoned and ensure that investigation is not arbitrary.”
Case Title: T N Susheelamma & ANR AND Chirag Raghavendra & Others
Case No: R.S.A. NO.1090/2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
The Karnataka High Court has held that a mother of a pre-deceased son becomes a Class-I heir in the son’s share in the ancestral and joint family properties, even if her husband is alive and can claim a share in the property under the Hindu Succession Act.
Justice H P Sandesh allowed the appeal filed by TN Susheelamma who expired during the pendency of the proceedings and reversed the first appellate court order which held that the mother of the pre-deceased son—Santhosh, is not entitled to any share. “Once impleaded as party and she is also a Class-I heir of the deceased Santhosh, ought not to have answered the same as negative and she is also a necessary party to the said suit, since the deceased passed away leaving behind the mother, wife and son and they are the Class-I heirs of the deceased Hindu male member of the joint family and the original appellant herein is also entitled for a share in the property left by the deceased Santhosh as Class-I heir and the very approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous.”
Case Title: Sampanna Mutalik & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5952 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.5741 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION No.5788 OF 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 400.
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings pending under several provisions of the Wildlife (Protections) Act and the IPC against State's Horticulture minister S.S. Mallikarjun, his brother S S Ganesh and two others.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed their plea observing that there were glaring irregularities in the procedure adopted in the case. “Finding no procedure or the procedure completely topsyturvy in the cases at hand would mean that the entire proceedings need to be obliterated as glaring procedure aberrations noticed cannot be countenanced and further proceedings cannot be permitted to continue by a fiat of this Court as they are all incurable illegalities cutting at the root of the matter and become an abuse of the process of the law.”
Case Title: D K Shivakumar AND Central Bureau of Investigation
Case No: Writ Petition No 15251 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
The Karnataka High Court today dismissed Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar's plea to quash CBI's disproportionate assets case against him under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Single bench of Justice K Natarajan also vacated interim stay on CBI probe and ordered the central agency to complete its investigation and file the final report within 3 months.
The Income Tax department had carried out a raid in August 2017 at various premises of Shivakumar in New Delhi and other places and they collected Rs.8,59,69,100. It is alleged that Rs.41.00 lakhs was recovered from his premises.
Karnataka High Court Directs BBMP To Digitize Old Property Records
Case Title: Aslam Pasha AND Chief Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 21775 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 402
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Chief Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), to initiate digitization of all the old property records, so that the same is available electronically/digitally tagged.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj had directed the Chief Commissioner of BBMP to co-ordinate with the Principal Secretary, e-Governance Department to formulate a mechanism for making available the plan sanctions, katha certificates, tax paid receipts, Self-Assessment forms etc., as regards any particular property to all officers of the corporation who are authorized to take penal action under the Act, by granting them user credentials in terms of user name and password so that the same is not available to any third parties.
Case Title: Dr Nehal Bansal AND Central Bureau of Investigation
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5341 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 403
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated by the CBI against a doctor facing allegations of malpractice in the entrance test conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) for admission to a postgraduate medical course in 2006.
Justice M Nagaprasanna found that the petitioner's discharge was not warranted based on some witness statements and a trial was needed for the petitioner to challenge these statements.“With the statements of CWs-55, 56 and the documents it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for a discharge from the array of accused. Polygraph tests may be the foundation. But, the evidence is on the basis of documents and statements as well. Therefore, these statements will have to be put to test in a trial in which it is for the petitioner to come out clean.”
Case Title: XYZ And ABC
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 104251 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 404
The Karnataka High Court has dissolved the marriage between a couple, as the wife did not join the company of the husband even after the trial court passed an order for restitution of conjugal on an application filed by the husband.
A division bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar and Justice G Basavaraja allowed the appeal filed by the husband and set aside the order of the trial court rejecting his petition seeking divorce on grounds of desertion.
Case Title: Karnataka State Highways Improvement Project AND M/s. KMC - VDB (JV)
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29440 OF 2019
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
The Karnataka High Court has held that an arbitral award which does not deal with either movable property or immovable property, but awards damages payable to the award holder, does not attract stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
Justice R Nataraj thus dismissed a petition challenging an order of the trial court rejecting its application seeking to impound the award of the arbitrator for non-payment of stamp duty by the respondent. "When the award of the arbitrator deals with a movable property or immovable property, by virtue of the charging clause contained in Article 11 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, such awards are bound to suffer stamp duty before it is brought for execution. In the case on hand, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the award does not deal with either movable property or immovable property, but it awarded liquidated damages payable to the respondent, arising out of a construction contract. Therefore, the award does not attract stamp duty."