Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 411 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 419Nominal Index:Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital And Dr Sanjay Murgod. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 411Dr Siddaiah S AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 412Hanamantraya AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 413Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited AND S Kiran. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 414Ditul Mehta &...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 411 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
Nominal Index:
Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital And Dr Sanjay Murgod. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 411
Dr Siddaiah S AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 412
Hanamantraya AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 413
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited AND S Kiran. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 414
Ditul Mehta & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 415
CHAMARAJPET NAGARIKAR OKKUTA ® AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 416
Ramesh B S AND Navaneetha. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
D Venkatesh AND The Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
Srinivas Sagar B & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital And Dr Sanjay Murgod
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 411
The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act, which pertains to the Retrenchment of Employees, is applicable to unaided educational institutions run by the linguistic minority institution.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit added that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Dentists Act, 1948 are poles apart and could not be read into each other. "The provisions of 1948 Act in essence intend to regulate the standard of professional education whereas, the provisions of Sections 97 & 98 of the 1983 Act in substance intend to secure the service conditions of employees of Educational Institutions. Thus, they are poles apart. By no stretch of imagination, one can be read into the other."
Case Title: Dr Siddaiah S AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7580 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 412
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the former secretary of Taralabalu Kendra, for possessing a pistol furnishing the address of the Kendra and keeping the pistol in the premises of the Kendra, which is a religious institution.
Justice K Natarajan pointed out that the petitioner's ignorance of the law was not a valid excuse, and the possession of a pistol was indeed prohibited under the Act. "If at all the petitioner claims he is ignorance of Section 3 and 4 of the said Act, that he has obtained the license from the police and used it, but 'the ignorance of law is not an excuse' to the petitioner and the petitioner already committed the offence under Section 3 (c), 4 of which is punishable under Section 7 of the Act."
Case Title: Hanamantraya AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200255 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 413
The Karnataka High Court has said that merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note, one cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that he is an offender under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, the contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances have to be examined in a full fledged investigation.
A single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik K, sitting at Kalaburagi bench dismissed the petition filed by Hanamantraya, who named in the suicide note of deceased Basavaraj who committed suicide by hanging. The bench said, “Generally, the person who commit suicide used to/liked to leave a suicide note naming certain persons as responsible for his committing suicide. Merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note, one cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that, he is an offender under Section 306 of IPC. The contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances have to be examined to find out whether it is abetment within the meaning of Section 306 of IPC read with Section 107 of IPC. But, in order to ascertain this factual aspect, a full fledged investigation is required as well as a trial to be held.”
Case Title: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited AND S Kiran.
Case NO: WA 217/2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 414
The Karnataka High Court on Monday upheld an order of a Single Judge which directed the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) to reinstate an employee who was dismissed from service as he remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period on account of his suffering from mental depression.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit orally remarked, “Nobody will go away from the job these days. You are a state entity and you have to be very fair. The single judge bench order is by giving proper reasoning."
Case Title: Ditul Mehta & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2450 OF 2022 CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11718 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 415
The Karnataka High Court has held that the City Crime Branch can investigate a case registered with the city police station and filing of charge sheet on completion of investigation by the CCB police amounts to a final report under Section 173(2) of CrPC.
Justice K Natarajan thus upheld a government notification dated 25-02-2021, appointing CCB police officers and conferring on them power to exercise power of a Station House Officer of all police stations in Bangalore City. “Once the power of investigation is exercised by the Police officer as Superior of a Police station, in view of deputing the police in the CCB, they can exercise all the powers and functions of a superior investigation officer of police station and they have power to file charge sheet or final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. in view of Section 36 of Cr.P.C.”
High Court Permits Karnataka Rajyotsava Function To Be Held At Idgah Maidan
Case Title: CHAMARAJPET NAGARIKAR OKKUTA ® AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No. 24071 of 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 416
The Karnataka High Court has granted permission to Chamarajpet Nagarikar Okkuta to hold the Karnataka Rajyotsava function from November 1 to November 3 at Chamarajpet playground (Idgah Maidan ground).
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit disposed of the petition filed by the organisation observing; "The petitioner organisation must take care by issuing necessary instructions to its members not to indulge in any act whereby the communal harmony or law and order in the city is put to stake.”
Case Title: Ramesh B S AND Navaneetha
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1326 OF 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
The Karnataka High Court has held that compensation under section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be awarded only when Domestic Violence is established.
It set aside the order of Sessions Court partly allowing the appeal filed by the wife by awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.4,00,000 to her on ground that she is unable to maintain herself.
The bench said, “Under Section 22 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, compensation can be awarded only if Domestic Violence is proved and in fact, in the instant case, after getting converted into Christianity the revision petitioner/wife has lost all the rights vested in her. Under these circumstances, the Appellate Court has committed an error in awarding compensation and the compensation awarded that tune of Rs.4,00,000/- which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.”
Wife Cannot Seek Withdrawal Of Resignation Tendered By Husband To Employer: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: D Venkatesh AND The Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Others
Casse No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1312 OF 2022
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
The Karnataka High Court has said that a wife cannot seek withdrawal of resignation submitted by her husband to his employer.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit thus dismissed the appeal calling in question a Single Judge’s order whereby the resolution passed by the employer, permitting the husband to withdraw his resignation, was set at naught.
The bench said, “Admittedly, it is the spouse of the employee who had sought for the withdrawal of resignation of the employee and that too after it was duly accepted by passing the Resolution on 30.11.2021. No Rule or Ruling is brought to our notice which recognizes such a right in the spouse of an employee. Such an idea is alien to Service Law.”
Case Title: Srinivas Sagar B & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7931 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7825 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
The Karnataka High Court has held that an offence under Sections 494, 495 and 496 of the IPC, which pertain to a spouse marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife can be pursued against the erring spouse. However, other members of the family or members of the extended family of the erring spouse, cannot be prosecuted for the offence.
Justice R Nataraj said, “A perusal of Sections 494, 495 and 496 of IPC makes it clear that those offences can be pursued by a spouse against an erring spouse and the other members of the family or members of the extended family cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 or 496 of IPC. Therefore, pursuing the case against the other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 and 496 of IPC is unwarranted.”