Citation 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 501 to 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 512
Nominal Index:
K Raja AND V Prabhakar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 501
Axis Bank Ltd AND Assistant Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 502
UnIon of India AND A Mohan & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 503
A J James AND Karnataka State Law University & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 504
Mohammed Aamir Raza AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 505.
Ananda Reddy AND Radhamma & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 506
Ejas PP AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 507
Indiramma & Others AND HAMPAMMA and others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 508
L S Tejasvi Surya AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 509
Basangouda Patil (Yatnal) And State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 510
Darshan v. State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 511
N. Rajgopal Hebbar vs. Mrs. Padmavathi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 512
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: K Raja AND V Prabhakar
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7207 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 501
The Karnataka High Court has held that the procedure of affixing a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the housein which the defendant ordinarily resides under Order V Rule 17 CPC, if he is not available to receive it, is a mandatory procedure and not a directory procedure.
Justice H P Sandesh held thus while allowing an appeal filed by one K Raja and set aside the decree passed by the trial court in a suit filed for recovery of money by V Prabhakar, after placing the appellant ex-parte. For context the provision pertains to the procedure to be followed when the defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found.
Case Title Axis Bank Ltd AND Assistant Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.52158 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 502
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan made under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cancelling the gift deed executed by an aged father in favour of his children.
The order came to be passed on the petition filed by a Bank from whom the children had taken a loan by mortgaging the property received as gift, and subsequently defaulted in repayment.
Justice M G S Kamal said, “This Court under the peculiar facts situation of the case, is of the considered view that the petitioner-bank is entitled to maintain the writ petition, more so when it is required to recover the loan amount advanced by it in the larger public interest.”
Case Title: UnIon of India AND A Mohan & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2556/2011
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 503
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order of the Railway Tribunal granting compensation to the claimants of a deceased passenger who had fallen from the train after mistakenly travelling beyond his destination station.
Justice H P Sandesh dismissed an appeal filed by South Western Railways, challenging the order dated December 28, 2010, granting compensation of Rs 4 lakh along with interest to A Mohan.
He said, "The deceased might have fallen while trying to get down and in that process he could have received injuries, which the fact is in line with the statement of witnesses and also the post mortem report. The fact that the deceased was travelling in the train is not in dispute, but only mistakenly he traveled beyond destiny and also the Apex Court in the Prabhakaran's case also held that principles of strict liability applies, the defendant has to pay damages for injury caused to the plaintiff, even though the defendant may not have been at any fault"
Case Title: A J James AND Karnataka State Law University & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.257 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 504
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a Law student challenging an order of the single judge which rejected his petition questioning the re-valuation standards adopted by the Karnataka State Law University.
In doing so the court underscored that in absence of any provision under the University's regulations which provide for revaluation beyond the process already undertaken, the University cannot be directed to conduct revaluation at the student's instance.
Case Title: Mohammed Aamir Raza AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12392 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 505.
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash case registered against founder trustee of a Madarasa who did not report to the police about the alleged incident of unnatural sexual assault committed by two Madarasa teachers on a minor boy.
The court observed that the offences alleged against the accused was "so horrendous" that the petitioner should have reported it immediately when it came to his knowledge adding that he "failed" to report the alleged offence.
Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Mohammed Aamir Raza who is the trustee of Manik Mastan Madarasa and charged for offences punishable under Sections 17(Punishment for abetment) and 21 (Punishment for failure to report or record a case) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Ananda Reddy AND Radhamma & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8803/2013
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 506
The Karnataka High Court has set aside one month's civil imprisonment term imposed on a cancer patient for the willful disobedience of the Court, instead it directed him to pay Rs 3 lakh fine.
A single judge, Justice H P Sandesh partly allowed the appeal filed by Reddy and modified the trial court order. It said, “since the appellant is suffering from cancer and taking note of mental agony on the plaintiffs, it is appropriate to award a fine of Rs.3 lakhs instead of punishment for the willful disobedience of the Court order.”
Case Title: Ejas PP AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12157 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 507
The Karnataka High Court quashed a rape case registered by a woman against her fiance–who had absconded post their engagement after he was booked in a case under the NDPS Act–noting that the complainant's statement that she did not want to pursue the case further.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and quashed the case registered against him under Sections 354(A)(Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment), 376(rape), 493 (Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage) of the Indian Penal Code.
The court after going through the records said, "After the registration of the crime in Crime No.191/2021, it transpires that the jurisdictional Police at Andhra Pradesh filed a 'B report' in the case that was registered in Crime No.87/2021.The realization dawned on both of them that they have to get married and they got married after filing of the 'B report' as aforesaid. By then, the complainant had registered the crime...In these circumstances where the offences are not even met to its remotest sense, permitting the husband now to undergo trial would leave the child and complainant in the lurch. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance of marriage between the petitioner and the complainant, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the crime against the petitioner.”
Case Title: Indiramma & Others AND HAMPAMMA and others.
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100008 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 508
The Karnataka High Court has suggested for use of technology in documenting Wills by suitably amending the process of registration and facilitating video recording of the statement of the testator and attesting witnesses.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, “There is a need to embrace the technology to ensure that there is an unambiguous, credible, and clinching record relating to proof of execution of documents, more particularly the documents such as Will where the author of the instrument will not be available to admit or prove its execution when its execution is disputed.”
Case Title: L S Tejasvi Surya AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 12667 of 2024
Citation no: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 509
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (December 12) quashed a case registered against BJP Member of Parliament Tejasvi Surya for allegedly spreading 'fake news' regarding the suicide of a farmer in Haveri district.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while dictating the order said, "Allowed quashed". The court had reserved its order on December 5 after hearing the parties. During the hearing the senior counsel appearing for Surya said that the allegation is that he has made certain tweets based on certain news items. "Even if it is taken as true there is no ingredient of Section 353 (BNS) made out. As a matter of fact he has deleted the tweet. Criminal proceedings against this petitioner will not survive," he said. He further said that the next day the father of the deceased had also given an interview to the media.
Case Title: Basangouda Patil (Yatnal) And State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 10076/2024
Citation no: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 510
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (December 12) quashed an FIR registered against BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal for making allegedly derogatory remarks against Congress Leader and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said, "Allowed quashed". The court had reserved it order after hearing the parties on November 28.
Patil had told the court that he merely responded to certain statements made by Gandhi when the Congress MP went overseas. Further, no ingredients of the alleged offences registered against him in the FIR are made out and if the Congress leader is "so aggrieved", he may file a defamation complaint which the BJP leader said he will defend.
Case Title: Darshan v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 11096/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 511
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (December 13) granted bail to actor Darshan, Pavitra Gowda and other co accused in Renukaswamy Murder Case.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while pronouncing the order said, "Petitions allowed". A detailed copy of the order is awaited. The court had reserved its verdict earlier this week after hearing detailed arguments from all the parties.
Accused Darshan, Pavitra, Anu Kumar, Lakshman M, V Vinay, Jagadeesh, Pradoosh S Rao and Nagaraju R had moved the high court seeking bail after the sessions court had rejected it. Earlier, the court had granted bail to Keshavamurthy. During the hearing the high court released Darshan on interim medical bail to undergo surgery.
Case Title: Mr. N. Rajgopal Hebbar vs. Mrs. Padmavathi & Ors.
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5460/2016 (AA) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5461/2016 (AA) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5462/2016 (AA) IN M.F.A.NO.5462/2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 512
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh has reiterated that when a reasoned order has been passed by the Arbitrator, the same cannot be interfered with. In the case, the court found that the District Court had properly considered sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, as well as relevant provisions of the Sale of Goods Act in modifying the arbitral award. The court, therefore, refused to interfere with the award under section 37(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.