Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 21 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 34Nominal Index:Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath AND Ganesha & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 21Sharadha L Dodmani AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 22Shrishail AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 23M/s Thakur Industries AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 24Koshy Varghese AND Union of...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 21 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
Nominal Index:
Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath AND Ganesha & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
Sharadha L Dodmani AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
Shrishail AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
M/s Thakur Industries AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
Koshy Varghese AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
Mudiyappa AND Basavaraj @ Basappa & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
Shrikant Bhat AND The State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
Harish K B AND Ponnamma & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
Sadatulla Syed AND National Investigation Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
Ramesh Timmanna Umarani AND The Sub-Registrar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
Nanjundappa & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 32
Vihaan Peethambar AND Manipal University. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
Dr Rajini C K AND The State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath AND Ganesha & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal No 543 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
The Karnataka High Court has said that Grama Panchayat cannot dismiss an employee only if a criminal case is registered against him. Dismissal from service can be ordered only after holding an enquiry, it added.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the appeal filed by Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath challenginging a Single Judge's order whereby one Ganesha's dismissal from service was set aside with a direction to reinstate him in the position forthwith. The court said, “In a society like ours, job more often than not happens to be the predominant source of livelihood and therefore snatching away a job (in public employment), like the one that has happened in the case at hand, virtually amounts to taking away the means of livelihood of the employee. That offends the pith & substance of fundamental right to life & liberty constitutionally guaranteed under Article 21.”
Case Title: Sharadha L Dodmani AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 47144 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
The Karnataka High Court has said that in an intra-court appeal, the division bench of the high court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot remit a matter back to the single judge bench if it has been decided on merits. A single judge bench is not a court subordinate to the Division Bench of the high court, it added.
Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation when a service dispute already decided by him on merits was once again placed before the single bench, after the Division bench allowed the appeal against the order and restored the file to the single bench.
Case Title: Shrishail AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Appeal No 200241 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
The Karnataka High Court recently issued guidelines to be followed by trial courts and special courts prescribing certain preliminary enquiry be made with the accused when produced for the first time in a criminal case in order to ascertain if the accused is a juvenile.
A single judge bench of Justice C M Joshi said, “There is no doubt that a Magistrate or Special Court has to make certain preliminary enquiry with the accused when produced for the first time in a criminal case during the crime stage. These enquiries are not mere formalities but they have a vital importance in ascertaining an accused to be a juvenile, mentally fit and the requirements of law are fulfilled. A child, whether an offender or not, is a child and has to be treated as a child.”
Forest Way Pass Serves Laudable Purpose, Protects Forests From Possible Damage/Loss Due To Transporation Of Minerals: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Thakur Industries AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 22698 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea questioning the direction upon the petitioner to obtain a forest transit pass from the Deputy Conservator of Forest to transport iron ore minerals from the railway sliding site to the factory premises.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the plea filed by M/s Thakur Industries and upheld the requirement of Forest Way Pass.It observed, “It serves a laudable purpose viz., protecting the forests from the possible damage/loss by the Agencies that transport the mineral concerned.”
Banks Cannot Withhold Passport Or OCI Card As Security In Lieu Of Loan Closure: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Koshy Varghese AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 5628 of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
The Karnataka High Court has held that banks cannot withhold the passport of an accused even if it is surrendered to it voluntarily by the accused, who is charged for the offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Koshy Varghese and said, “The action of the Bank in retaining the British passport of the petitioner and the Overseas Citizen of India Card is held to be illegal.”
Case Title: Mudiyappa AND Basavaraj @ Basappa & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 107291 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
The Karnataka High Court has held that when an election nomination form is filed by any candidate, he/she has to disclose all criminal proceedings filed against them, irrespective of whether the candidate had been acquitted or not, whether the proceedings have been quashed or not.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition filed by one Mudiyappa who had challenged the trial court order setting aside his election to the Bevoor Gram Panchayat for failure to disclose an acquittal.
Case Title: Shrikant Bhat AND The State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 101560 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed prosecution initiated under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act against a former senior sub-registrar who was booked after an anonymous complaint was received about alleged irregularities in the registrar's office.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Shrikant Bhat and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 7(a), 7A, 12 and 13(2) of the Act.
Case Title: Harish K B AND Ponnamma & ANR
Case No: Civil Revision Petition No 1344 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to enhance a fine of Rs 1,000, imposed by a trial Court on a 72-year-old lady, in a case over the death of eight stray puppies in 2016.
A single judge bench of Justice J M Khazi dismissed the plea filed by Harish K B, an Honorary Animal Welfare Officer, who had lodged a complaint against the accused Pionnamma and sought to challenge the conviction order dated 06.08.2019.
Case Title: Sadatulla Syed AND National Investigation Agency.
Case No: Writ Petition No 15674 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
The Karnataka High Court has said that where a surety produced original sale deed of property to satisfy the trial court that he is a solvent surety, the trial court has to return the document after obtaining his bond.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil allowed the petition filed by Sadatulla Syed who stood surety for an accused. It said, “In this case after the original of the sale deed was produced, the court ordered to keep it in safe custody. In our opinion, the court should have returned the original sale deed to the surety after obtaining his bond. Once the surety wants the sale deed to be returned, the court must return it.”
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 7082 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
The Karnataka High Court while refusing to set aside an order of the trial court granting two-days custody of a minor child to his father observed, “When the father and the mother, both are alive, depriving a child of its entitlement to have the love and affection of its parents i.e. both father and the mother would not be a justice that is being done to the child.”
A division bench Justice Dr H.B.Prabhakara Sastry and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar dismissed the appeal filed by mother challenging trial court order granting custody of the toddler to her father from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on every Saturdays and Sundays.
Case Title: Ramesh Timmanna Umarani AND The Sub-Registrar
Case No: Writ Petition No 106890 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Inspector General of Registration to verify the authenticity of the Aadhar card and identity of the person who produces it for registering any document and only thereafter proceed with the registration of a document.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that in terms of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, any service provider could register with UIDAI and obtain a sanction to verify the identity on the basis of OTP generated on the phone number of the holder of the Aadhar card.
Grant Of Land To Grow Trees Cannot Be Extended To Mean Title In Granted Land: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Nanjundappa & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal No 1174 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 32
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that if the land is granted only to grow trees, it cannot be treated as the grant of land itself.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit while dismissing an appeal against a single bench order refusing to declare that the title in the land belongs to the appellant said,
“In the case of Grant, ordinarily title to the land vests in the Grantee, at times subject to certain conditions violation of which may result into result into rescinding of the Grant. However, the grant of only a right to grow trees on the land cannot be treated as the grant of land itself.”
Case Title: Vihaan Peethambar AND Manipal University.
Case No: Writ Petition No 12606 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
The Karnataka High Court has observed that Universities/Educational Institutions should process applications for change of name and gender made by transgender persons in degree certificates upon receipt of requests instead of driving all applicants to court for directions.
A single judge bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani issued the direction after it was informed there are innumerable such instances awaiting consideration before the Universities/Educational Institutions in the state. It held: It is observed that it would be appropriate for said authorities to process applications for change of name and gender upon receipt of requests keeping in mind ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in NALSA's case and this court in Christina Lobo's case, instead of driving all applicants to Court for securing directions.”
Case Title: Dr Rajini C K AND The State of Karnataka & Others.
Case No: Writ Petition No 24070 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) after holding that it illegally allotted a reserved seat in the MD Radio Diagnosis course, in favour of one Dr. Sunil Kumar H B.
A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and T G Shivashankare Gowda allowed the plea filed by Dr. Rajini C K, set aside the seat allotted to Dr Kumar and directed the Authority to allot the MD Radio Diagnosis seat in favour of the petitioner and issue necessary orders in that behalf.
Case Title: Anurag Bagaria Versus The Income Tax Department
Case No.: Criminal Petition No.909 Of 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act for wilful tax evasion.
The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has observed that the assessees filed revised returns, waiving their claim for short-term capital loss and long-term capital gains, and also paid taxes, the moment the search was conducted and the assessment proceedings commenced.