Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 243 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 54Nominal Index:Jithendra Kumar N M AND T Gururaj. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 243Amit Chougule AND Megha. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 244K B Lokesh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 245V.S.S VISHNU SENA SANGHATANE & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 246Shany Jose AND The Union of India...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 243 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 54
Nominal Index:
Jithendra Kumar N M AND T Gururaj. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 243
Amit Chougule AND Megha. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 244
K B Lokesh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 245
V.S.S VISHNU SENA SANGHATANE & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 246
Shany Jose AND The Union of India & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 247
Vivek Jain AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 248
Rasheedabanu Mohammed Goush Kwati & ANR AND Ashpakaahamad Abdulasab Mulla & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 249
Neetha G AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 250
Vijaya Bank AND M Ravindra Shetty. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 251
Palaniswamy Veeraraja & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 252
Annegowda AND State By Yeshvanthapura Police Station & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 253
H Channaiah Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 254
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Jithendra Kumar N M AND T Gururaj
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2158/2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 243
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is presumption in favour of the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when in the reply notice issued by the accused to the complainant the transaction of availment of loan is admitted again calling upon the complainant to prove the transaction does not arise at all.
A single-judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar reversed the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the trial court acquitting accused T Gururaj who was charged with the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
Case Title: Amit Chougule AND Megha
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.102123 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 244
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a husband questioning the interim maintenance granted to the estranged and minor child by the trial court.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed the contention of the husband that he is unemployed as he has lost his job. He is not in a position to pay maintenance as he has no independent source of income.
The court said “If the petitioner has deserted the wife irrespective of his financial status, he is bound to maintain his wife and minor children. The petitioner under the garb that he has lost his employment, cannot shy away from his responsibility of maintaining the wife and minor daughter.”
Case Title: K B Lokesh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1267 OF 2014.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 245
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of 1131 licensed surveyors in the Department of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, by directing the State government to settle their claims and pay to them the remuneration in terms of Government Order dated 12.08.2008, after ascertaining the additional work done by them.
As per the government order it was decided to pay Rs.500 for Tatkaal Phodi Work and enhancement of Pre-Mutation Sketch Fee from Rs.403 to Rs.600. This Order was issued as a matter of Government Policy for catering to the needs of agriculturists, subject to them paying the prescribed fees for tapping the services of the appellants.
Construction Of Memorial For Film Actor Cannot Be Subject Matter Of PIL: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: V.S.S VISHNU SENA SANGHATANE & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 29408/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 246
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the state government to grant 10 guntas of land for construction of a memorial for late Kannada film actor Dr Vishnuvardhan, on the land where he has been cremated in 2009.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind said, “Construction of memorial of a film star cannot become subject matter of public interest litigation. It is difficult to visualise as to what public interest will be achieved by the petitioner insisting for grant of land for the said purpose.”
Case Title: Shany Jose AND The Union of India & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8969 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 247
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Regional Passport officer to consider and pass necessary orders within four weeks on the representation to be made by a qualified nurse for return of her passport, which came to be seized as she had travelled from Yemen in violation of a 2017 government notification issued citing national security concerns amid India's strained relationship with the country.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed a petition filed by one Shany Jose who had approached the court seeking a direction for release of her passport, which was seized and withheld by the respondents in terms of the seizure memo dated 20-08-2023.
Case Title: Vivek Jain AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.14704 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 248
The Karnataka High Court has held that a gift deed executed by a senior citizen in favour of his son releasing his property who subsequently sells it, cannot be cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner of Senior Citizen Tribunal, if there is no condition mentioned in the gift deed of maintaining the father (donor).
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Vivek Jain who had purchased the property from CS Harsha, who was gifted the property by his father Srinivas in the year 2019.
Case Tile: Rasheedabanu Mohammed Goush Kwati & ANR AND Ashpakaahamad Abdulasab Mulla & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 100847 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 249
The Karnataka High Court has held that even if the property which is the subject matter of the agreement to sell is the ancestral property, non-alienating members of a joint family have no locus to contest the suit for specific performance.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum sitting at Dharwad bench dismissed the petition filed by Rasheedabanu Mohammed Goush Kwati and another challenging the order of the trial court dismissing their application seeking impleadment.
Case Title: Neetha G AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.11827 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 250
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a petition filed by a wife seeking parole leave for her husband who is a life convict on the ground that she is deprived of her right of progeny.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition of the woman in part and granted general parole for a period of 30 days to the convict which would become operational from 05.06.2024 to 04.07.2024.
Case Title: Vijaya Bank AND M Ravindra Shetty
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 7791 OF 2003
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 251
The Karnataka High Court, while reversing an order of the Single bench directing reinstatement of a delinquent bank employee who was dismissed from service for lending money to fictitious persons without duly securing repayment of loans, has observed that the opinion given by the Central Vigilance Commission to the disciplinary authority need not be shared with the employee.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by Vijaya Bank and agreed with its contention that no error has been committed by the management in taking the opinion of Central Vigilance Officer inasmuch as such a course is internalised vide Regulation 19 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981.
It said, “The CVC is constituted under Section 3 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and it has statutory duties. One such duty is to advice the banks in matters of disciplinary proceedings. We do not subscribe to the views of learned Single Judge that the vigilance opinion should always be shared with the delinquent employee and that his say should be had on that. The object of consulting the Vigilance Commission is not in the interest of the employee but in the larger interest of the banking institution. There is no scope for assuming the contra position, in the absence of any such indication in the Regulations. In taking this view, we are mindful of the presumption that the principles of natural justice are not ordinarily excluded.”
Case Title: Palaniswamy Veeraraja & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4624 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 252
The Karnataka High Court has held that a private complaint filed before a court in Bengaluru complaining about forged documents being submitted by a party before a foreign court is maintainable.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed a petition filed by Palaniswamy Veeraraja and others seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them based upon the private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It said, “The documents were created by the accused who were in Bangalore and running the company at Bangalore. Therefore, the Bangalore Police has jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file the charge sheet.”
Case Title: Annegowda AND State By Yeshvanthapura Police Station & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9009 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 253
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Magistrate court has the power to direct further investigation in a case and merely because the Magistrate did not given any notice to the accused while directing the police to further investigate the matter, that itself is not a ground to quash the order for further probe.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by Aneegowda, challenging the order of the Magistrate dated 26.3.2021 against the application filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C, permitting for further investigation in the case registered against the accused charged for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 420 of IPC.
Case Title: H Channaiah Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath And Ors
Case No.- WRIT PETITION NO.5016 OF 2024 (S-R)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 254
A single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum in the case of H Channaiah Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath And Ors has held that Leave encashment cannot be viewed as discretionary bounties but as legal rights enforceable under the Constitution of India