Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: March 25 - March 31, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 142 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156

Nominal Index:

N M Suresh AND Sudeep S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 142

Amith M Jain AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 143

Althaf Ahamed AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 144

THIMMAPPA AND THE STATE BY HOLALKERE POLICE. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 145

Veeranna G Tigadi AND High Court of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 146

Dr. Sridhara S AND The Director Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 147

Thimmappa & Others AND Bharathi. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 148

Ravi Kumar & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Authority & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 149

Ramanjaneyulu & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 150

Dr Yogananda A AND The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 151

Pooja AND Siddanna & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 152

Yathish M G AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 153

M/S. Mvr Constructions Vs M/S. V.M.R Constructions And Others.2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 154

M/s Bellary Nirmithi Kendra v. M/s Capital Metal Industries, Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 155

M/S Durga Projects Inc Vs Sri. B.G. Babu Reddy. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156

Judgments/ Orders

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Kannada Actor Sudeep's Defamation Complaint Against NM Suresh

Case Title: N M Suresh AND Sudeep S

Case No: Writ Petition 3641 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 142

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a defamation complaint filed by Kannada Actor Sudeep S against N M Suresh who is the office bearer of the Kannada Film Producers Association and Secretary of the Film Chamber of Commerce for allegedly making false acquisitions against Sudeep.

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition filed by Suresh seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the trial court under sections 499 and 500 of IPC.

Only Authorised Person Responsible For Quality Control Of Fertiliser Products Can Be Prosecuted, Not Directors Of Company: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Amith M Jain AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6425 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 143

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal prosecution initiated against one Amith M Jain, Managing director of a company who was charged under sections 3 (1), 13 (2), 19 (b) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, read with Sections 3(2)(d) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajit Shetty said, “The material on record would go to show that the petitioner is only the Managing Director of the company and in view of the Government Order dated 14.02.2002, only persons who are responsible for production of quality control of the fertiliser products can be prosecuted.”

Disputed Property Rights Can't Be Dealt With In Writ Jurisdiction, Writ Courts Can Only Take Note Of Already Established Rights: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Althaf Ahamed AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WA 713/2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 144

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that contested property rights cannot be dealt with in writ jurisdiction. The writ court can at the best take notice of the property rights of the parties which are already established rights.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed an appeal filed by Althaf Ahamed, challenging an order of the single judge bench which refused to invalidate the gift deed executed in favour of his sisters by their mother.

Emotion Should Not Become An Influencing Factor To Impose Death Penalty: Karnataka High Court Reduces Sentence For Beheading Mother's Head

Case Title: THIMMAPPA AND THE STATE BY HOLALKERE POLICE

Case No: CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE NO.6 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1301 OF 2018

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 145

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the death penalty imposed on an accused for murdering his mother by beheading her, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and S Rachaiah partly allowed the appeal filed by accused Thimmappa challenging the conviction and death sentence imposed on him by the trial court under section 302 of the India Penal Code.

The bench said “If we take an analysis of the entire situation, we find that this is not a rarest of rare case though it is a fact that the incident was cruel and brutal. Emotion should not become an influencing factor to impose a death penalty. Degree of criminality matters much while imposing the death penalty.”

Karnataka HC Imposes Costs Of ₹10 Lakh On New Indian Express For Publishing Inquiry Report Against District Judge Which Had Been Rejected By Full Court

Case Title: Veeranna G Tigadi AND High Court of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14053 OF 2015

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 146

The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the owner of Express Publications (Mudhurai) Ltd, which publishes the New Indian Express newspaper for publishing a report indicating the findings of an inquiring Authority report conducted against a district judicial officer, even when the Administrative Committee, of the High Court had already resolved to not accept the Report of the inquiring Authority dated 30.05.2013.

A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda said: “I am therefore of the view that this would be an appropriate case to impose costs of Rs.10,00,000 on respondent No.13 (the owner of the Newspaper), payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

Superintendent In Medical Institution Cannot Hold Additional Charge Of Head Of Department: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr. Sridhara S AND The Director Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.4050 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 147

The Karnataka High Court has held that a Medical Superintendent of an Autonomous Medical Institution cannot be given an additional charge of Head of Department.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Dr. Sridhara S and quashed the official memorandum issued by the Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences appointing Dr. T.D. Thimmappa as an in-charge HOD as illegal and quashed the same.

Second Spouse Or Their Family Can't Be Prosecuted For Bigamy Under Section 494 IPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Thimmappa & Others AND Bharathi

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7517 OF 2017

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 148

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that it is only the husband or wife who marries for the second time during the subsistence of an earlier marriage and the life time of the earlier spouse, who can be prosecuted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj added that the second spouse or their parents can't be prosecuted under the provision.

Rights Of Adopted Children Of Citizens Can't Be Marooned: Karnataka HC Directs CARA To Consider Granting NOC For Child Adopted From Non-Hague Convention Country

Case Title: Ravi Kumar & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Authority & Others

Case No: Writ Petition 17967 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 149

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to consider the representation of a couple who are Indian Citizens and have adopted a child in Uganda, a country which is not a signatory to the Hague Convention 1995 and seeking to legalise the adoption in India in terms of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Adoption Regulations of CARA, 2022.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and said, “The Union of India not to restrict its magnanimity to issuance of a support letter; it should stretch for issuance of an approval or a no objection under the Regulations, for the reason that, it is a signatory to the Hague Convention. Even though the adoption has not happened under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, and in a country which is not a signatory to Hague Convention, but adoption has happened, the rights of a child of Indian citizens, who have adopted, cannot be left marooned.”

Anticipatory Bail Application Can Be Considered Even After Cognizance Of Private Complaint Is Taken: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Ramanjaneyulu & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.390 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 150

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the trial court which rejected a petition for anticipatory bail filed by an accused charged under provisions of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the ground that cognizance had already been taken of the complaint.

A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the plea challenging the order of the trial court dated February 9, and granted them anticipatory bail on the execution of a Bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000 each, with two sureties.

Article 311(1) Guarantees Safeguards To Govt Employees Including Right To Fair Enquiry Before Any Adverse Action Is Taken: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr Yogananda A AND The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 21705 OF 2021

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 151

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on an Assistant Professor, by the Executive Council of the Visvesvaraya Technological University.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Dr.Yogananda A and said, “The impugned penalty of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed. The respondent No.3-Disciplinary Authority is hereby directed to adhere to the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra and also take cognizance of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India and shall issue a fresh show cause notice.”

Lok Adalats Can't Entertain Any Applications Where Judicial Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Karnataka High Court

Case title: Pooja AND Siddanna & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.205205 OF 2019

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 152

The Karnataka High Court has held that an order passed by the Lok-Adalat accepting the compromise and directing the decree of the suit is not valid.

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by one Pooja and quashed the compromise decree dated 27-10- 2007 passed by the Taluka Legal Authority, Sindagi (Lok Adalat).

Lokayukta, UpaLokayukta Are Merely Recommendatory Bodies, Can't Direct For Enquiry To Be Entrusted To Them: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Yathish M G AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26117 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 153

The Karnataka High Court has held that the State Government possesses the power to entrust the handling of a disciplinary enquiry in respect of an employee of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board to the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rule.

Further, it held that the recommendation by the Lokayukta to the Government, while making a report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, that the enquiry be entrusted to it, cannot be sustained.

Parties Not Signatories To Joint Venture Agreement Cannot Be Forced To Arbitration Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S. Mvr Constructions Vs M/S. V.M.R Constructions And Others.

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 4604 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 154

The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice M G Uma held that the parties not signatories to the Joint Venture Agreement, stipulating the arbitration clause, cannot be forced to arbitration proceedings.

Section 47 Of The CPC Does Not Apply To Proceedings For Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Bellary Nirmithi Kendra v. M/s Capital Metal Industries, Case No: CRP No. 100067 of 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 155

The High Court of Karnataka has held that Section 47 of the CPC does not apply to proceedings for enforcement of arbitral award.

The bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha held that an arbitral award can only be challenged on the grounds mentioned under Section 34 of the Act and not otherwise. It held that the award is deemed to be a decree for the purpose of the enforcement, however, this deeming fiction is limited to its enforcement only.

The Court held that Section 47 of CPC, which provides for determination of question by the executing court in relation to the validity of the decree, does not apply to execution of arbitral awards.

Simultaneous Proceedings Permissible Under Arbitration Act And Negotiable Instruments Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S Durga Projects Inc Vs Sri. B.G. Babu Reddy

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.434 Of 2014 (A) C/W Criminal Appeal No.433 Of 2014 (A)

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156

The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice Anil B Katti held that simultaneous proceedings can be carried on under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bench further held that a party cannot be acquitted solely on the basis of presence of an arbitration agreement.