This digest contains all the important judgments and orders pertaining to Karnataka for the month of January 2022, covered by LiveLaw.1: JLR Is State Owned Company, Not Required To Obtain Permission Of Central Govt For Construction Within Reserve Forest: Karnataka High Court Case Title: PS Mohan v. State Of Karnataka Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)1 The Karnataka High Court...
This digest contains all the important judgments and orders pertaining to Karnataka for the month of January 2022, covered by LiveLaw.
Case Title: PS Mohan v. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)1
The Karnataka High Court said that no permission of the Central Government was required to construct lodges/ resorts within the reserve forest area at Dubare in Kodagu district as the concerned company- Jungle Lodges and Resorts Limited- is owned and controlled by the Karnataka Tourism Development Corporation.
Case Title: Dr. R. Chandrashekara v. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the State Government to immediately start construction of Gastroenterology Science & Organ Transplantation Institute in Bengaluru and complete the same in a time bound manner. It will be the first hospital only for organ transplant in the country. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition filed by Dr. R. Chandrashekara and Dr. B. Rudrappa, pending which the construction of the hospital had been put on hold.
Case Title: Malappa @Malingaraya v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a rape accused seeking to quash the DNA report which confirmed him to be the biological father of a child born to the victim of sexual assault. Justice HP Sandesh dismissed the petition filed by accused Mallapa @Malingarya. The Court said, "It is clear that ordering for DNA itself should not be as a matter of routine but wherein deserving cases, the Court can direct for DNA test and there is no prohibition for ordering DNA test and the same is subject to each facts and circumstances of the case."
4:Enforcement Directorate May Probe PMLA Cases Throughout India, Including J&K: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Anish Mohammed Rawther v. The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
The Karnataka High Court has said that the Enforcement Directorate can probe a case under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, throughout India, including the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "Sub-section (2) of section 1 of the (PML) Act reads "It extends to the whole of India. Thus, keeping the RPC (Ranbir Penal Code) offences away from the Act would offend the very parliamentary intent of extending this Act "to the whole of India."
5:'Adverse Possession' Of Property vs 'Permissive Possession': Karnataka High Court Explains
Case Title: Chepudira Madaiah v. Mallengada Chengappa
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
The Karnataka High Court has said a person will not acquire adverse possession by simply remaining in permissive possession, for however long it may be. Dr. Justice HB Prabhakara Sastry said, "Article 65 of the Limitation Act presupposes that the limitation starts only if the defendants prove the factum of adverse possession affirmatively from a particular time."
6: Section 427 CrPC -Sentence Of Escaped Life Convict Will Not Run Concurrently : Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Bandenawaj v. The State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
The Karnataka High Court has said that a life convict on being sentenced for escaping from prison on grant of parole leave, cannot claim that his subsequent sentence, less severe in nature, runs concurrently with the prison term he was undergoing. The Court held that an escaped convict cannot seek the benefit of Section 427(2) CrPC, which says that the subsequent sentence of a person already undergoing imprisonment will run concurrently.
Case Title: M/s.V.S.Products v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
The Karnataka High Court upheld the notification dated July 6, 2019 issued by the Union of India by which Central Excise Duty has been levied on tobacco and tobacco products. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav said, "It needs to be kept in mind that taxation is not merely a source of raising revenue but is also recognised by the fiscal tool to achieve fiscal and social objective."
Case Title: Dilraj Rohit Sequeira v. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
The Karnataka High Court directed the State government to expeditiously consider and resolve the infrastructure requirements at district courts in Karnataka, for effective implementation of the Live streaming rules of judicial proceedings.
Case Title: Google India Private Limited v. Competition Commission Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
The Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of the petition filed by Google India challenging an order of the Competition Commission of India rejecting its request for access to the identity of app developers/ start-ups allegedly suffering harm on account of Google Play store payments policy 2020. A single-judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit took on record the joint memo filed by the parties–Google, Competition Commission of India and Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF).
10: S. 482 CrPC| Can't Appreciate Evidence In Quashing Petition: Karnataka High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Pradeep Moparthy v. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 10
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a Court hearing a petition for quashing of FIR/ charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC cannot appreciate evidence as the same lies within the domain of the trial Court. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "It is a settled principle that while deciding the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, evidence cannot be appreciated as it lies within the domain of the Trial Court."
Case Title: Sr Admar Mutt v. Yashoda
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
The Karnataka High Court has held that a cook, working for the Sr Admar Mutt in Udupi district, cannot claim occupancy over appurtenant land which was granted to him by the Mutt for residential use. A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice P Krishna Bhatt allowed the appeal filed by the Mutt challenging the single judge bench order dated April 21, 2011, by which it had confirmed the Land tribunal order granting occupancy to the cook.
Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shree Shree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 12
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a 2016 order of the trial court by which it discharged/ acquitted Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji, pontiff of the Shree Ramachandrapura Math, accused in a rape case. Justice V. Srishananda noted that the charge sheet in the matter was not filed by the authorized person. It thus observed, "If the charge sheet is filed by a person who is not the authorised person to file a final report as is contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, entire proceedings would definitely stand vitiated. Consequently, the further proceedings in pursuance of the said charge sheet is to be declared as non est."
Case Title: Manmohankumar V.C v. The State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the state government's power and prerogative to impose conditions such as restriction of 'age' and 'pass in 10th Standard' while considering the applications for grant of compassionate authorization under the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order. Justice P S Dinesh Kumar said, "The State Government's power and prerogative to impose conditions while considering the applications for grant of authorisation is upheld."
Case Title: The Member Secretary v. Chief Secretary, Govt of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 14
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Mental Health Authority to take appropriate and necessary steps for providing proper medical treatment to the mentally ill inmates of rehabilitation centres, aged homes, destitute centres, reception centres, asylums, orphanages centres, etc.
Case Title: K Mallikarjuna v. H A Sudha Mallikarjuna
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
Observing that "the marriage is totally dead" and that nothing would be gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist, the Karnataka High Court recently granted divorce to a couple who lived separately for a period of 21 years. A division bench of
Justice B Veerapa and Justice K S Hemalekha said, "Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time of more than 21 years and one of them presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down."
Case Title: Dr Ganesh Nayak v. V Shamanna
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
The Karnataka High Court has suggested that medical professionals should be protected from legal action just like public servants are protected against bonafide errors in their action. Justice Krishna S Dixit expressed that more often than not, the cases of medical negligence are launched recklessly by the patients and their relatives. The court said "Compensation culture'' which obtains in other jurisdictions is gradually gaining entry to the field of medical services in our society affecting a healthy relationship of doctor & patient.
Case Title: Parvathamma v. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that Payment of Wages Act is a beneficial piece of enactment. The workmen cannot be denied the legal entitlement by applying technicalities while adjudicating the claim application. Justice Jyoti Mulimani thus quashed the order dated January 28, 2015 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner rejecting the claim petition filed by one Parvathamma, who worked as a watcher with the Department of Forest and Environment Department, merely because her signature was missing on the claim application.
Case Title: Suresh v. D Ramesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
Observing that the amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child, the Karnataka High Court recently enhanced the compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) to a couple who lost their 2-year old daughter in an accident. Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar modified the order dated August 16, 2016, by which MACT had awarded a compensation of Rs 3.50 lakh to the petitioners.
Case Title: The Governor Reserve Bank Of India v. Velankani Information Systems Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 19.
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the directions issued to Reserve Bank of India by a single judge bench of the High Court directing it to monitor the implementation of Covid-19 package announced on March 27, 20202, by which RBI had allowed Banks to declare a three-month moratorium on all term loans, outstanding as on March 1, 2020. The High Court also held that the RBI's circular was a guideline and cannot be construed as a mandatory requirement, creating a right in favour of a borrower to avail loan moratorium.
Case Title: Yashihirao Horinouchi v. The Deputy Director Of Factories
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
The Karnataka High Court recently held that non-arraigning of the Company as an accused would not vitiate the proceedings initiated under the Factories Act, against the occupier of the factory. Justice M. Nagaprasanna in its order dated December 6, 2021 observed, "Section 2(n) of the Factories Act and its proviso makes it clear that one of the Directors of the company would be responsible for proper implementation of the provisions of the Act. This ensures that more care is taken for the maintenance of the factory and various safety measures prescribed under the Act, so that the health, welfare and safety of the workers are not neglected. It is the occupier who would become responsible for all such acts of a factory."
Case Title: Abrar Kazi v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
The Karnataka High Court has said that cricket match fixing does not amount to the offence of cheating and therefore the offence under Section 420 IPC cannot be invoked against the alleged offenders. A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "It is true that if a player indulges in match fixing, a general feeling will arise that he has cheated the lovers of the game. But, this general feeling does not give rise to an offence".
Case Title: Lalitha v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order granting bail to a lecturer, accused of sexually assaulting a minor student of his college, as the trial court failed to given an opportunity to the complainant/victim of being heard before passing the order. Justice H P Sandesh set aside the order dated August 10, 2021 granting bail to Gururaj L, and directed that the accused be arrested and commit him to custody under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
Case Title: High Court Of Karnataka v. The State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
The Karnataka High Court on Friday closed its suo moto case, registered for ensuring that elections are conducted to the Corporations/Municipalities in the State in order to comply with the mandate of Article 243-U(3) of the Constitution. The development ensued after the State Election Commission informed the Court that all the elections to the Local Bodies and the Municipalities in the State have been completed by 30.12.2021, except the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Vijayapura Municipal Corporation regarding whom the matter is pending before the Apex Court.
Case Title : Yamuna and another versus The State
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
The Karnataka High Court has held that if persons not belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe obtains a false caste certificate, they cannot be prosecuted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
25: Breaching Promise To Marry Will Not Amount To Offence Of Cheating Under IPC : Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Venkatesh And State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
The Karnataka High Court while quashing the FIR registered against a man and his family has reiterated that not abiding with the promise of marriage will not amount to the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. A single-judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the petition filed by Venkatesh and others said "Absolutely there is no ingredient stated by her in order to show that there is a criminal intention of cheating by petitioner No.1 and thereby, he has promised to marry her but has broken his promise."
Case Title: Amrusha Das v. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
The Karnataka High Court has said that estrangement between a couple should not affect their child's education prospects. Justice Krishna S Dixit thus allowed the petition filed by a mother and her 8-year old daughter, seeking directions to a school in Bengaluru to issue her Transfer certificate.
Case Title: Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
The Karnataka High Court has said that further investigation conducted under Section 173(8) of CrPC must always relate to the incident of alleged crime in respect of which the charge sheet has been filed already. It is not reinvestigation. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while quashing two cases registered under the NDPS Act, against party organiser Virendra Khanna said, "Further investigation is always in accordance with Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C,with a view to collecting further evidence supplemental to the evidence already on record. It is not reinvestigation."
Case Title: Gaurav Raj Jain V. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
Observing that "Litigants and members of the Bar appear to have not understood the importance and seriousness of this extraordinary writ of Habeas Corpus," the Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a father seeking directions to produce his 2 year old girl before the court, who is in safe custody of her mother. A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice M G Uma while dismissing the petition filed by Gaurav Raj Jain, imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on him, stating that no ground to allow the writ petition is made out and (petitioner) has abused the judicial process. The amount is payable within a month to the Police Welfare Fund.
29: Motor Accident| Courts Can Award Compensation Higher Than What Is Claimed: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Basavaraj v. Umesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
Coming to the aid of a 14-year old (at the time) who suffered permanent disability to his pelvic region in an accident, the Karnataka High Court recently modified the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, awarding compensation of Rs 50,000 under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and increased it to Rs 10 lakhs.
A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "Since the marriage prospect of the claimant is wiped out, the claimant is deprived of all the pleasure and benefits of married life. The mental trauma of having to remain single, and answering the curious questions posed by the people around throughout life, for not getting married, are some of the things not easy to cope with. The trauma is going to be perennial and unabated."
Case Title: Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. Shekar B S
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) challenging an order of the Single judge by which it was directed to grant benefit of reduction of interest rate on Home loan to a customer from the date of issuance of the circular for reduction, instead of when the customer applied for seeking reduction. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj was informed by the bank that the circular dated June 30, 2010 was pasted on the notice board of the bank and as such there was due communication to the customers of the bank.
Case Title: Ramesh v. State Through Dy RFO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
The Karnataka High Court has said that once an accused has appeared before the court, either personally or through his counsel, he cannot seek anticipatory bail by invoking section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Justice H P Sandesh thus dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by one Ramesh and granted him liberty to approach the Trial Court by filing the necessary application for recalling the warrant issued against him.
32: Being Govt Employee Not A Ground For Grant Of Bail In Rape Case: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Srinivas Murthy H.N. And State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 32
The Karnataka High court has said that being a government employee is no ground to grant bail to an accused alleged of committing rape. Justice H P Sandesh while dismissing the petition filed by one Srinivas Murthy H.N. said "The fact that petitioner is a Government employee is not a ground to enlarge him on bail, when the serious offence of rape is alleged against the petitioner."
Case Title: Mrs Kiran Iccha Kaur Bhasin And Director-General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
The Karnataka High Court has held that grounds on which subjective satisfaction is based while passing a detention order by the authority under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), cannot be challenged in a court of law, except on the grounds of malafides. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M G S Kamal while dismissing a petition filed by the daughter of a detenu Gurmeet Singh Kohli said, "It is well settled in law that the reasonableness of satisfaction of detaining authority cannot be questioned in a court of law, for the reason that satisfaction of detaining authority to which Section 3(1)(a) of the Act refers to be subjective satisfaction of the Authority."
Case Title: Devendrappa H v. The State
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 34
Granting relief to a bus driver employed with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and convicted for the offence of rash driving, the Karnataka High Court recently reduced his sentence of two months simple imprisonment and confined it to fine only. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while granting relief to petitioner Devendrappa H also said, "The sentence of conviction shall not affect his career and shall not be treated as a remark for his employment with KSRTC."
Other reports:
Case Title: Peoples Movement Against Sexual Assault (PMASA) v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 6301/2017
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the State Government to ensure the release of Rs. 7 crore to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority at the earliest. The amount is to be disbursed to victims under the Victim Compensation Scheme. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted in its order, "It is informed that Rs. 13 crore has been released to KSLSA and the requisition for remaining Rs. 7 crore has not been received. As soon as the requisition is received the remaining amount will be released as arrangements are made and orders for release have been passed."
Case Title: Vijayan Menon v. Secretary Urban Development Department
Case No: WP 42927/2015
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday took strong exception to the oral claim made by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) that it has filled up all the potholes across the city. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj orally observed, "We personally feel that you have not done anything...Don't say anything which we ourselves feel is wrong."
Case Title: BEML Staff Association v. Union of India
Case No: WP 20258/2021
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union of India and BEML Limited directing them to file their statement of objections by February 10, on a petition filed questioning the decision of the government to privatise the public sector undertaking. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the notice while hearing a petition filed by BEML Staff Association and three other Unions of the undertaking.
38: Karnataka High Court Issues Notice On Plea By Doctors Challenging One Year Compulsory Rural Service
Case Title: Dr. Keerthi Kurnool v. Union of India
Case No: WP 23258/2021
The Karnataka High Court has issued notice to the Union and State government and other respondents on a petition filed by one Dr. Keerthi Kurnool and 169 others, raising a challenge to Section 4 of the Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates Completed Medical Course Act, (KCS) 2012, which mandates one year compulsory rural service to all post graduate doctors.
39: Karnataka High Court Asks State To Strictly Implement SOP Banning Rallies, Dharnas Amid Covid Surge
Case Title: Nagendra Prasad A V v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 518/2022
The Karnataka High Court on Friday directed the state government to strictly execute the standard operating procedure (SOP) issued on January 4 in all districts in view of Covid-19 pandemic. It clarified that no rallies, dharnas or any other political gathering shall be permitted in the entire state, till the SOP is in operation.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj also took on record the statement made by the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee that it has temporarily suspended the 10-day padayatra demanding implementation of the Mekedatu project across the Cauvery river.
Case Title: Hasham Investment And Trading Company Private Limited v. India Awake For Transparency Pvt Ltd
Case No: CRL.CCC 9/2021
The Karnataka High Court on Friday convicted Advocate R Subramanian and P Sadanand, who represent the NGO India Awake For Transparency, for criminal contempt in the suo-motu proceedings initiated against them for filing multiple petitions on the same cause of action against former Wipro Chairman Azim Premji and the trust formed by him.
Case Title: High Court Legal Services Committee v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 18628/2019
The Karnataka High Court on Friday directed the State government to inform whether it has notified any scheme for the welfare of stray animals. The Court also inquired whether the state government is contemplating to establish goshalas in each taluk of the state to protect these stray animals and also help the farmers from protecting their crops from these stray animals.
Case Title: Adinarayan Shetty v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 13605/2021
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to submit a time bound plan in which it would complete the construction of the four-lane Ejipura-Kendriya Sadana flyover in the Koramangala area of Bengaluru. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj orally said, "We don't want to hear the problems, we want a solution. We want you to give a date by when you will complete the construction."
COVID:
In view of large number of Covid-19 positive cases reported everyday in Bengaluru, the functioning of the all the District and Trial Courts of Bengaluru Urban and Bengaluru Rural District Courts (functioning in City Civil Court Complex and Mayo Hall Court Complex) will be restricted from January 5, till further orders.
As per a revised standard operating procedure (SOP) issued by the Karnataka High Court, all cases at the Principal Bench at Bengaluru, will be heard through Virtual Mode till January 14. While at the benches in Dharwad and Kalaburagi, all the cases shall be heard by hybrid mode. The SOP is issued in view of the rising number of cases of Omicron variant of COVID-19. It states that parties-in-person shall appear only through online mode and their physical appearance is not permitted.
Other reports:
Case Title: The National Federation Of The Blind, Karnataka v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 52201/2019
The Karnataka High Court directed the State government to carry out a survey to ascertain the number of blind students who are studying in government and private schools and are in need of braille textbooks.
Former Chancellor of Alliance University, Madhukar G Angur, who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in an alleged money laundering case, has approached the Karnataka High Court challenging the special court's order dated January 10, remanding him to ED custody till January 17. The case pertains to alleged money laundering and siphoning off University funds to the tune of Rs 107 crore. Angur has been booked u/s 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.