1. Karnataka High Court Reduces Sentence Of KSRTC Employee Convicted For Rash Driving, Endangering Life Of Others Case Title: Devendrappa H v. The State Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 34 Grating 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...
Case Title: Devendrappa H v. The State
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 34
Grating 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."
Case Title: ANI Technologies Private Limited v. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 63 of the Copyright Act, which prescribes a punishment of minimum 6 months that may extend to 3 years imprisonment, is a cognizable offence and police can register an First Information Report, on receipt of a complaint. Justice M Nagaprasanna said,
"Merely because a separate provision under Section 64 of the Act which depicts power of search and seizure by the Police is also found in the statute, it does not take away cognizability of the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act."
Case Title: Surrayya Parveen @ Annapoorna v. Labour Officer Cum Minimum Wages Enquiry Authority
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
The Karnataka High Court has said that it is the duty of the applicant seeking relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act. In the absence of sufficient cause, the Court of the Authority has no power to extend the time Justice Jyoti Mulimani said, "I can say only this much that the law of limitation is not an equitable statute. It is a statute of repose."
The court accordingly rejected a petition filed by one Surrayya Parveen challenging the order passed by the Labour Officer, rejecting her claim petition on the ground of delay of 8 years.
Case Title: Dr Vaibhav Khosla v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
The Karnataka High Court has said that educational institutions have only a right to recover the prescribed fee for one semester/year and not recover the entire course fees from a candidate who surrenders his seat. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M G S Kamal relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy Of Education & Anr. v. State Of Karnataka & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 697 said, "It is evident that the institution has only a right to recover the prescribed fee for one semester/year."
Case Title: Jeetendra Kumar Rajan v. T. G. Shivashankare Gowda
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
Observing that "Nobody can be permitted to tarnish the image of the temple of justice," the Karnataka High Court has dismissed 11 contempt petitions filed by one Jeetendra Kumar Rajan seeking action against the High Court Registrar General. A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice M G Uma further observed that no leniency can be shown when it comes to maintaining the the majesty of the Court and hence, imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on each petition, totaling to Rs 11 lakh.
Other Developments:
Karnataka High Court To Hear Muslim Student's Plea Against Hijab Ban In Govt College On Feb 8