Nominal Index: Devendrappa H v. The State, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 34 ANI Technologies Private Limited v. State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 35 Surrayya Parveen @ Annapoorna v. Labour Officer Cum Minimum Wages Enquiry Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 36 Dr Vaibhav Khosla v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 37 Jeetendra Kumar Rajan v. T. G. Shivashankare Gowda, 2022...
Nominal Index:
Devendrappa H v. The State, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 34
ANI Technologies Private Limited v. State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
Surrayya Parveen @ Annapoorna v. Labour Officer Cum Minimum Wages Enquiry Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
Dr Vaibhav Khosla v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
Jeetendra Kumar Rajan v. T. G. Shivashankare Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
Kamal Pant v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
Joswin Lobo v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
Ramesh Malli v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Wireless, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
Resham & Anr v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish v. Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)43
Indian Institute of Management Bangalore v. Daivanti Thakare, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
Dr Arun Kumar B C v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
M.S. Kadkol v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
All India Gaming Federation v. State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
Karnataka State Law University v. Mahantesh, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
Somashekara @ Soma v. State Of Karnataka, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 49
Sunil Kumar v. State By Periyapatana Police Station, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 50
Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. K.Koteswar Rao, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 51
Hemalatha v. Venkatesh, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 52
Judgements/Orders:
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.
Case Title: Kamal Pant v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.21264 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against Bengaluru Police Commissioner Kamal Pant and two other police officers, for alleged commission of an offence under Section 166A IPC which pertains to disobedience of law by a public servant. It includes refusal of a Police officer to record any information given to him under Section 154(1) CrPC in relation to cognizable offences pertaining to sexual harassment.
Case Title: Joswin Lobo v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.6916/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
The Karnataka High Court has said there is no bar on a police officer, who is a gazetted officer, on carrying out a personal search to draw a mahazar, on an accused/ suspect under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh said, "Assistant Commissioner of Police is also a Gazetted Officer...Search by the officer of the said department is not a bar and no law prescribes that he (suspect/accused) should be subjected to the personal search in the presence of the Gazetted Officer not belonging to the particular department."
Case Title: Ramesh Malli v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Wireless Case No: W.P. No. 104944/2021, Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
The Karnataka High Court has said that a probationer in the Karnataka police department cannot be terminated on the grounds of misconduct without carrying out an inquiry under the Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977. A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "It is true that the petitioner has no right to hold the post and he can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the probationary period for general unsuitability, but a probationer cannot be discharged imputing allegations amounting to misconduct. If any misconduct is alleged, then enquiry under Rule 7 of '1977 Rules' is necessary."
Case Title: Resham & Anr v. State of Karnataka
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
The Karnataka High Court on Friday uploaded the interim order passed in the petitions challenging Hijab ban in colleges in the state. The Court has requested the State to re-open the educational institutions at the earliest and has restrained students from wearing any sort of religious clothes in classrooms, regardless of their faith, while the matter is pending hearing. The interim order is only applicable to those institutions which have prescribed a uniform dress code.
Case Title: Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish v. Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling Karnataka Case No: W.P. No.14891 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
The Karnataka High Court has held that an owner of a building can claim tax exemption under the Goods and Services Act (GST) if the residential premises leased out are used as a hostel to house students and working professionals. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M I Arun while allowing the petition filed by one Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish said, "The service provided by the petitioner i.e., leasing out residential premises as hostel to students and working professionals is covered under Entry 13 of Notification No.9/2017 dated 28.09.2017 namely 'Services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence' issued under the Act. The petitioner is held to be entitled to benefit of exemption notification."
Case Title: Indian Institute of Management Bangalore v. Daivanti Thakare Case No: WA 91/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Indian Institute of Management (Bangalore), challenging an order of the Single Judge bench by which it had set aside the order of the Institute, expelling nine students caught for exam malpractice. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and as such, do not consider it to be a necessary case for interference. The writ appeal is dismissed."
Case Title: Dr Arun Kumar B C v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.9408/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the circular issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), dated 29.2.2016 by which it directed property owners to relinquish the properties earmarked for road widening in the master plan, free of cost as a condition precedent for processing their applications for sanctioning of building plans.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar said, "I am of the considered view that the impugned endorsements issued by the respondent - BBMP requiring the petitioners to relinquish the properties in question free of cost as a condition precedent for processing their applications for sanctioning of building plans is without authority of law and the same violate Article 300A of the Constitution of India."
13: Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement For Accepting ₹50 Bribe Disproportionate: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M.S. Kadkol v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.110912 of 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
Almost 18 years after an employee of the State government was subjected to compulsory retirement for accepting a bribe of Rs. 50, the Karnataka High Court recently held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence. It thus set aside the order of compulsory retirement issued in the year 2004.
A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde sitting at Dharwad partly allowed the petition filed by M.S. Kadkol. It confirmed the guilt of the petitioner however, set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order of punishment on the petitioner.
14. Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Law Banning Online Gaming With Stakes
Case Title: All India Gaming Federation v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 18703/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
The Karnataka High Court on Monday held certain provisions of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021, by which the state government has banned online games with stakes to be ultra vires to the Constitution and struck them down. The Act provides maximum imprisonment of three years and penalty up to Rs. 1 lakh for violation of the provisions. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Krishna S Dixit said "In the above circumstances these writ petitions succeed. The Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021 to the extent provisions we have said, not the entire act is struck down is declared to be ultra vires to the constitution and struck down."
Case Title: Karnataka State Law University v. Mahantesh Case No: WA 100319/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday set aside the single judge bench order dated on December 14, 2021, by which the court had quashed the notification issued by Karnataka State Law University, by which it was to conduct offline examinations for the students of 2nd and 4th semester of three year LLB course. A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde while allowing the intra-court appeal filed by Karnataka State Law University said, "In the best interest of legal education. The following order, writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 14/12/2021 passed in writ petition no 104008/2021, is set aside."
Case Title: Somashekara @ Soma v. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 328/2018
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 49
The Karnataka High Court has said that if an advocate representing the accused who is in custody fails to appear before the court, the trial court is bound to appoint a legal aid advocate to defend the accused. A single judge bench of Justice K.S.Mudagal said, "Article 39A of the Constitution of India casts duty on the state not to deny access to justice on the ground of economic or other disabilities. To achieve the object of Article 39A of the Constitution, the Legal Services Authority Act has been enacted. Under the said Act, Legal Services Authorities are constituted right from national level to taluk level. The district courts have the District Legal Services Authority and a panel of advocates for rendering legal aid to the unaffordable as contemplated under Section 304 of Cr.P.C."
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. State By Periyapatana Police Station Case No: Criminal Petition No.4234/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 50
The Karnataka High Court has directed its Registry to post an Additional Session Judge, Mysuru, for training in the Judicial Academy in order to make him learn "judicial discretion", in the interest of the institution and to protect the interest of seekers of justice. A single judge bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh said, "The Registry is directed to seek appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice to post the concerned Judicial Officer to the Judicial Academy for training with regard to applying judicious thought process while exercising judicial discretion before granting bail in heinous offences."
Case Title: Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. K.Koteswar Rao Case No: Criminal Petition No.101127 Of 2015
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 51
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the defamation proceedings against Member of Parliament, Rajeev Chandrashekhar, initiated in the year 2012, when he was the Managing Director of Suvarna News 24/7 Kannada Television Channel. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the quashing petition filed by Chandrashekhar said "The principle of vicarious liability is not applicable to criminal offences in the absence of any provision laid down in the statute. The Managing Director thus cannot be held to be vicariously liable for the acts committed by the Company or its employees merely because he happens to be the Managing Director of the TV news channel."
Case Title: Hemalatha v. Venkatesh Case No: Writ Petition No.39982 Of 2018
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 52
The Karnataka High Court has held that the properties which had been given as dowry or otherwise at the time of marriage of the daughter, would be amenable for partition and the same will have to be included in a suit for partition, instituted by the daughter.
A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "In a suit for partition, the properties which had been given as dowry or otherwise at the time of marriage of the daughter plaintiff, claiming a right of partition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, would be amenable for partition and the same would have to be included in a suit for partition."