Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: June 2022 [Citations 180 - 239]

G.H.Abdul Kadri v. Mohammed Iqbal, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 180

B.A.HARISH GOWDA v. RAVI KUMAR, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 181

SRIKANTAIAH v STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU and ANR, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 182

ITI Limited versus Alphion Corporation & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 183

DR. K.RAVINDRANATH SHETTY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA & others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 184

BOPPANDA N. KUSHALAPPA v. BALEYADA K. CHERAMANNA and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 185

Dr Yasin Khan v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 186

BHIMAPPA JANTAKAL @ BHIMANNA & others v State of Karnataka and ANR, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 187

SRINIVASA and ANR v STATE BY BEECHANALLI POLICE STATION, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 188

The Vice Chairman Settlement Commission & Anr. versus M/s Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 189

ANAND C. @ ANKU GOWDA & others v. CHANDRAMMA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 190

ACHUT D. NAYAK & Others v THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 191

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. ABDUL S/O MEHABOOB TAHASILDAR and C/W matter. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 192

DIVYA & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 193

M/S. CREST FACILITY MANAGEMENT v UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 194

K. SRINIVAS & others v. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 195

DR CHIDANANDA P MANSUR v. UNION OF INDIA & others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 196

BASAVARAJ ITAGI & others v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 197

M/s Abhiram Infra Projects Private Limited versus The Commissioner, Karnataka Slum Development Board 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 198

SAMANTHA CHRISTINA DELFINA WILLIS & ANR v STATE OF KARNATAKA and others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 199

Ananda v. State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 200

MAHAMMAD ALI AKBAR @ ALI UMAR v State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 201

Sobha Ltd. v. Nava Vishwa Shashi Vijaya and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 202

Gokaldas Images Private Limited versus Aries Agro-Vet Associates (Pvt) Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 203

CITIZENS ACTION GROUP v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 204

MURULY M.S. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 205

Arun Vincent Rajkumar v S Mala. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 206

Hanumanthappa v State of Karnataka & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 207

GANESH PRASAD HEGDE & Others v SUREKHA SHETTY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 208

T.L. NAGARAJU v THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 209

RT Rev Prasanna Kumar Samuel v State of Karnataka & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 210

D.ROOPA v H.N.SATHYANARAYANA RAO. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 211

MUZAMMIL PASHA v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 212

XXXX versus XXXX. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 213

RAJAMMA H v THIMMAIAH V. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 214

BEML Ltd. v. Prakash Parcel Services Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 215

RATHNAMMA v. STATE REPRESENTED BY PSI, CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 216

Umapathi S. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 217

VISHWAS V v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 218

Lakshi Venkateshwara Kallu Kutukara Bhovi Shakhara Sangha v. The State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 219

Vikas Verma & Others v. Union of India & Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 220

RITHESH PAIS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 221

ARCHANA GIRISH KAMATH v. UNION OF INDIA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 222

V.KRISHNAMURTHY v. DIARY CLASSIC ICE CREAMS PVT. LTD, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 223

B.DURGA RAM v. The State By BENGALURU CITY CENTRAL P.S.=, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 224

PUBLIC TV (KANNADA NEWS CHANNEL) and ANR v. BANNADI SOMANATH HEGDE, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 225

XXX versus STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 226

D M Deve Gowda v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 227

REKHA & Others versus LALITHAMMA & Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 228

NELSON RAJ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw 229

Kavitha v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 230

Mrs Leena Rakesh v Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home Affairs. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 231

YUSUB S/O MOHAMUSAB SANADI v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 232

SUPRIT ISHWAR DIVATE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 233

M.AJITHKUMAR v THE STATE BY FOOD INSPECTOR, KOPPA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 234

XXX v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 235

SHIVANAND LAXMAN ANCHI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 236

LAKSHMAIAH REDDY v. V ANIL REDDY & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 237

DADA S/O BALU ROOGE v. APPASAHEB S/O KIRAN KESTE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 238

Sudarshan Ramesh v. Union Of India. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 239

Judgments/Reports

1. Criminal Trial Can't Proceed Ex-Parte, Evidence Can't Be Received In Absence Of Accused Except U/S 299 CrPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: G.H.Abdul Kadri v. Mohammed Iqbal Case No: Crl.RP.No.1323/2019

Citation; 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 180

The Karnataka High Court has said that a criminal trial cannot be held in the absence of an accused unless personal appearance is dispensed with for valid reasons. There cannot be dispensation of examination of an accused under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) if incriminating evidence appears in the evidence of the witness.

2. Karnataka High Court Suggests Centre To Amend S.372 CrPC To Allow Victims To File Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Of Convicts

Case Title: B.A.HARISH GOWDA v. RAVI KUMAR Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.175/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 181

The Karnataka High Court has suggested that the Central Government make necessary amendments to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in order to provide an opportunity to victims to approach the Court in appeal seeking enhancement of sentence imposed on a convict.

3. Second Quashing Petition U/S 482 CrPC Maintainable But Only In Exceptional Cases Where There Are Changed Circumstances: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: SRIKANTAIAH v STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU and ANR Case no: WRIT PETITION No.12/2022.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 182

The Karnataka High Court has said that a second petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing the criminal proceedings will be maintainable but only in exceptional cases where there are changed circumstances.

4. High Courts Without Original Civil Jurisdiction Require Commercial Division For International Arbitration: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ITI Limited versus Alphion Corporation & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 183

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that even with respect to a High Court that does not exercise an Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, a Commercial Division is required to be established for the purpose of considering applications and appeals arising out of an International Commercial Arbitration. The Court added that the said Commercial Division must comprise of a Single Judge.

5. Order Of Land Tribunal Granting Occupancy Rights To Tenant Not Sustainable If Legal Heirs Of Deceased Owner Not Made Party: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: DR. K.RAVINDRANATH SHETTY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA & others Case No: W.P.No.21453/2009

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 184

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in respect of a land in favour of the tenant, on the ground that all the legal heirs of the deceased owner were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings and their right to oppose was snatched away.

6. Senior Civil Judges Have No Probate Jurisdiction; Only District Judges Can Probate Wills : Karnataka High Court Clarifies

Case Title: BOPPANDA N. KUSHALAPPA v. BALEYADA K. CHERAMANNA and Others Case No: C.R.C No.1 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 185

The Karnataka High Court recently clarified that the notification issued by the High Court in the year 1979, has limited scope and invests the power in Senior Civil Judges only for issuance of Succession Certificates under Part-X of the Indian Succession Act and not for Probate.

7. Doctrine Of Proportionality | Constitutional Courts Cannot Be Disproportionately Harsh To Arguable Guilts Of Litigants: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr Yasin Khan v. State of Karnataka and Others Case No: WA NO. 100292/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 186

The Karnataka High Court has observed that Constitutional Courts cannot be disproportionately harsh to the arguable guilt of the litigants.

8. SC/ST Act Can't Be Invoked Merely Because Victim's Mother Belongs To Scheduled Caste: Karnataka HC

Case Title: BHIMAPPA JANTAKAL @ BHIMANNA & others v State of Karnataka and ANR Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.101825 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 187

The Karnataka High Court has held that a person, whose one parent belongs to the scheduled caste community and another parent to forward caste, will have to in his complaint under the Schedule Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989, specifically plead that he belongs to the schedule caste.

9. Elephant Dies Of Electrocution: Karnataka High Court Upholds Conviction Of Two Who Set Up "Electric Fence" Around Agricultural Land

Case Title: SRINIVASA and ANR v STATE BY BEECHANALLI POLICE STATION. Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.716 OF 2011

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 188

Almost 14 years after an Elephant died due to electrocution, the Karnataka High Court has upheld the conviction handed down to two persons who put up electric fencing around their agricultural land which led to the elephant's death.

A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz upheld the conviction handed down to the accused Srinivasa and Basavaraju under Sections 138(1)(a) of the Electricity Act 2003 and Section 429 of IPC. However, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 9 r/w Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act.

10. Just Because The Ratio For Payment Of Service Tax Not Adhered To, Assessee Not Liable To Pay Double Tax As Penalty: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: The Vice Chairman Settlement Commission & Anr. versus M/s Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 189

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that merely because the ratio in which service tax was required to be paid by the service recipient and the service provider was not strictly adhered to, the assessee cannot be made liable to pay double tax by denying him the CENVAT Credit.

11. Bigamy Is A Continuing Offence; Wife's Consent For Second Marriage Immaterial: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ANAND C. @ ANKU GOWDA & others v. CHANDRAMMA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9849 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 190

The Karnataka High Court has said that bigamy under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a continuing offence and the consent of wife for the subsequent marriage would become immaterial for consideration of the offence.

12. Magistrate Must Afford Opportunity Of Hearing & Record His Satisfaction About Alleged "Nuisance" Before Passing Order U/S 133 CrPC: Karnataka HC

Case Title: ACHUT D. NAYAK & Others v THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100284 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 191

The Karnataka High Court has said that the power under Sections 133, 138 and 139 of CrPC to prevent public nuisance has to be exercised by affording sufficient opportunities to the parties and to record evidence and to arrive at a legal finding that the action of the person has resulted in nuisance to the general public at large.

13. Motor Accident Compensation For 'Loss Of Future Prospects' May Be Awarded Even If Disability Not Result Of Amputation: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. ABDUL S/O MEHABOOB TAHASILDAR, and C/W matter.

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103807 OF 2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 192

The Karnataka High Court has held that 'Loss of future prospects' has to be factored in, notwithstanding the fact that it is not a case of death but a case of injury without amputation resulting in whole body disability, which ultimately has a bearing on the reduced earning capacity.

14. Magistrate Can't Refer Defamation Complaint To Police For Investigation U/S 156(3) CrPC Even If Other Offences Are Also Alleged: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: DIVYA & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Anr

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.675 OF 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 193

The Karnataka High Court has said the bar under Section 199 CrPC on a Magistrate from exercising powers under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on a complaint involving offences punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, would be applicable even in cases where offences are alleged for other offences in addition with Section 500 of the IPC.

15. Debarring Contractor From Participating In Any Contract Affects Right To Life, Prior Notice With Reasons For Blacklisting Is Must: Karnataka HC

Case Title: M/S. CREST FACILITY MANAGEMENT v UNION OF INDIA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.39350/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 194

The Karnataka High Court has said that blacklisting or debarring of a Contractor from participating in any contract has civil consequences and thus, prior notice indicating the reasons for blacklisting and debarment has to be communicated and on receiving reply, a final order may be passed.

16. Karnataka Municipalities Act | Contesting Candidates Must Lodge Accounts Of Electoral Expenses With Returning Officer In 30 Days Of Result: High Court

Case Title: K. SRINIVAS & others v. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & others

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.408 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 195

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of State Election Commission, disqualifying four persons from continuing as the elected members of Municipality over their failure to lodge a true and correct account of electoral expenditure with the Returning Officer within prescribed time.

17. Will Affect State Exchequer, Fresh Job Opportunities: Karnataka High Court Dismisses College Dean's Plea To Increase Retirement Age

Case Title: DR CHIDANANDA P MANSUR v. UNION OF INDIA & others

Case no: W.A. NO.100198/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 196

The Karnataka High Court has observed that fixation of retirement age of public servants has a direct bearing on the state exchequer as well as employment opportunities for others. In view thereof, it dismissed a writ petition filed by the former Dean of a College, seeking directions to the state government to continue his service upto the age of 65 years, instead of 62 years.

18. RGUHS Agrees To Conduct Fresh Practical Exam For Final Year MBBS Students Before Karnataka High Court

Case Title: BASAVARAJ ITAGI & others v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES

Case no: W.P.NO.9494 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 197

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the practical examinations conducted for the student-petitioners pursuing their final year MBBS course at certain colleges affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS), in a plea alleging that the same was not conducted in accordance with law and was done in violation of the University guidelines.

19. Arbitral Award Cannot Be Modified By Executing Court On The Basis Of Just A Memo: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Abhiram Infra Projects Private Limited versus The Commissioner, Karnataka Slum Development Board

Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.4845 OF 2021

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 198

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that in the absence of an application filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for correction of typographical errors in the arbitral award, the Court cannot pass an order modifying and correcting the arbitral award on the basis of a Memo filed before it by a party.

20. Accused Can't Invoke High Court's Jurisdiction Under Art. 226 Or U/S 482 CrPC Through His Power Of Attorney: Karnataka High Court

Case title: SAMANTHA CHRISTINA DELFINA WILLIS & ANR v STATE OF KARNATAKA and others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24602 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 199

The Karnataka High Court has held that a power of attorney holder of an accused cannot maintain a petition be it under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

21.S.216 CrPC | Charge Can Be Altered Anytime During Trial: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Ananda v. State Of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1829 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 200

The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 216 of the Criminal procedure Code (Cr.P.C) the trial court can alter the charge framed even if the trial has progressed to a large extent.

22. POCSO Act | Bar U/S 33(5) To Recall Minor Victim Not Applicable After Her Attaining Majority: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MAHAMMAD ALI AKBAR @ ALI UMAR v State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4449 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 201

The Karnataka High Court has held that on the child attaining 18 years of age, the rigor under Section 33(5) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Act gets diluted and sequentially, will not become a bar for seeking recalling and further cross-examination of the victim under Section 311 of the CrPC on an application made by the accused.

23. Petition Under S. 11(6) Of The A&C Act Would Be Premature When The Precondition Of Conciliation Is Not Fulfilled: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sobha Ltd. v. Nava Vishwa Shashi Vijaya and Ors.

Case No.: C.M.P. No. 24 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 202

The High Court of Karnataka held that the petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act would be premature when the parties have not complied with the precondition of conciliation.

The Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi dismissed the arbitration petition for the appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the petitioner had directly approached the Court without taking recourse to the precondition of conciliation.

24. Landlord-Tenant Disputes Governed By Transfer Of Property Act Are Arbitrable In Nature: Reiterates Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Gokaldas Images Private Limited versus Aries Agro-Vet Associates (Pvt) Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 203

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the landlord-tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are arbitrable in nature.

The Single Bench of Justice E.S. Indiresh observed that the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia versus Durga Trading Corporation (2020) had overruled its decision in Himangi Enterprises versus Amaljit Singh Ahulvalia (2017). The Court thus held that the landlord-tenant disputes between the parties under the lease deed, which was governed by the Transfer of Property Act, could be referred to arbitration.

25. Clear Encroachments From Subramanyapura, Begur Lakes: Karnataka High Court Directs Designated Officers Of BBMP

Case Title: CITIZENS ACTION GROUP v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others, Case No: WP 38401/2014.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 204

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Executive Engineers (designated officers) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to take steps and remove encroachments which exist in the tank area of Subramanyapura lake and Begur lake.

26. Formal Documentation Not Mandatory For Adoption Of Privately Owned Elephants, Commercial Transactions Prohibited: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MURULY M.S. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.10688 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 205

The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 40 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 permits private ownership of live elephants and there is no bar in giving them up in adoption, so long as the transaction is of non-commercial nature.

27. S.147 NI Act | Every Offence Under Negotiable Instruments Act Is Compoundable: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Arun Vincent Rajkumar v S Mala

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.579 OF 2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 206

The Karnataka High Court recently said that Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes every offence punishable under the Act as compoundable and there is no bar on parties to compound the offence.

28. Minor Sexual Assault Victim & Her Mother Turning Hostile Amounts To 'Changed Circumstances' For Grant Of Bail: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Hanumanthappa v State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 3997/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 207

The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to an accused alleged of sexually assaulting a minor girl and marrying her, after the victim and her mother turned hostile in court during the trial.

29. Stridhan Cannot Be Retained By Family Of Husband On Annulment Of Marriage: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: GANESH PRASAD HEGDE & Others v SUREKHA SHETTY

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4544 OF 2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 208

The Karnataka High Court has said that annulment of marriage cannot mean that all the articles that woman carried to the matrimonial house can be retained by the family of the husband.

30. State Or Society Cannot Intrude In Individual's Decision On Suitability Of Partner: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: T.L. NAGARAJU v THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

Case No: WRIT PETITION (HC) NO.42/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 209

The Karnataka High Court has observed that the decision of the suitability of partners to a marital tie rests exclusively with the individuals themselves. Neither the State nor the Society can intrude into that domain.

31. 'No Material Against Him': Karnataka High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Bishop

Case Title: RT Rev Prasanna Kumar Samuel v State of Karnataka & others

Case No: WP 5923/2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 210

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated by a Sessions Court against Reverend Prasanna Kumar Samuel under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. He is the Bishop of Church of South India (CSI) Karnataka Central Diocese, Bengaluru.

32. Official Communication Between Two Public Servants Without It Being Referred To Other Departments Not Defamation: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: D.ROOPA v H.N.SATHYANARAYANA RAO

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.72 OF 2022

Citation; 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 211

The Karnataka High Court has held that a pure official communication between two people, without it being referred to any other department or a quarter, cannot become the ingredient of Section 499 of the IPC.

33. Right To Defend Can't Be Illusory: Karnataka HC Orders Evidence Collected Prior To NIA Probe Be Supplied To Accused In 2020 Bangalore Riots Case

Case Title: MUZAMMIL PASHA v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19012 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 212

The Karnataka High Court has directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to furnish in two weeks time the documents which include statements of witnesses recorded by the local police investigating the DJ Halli riot case of 2020 (before the probe was transferred to NIA), to an accused in the case.

34. Wife Levelling Unsubstantiated Allegations Of Husband Being Impotent Amounts To Cruelty: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: XXXX versus XXXX

Case No: MFA NO.102625/2015 (MC)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 213

The Karnataka High Court has held that a wife calling her husband an impotent without legally substantiating the same by itself would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

35. Magistrate Bound To Dispose Applications U/S 12 Domestic Violence Act Within 60 Days From First Hearing Date: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: RAJAMMA H v THIMMAIAH V

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.11265 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 214

The Karnataka High Court has said that an application filed under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, should be decided by the Magistrate within two months (sixty days) from the date of its presentation.

36. Order Terminating The Arbitration Not Challenged; Can't File Section 8 Application Later: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: BEML Ltd. v. Prakash Parcel Services Ltd. M.F.A. No. 4180 of 2019 (AA).

Citation no: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 215

The High Court of Karnataka has held that a subsequent Section 8 application would be non-maintainable when the order of the arbitrator accepting objection to its jurisdiction was not challenged.

37. Power To Decide Interim Custody Of Vehicle Seized Under NDPS Lies With Magistrate/Special Court, Not With Drug Disposal Committee: Karnataka HC

Case No: CRL.P No.3571/2021

Citation no: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 216

The Karnataka High Court has held that a Magistrate or the Special Court (under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act) is conferred with the power/jurisdiction to consider the application for 'interim custody' of the conveyance/vehicle under the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases arising out of the provisions of NDPS Act.

Case Title: Umapathi S. v. State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.10789 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 217

The State Government informed the Karnataka High Court about the appointment of former judge of the High Court, Bhimanagouda Sanganagouda Patil, as the Lokayukta of Karnataka. Following which the bench dismissed the petition filed by Advocate UMAPATHI. S.

39. Architect Can't Be Prosecuted U/S 304A IPC For Death Of Construction Worker In On-Site Accident: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: VISHWAS V v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.5609 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 218

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings pending against an Architect, observing that it would be too far to stretch Section 304A of the IPC to contend that a person who had designed the house is responsible for death of a worker while undertaking construction under a contractor.

40. Karnataka High Court Directs State To Consider Plea By Bhovi Community To Continue Traditional Stone Cutting Work On Govt Land Without License

Case Title: Lakshi Venkateshwara Kallu Kutukara Bhovi Shakhara Sangha v. The State Of Karnataka

Case No: WP 11537/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 219

The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to consider the representation to be made by members of the Bhovi Community, who are involved in traditional stone cutting work and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, in respect of allowing them to continue their work in Meesaganahalli village.

41. Regular Enquiry Not Practical, Will Affect Morale Of Force: Karnataka HC Upholds Dismissal Of CISF Constables Accused Of Rape By Another Constable's Wife

Case Title: Vikas Verma & Others v. Union of India & Others.

Case No: WA 5651/2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 220

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the dismissal from service order passed by the Disciplinary Authority against eight constables of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), for allegedly blackmailing and repeatedly raping the wife of another constable. The order was passed without holding regular inquiry.

42. Abuses Hurled In Basement Which Was Not In Public View Not An Offence: Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Under SC/ST Act

Case Title: RITHESH PAIS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3597 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 221

The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against an accused under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, holding that alleged abuses hurled by him to the complainant were in the basement of a building which was not a place of public view or a public place.

43. Commonwealth Games 2022: Karnataka HC Dismisses Table Tennis Player Archana Kamat's Plea Challenging Her Exclusion

Case Title: ARCHANA GIRISH KAMATH v. UNION OF INDIA

Case No: WP 11644/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 222

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by Table Tennis Player Archana Kamath, questioning the decision of the Table Tennis Federation in not selecting her in the team which would represent India in the upcoming CommonWealth Games, 2022, to be held in England.

44. S.143A NI Act | 'Conduct Of Accused' Relevant Consideration While Deciding Application For Interim Compensation: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: V.KRISHNAMURTHY v. DIARY CLASSIC ICE CREAMS PVT. LTD

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.632 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 223

The Karnataka High Court has directed Magistrate courts to take into consideration conduct of the accused while deciding application filed by drawee in a cheque dishonour case, seeking interim compensation under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

45. 45 Days' Delay In Lodging FIR: Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings In Absence Of Plausible Explanation

Case Title: B.DURGA RAM v. The State By BENGALURU CITY CENTRAL P.S.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2072 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 224

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings pending against a man holding that the FIR lodged by the complainant was 45 days after the alleged incident of assault and no plausible explanation was given for the delayed filing of FIR.

46. Karnataka High Court Quashes Private Complaint Against Kannada News Channel Alleging It Spoke Ill About Advocates' Fraternity

Case Title: PUBLIC TV (KANNADA NEWS CHANNEL) and ANR v. BANNADI SOMANATH HEGDE

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.10262 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 225

The Karnataka High Court has quashed defamation proceedings initiated against Public TV, a Kannada news channel, and HR Ranganath, Chief Patron of the channel, initiated based on a private complaint filed alleging that several media entities has spoken ill about the advocate's fraternity at large.

47. S 498-A IPC Charge Not Maintainable Against Woman Alleged To Be In Illicit Relationship With Complainant's Husband: Karnataka HC

Case Title: XXX versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2743 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 226

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a woman under sections 498-A, 506, 504 and 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by another woman alleging that the accused was having an illicit relationship with her husband.

48. There Cannot Be Any 'Deemed Forest' Under The Forest Conservation Act: Karnataka High Court Reiterates

Case Title: D M Deve Gowda v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Case No: WP 10502/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 227

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a land can either be a "forest" or a "forest land", but there cannot be any "deemed forest" in absence of any provision under the Forest Conservation Act.

49. Amendment Of Plaint Can Be Permitted After Commencement Of Trial If Fundamental Character Of Suit Is Not Affected: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: REKHA & Others versus LALITHAMMA & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 55337 OF 2018(GM-CPC)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 228

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a plaintiff's request for amendment of plaint can be considered even after commencement of trial, in case the fundamental character of the suit is not changed and no prejudice is caused to the responding party.

50. Courts Duty Bound To Consider All Contentions Raised By Parties While Deciding Bail Applications: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: NELSON RAJ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.267 OF 2022 & CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.337 OF 2022.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw 229

The Karnataka High Court has said that courts are bound to take into consideration all the contentions raised by the parties while hearing a bail petition filed before it and then pass an appropriate order.

51. Karnataka High Court Acquits Woman Accused Of Murdering Her Two Months Old Child By Throwing In River

Case Title: Kavitha v. State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1372 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 230

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on a woman for allegedly causing the death of her two months old girl-child, who was suffering from epilepsy and some respiratory problems, by throwing her into a river.

52. Bank Can't Seek Issuance Of 'Look Out Circular' For Recovery Of Dues Unless Economic Interest Of Country Is Involved: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mrs Leena Rakesh v Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home Affairs.

Case No: WP 11213/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 231

The Karnataka High Court has said the request for issuance of a Look out Circular (LOC) or preventing a person (defaulter of loan) from travelling abroad cannot be a mode of recovery of dues by a bank, unless there is an element of fraud and economic interest of the country is involved.

53. Karnataka High Court Orders ₹10 Lakh Compensation For Death Of 2-Yr-Old In Stray Dog Attack

Case Title: YUSUB S/O MOHAMUSAB SANADI v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 110352 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 232

The Karnataka High Court has held that there is a statutory obligation which has been imposed upon the local municipal authorities to safeguard the human beings cohabitating within their jurisdiction, from the danger of any stray dogs and/or any attack by such stray dogs.

54. Reasons For Handcuffing Accused Must Be Recorded In Case Diary: Karnataka High Court Awards 2 Lakh Compensation To Law Student

Case Title: SUPRIT ISHWAR DIVATE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 115362 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 233

The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused who is arrested can normally not be handcuffed. It is only under "extreme circumstances", for instance where there is possibility of the accused/ under trial prisoner escaping custody or causing harm to himself or causing harm to others, that handcuffing of an accused can be resorted to.

55. Accused Can't Be Convicted For Charge Which Is Not Framed By Trial Court: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M.AJITHKUMAR v THE STATE BY FOOD INSPECTOR, KOPPA

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1527/2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 234

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction handed down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the trial court for a charge which it did not frame against the accused, and remanded the matter back to be considered afresh.

56. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea Moved By Transgender Person After Alleged Partner Denies Relationship

Case Title: XXX v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION HABEAS CORPUS No.57 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 235

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a transgender person, seeking directions to the police to produce an 18-year old girl, alleged to be his partner.

57. Karnataka High Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement Of Civil Judge For Preparing Order Sheets Of Proceedings That Did Not Even Take Place

Case Title: SHIVANAND LAXMAN ANCHI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.16983 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 236

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a former Civil Judge, Junior Division questioning the order dated March 22, 2021 passed by the state government ordering compulsory retirement from service.

58. Counsel Entitled To Physically Accompany Party To Remote Point While Giving Evidence Via Video Conferencing: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: K LAKSHMAIAH REDDY v. V ANIL REDDY & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.10926 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 237

The Karnataka High Court has held that a counsel/advocate appearing for the parties are entitled to be physically present at the remote point from where the evidence of such party is being recorded through video conferencing.

59. Execution Court Can Issue Delivery Warrant For Decreed Suit Property Even If Possession Not Sought In Suit For Specific Performance: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: DADA S/O BALU ROOGE v. APPASAHEB S/O KIRAN KESTE

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102158 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 238

The Karnataka High Court has held that even if the plaintiff has not sought a relief of possession in a suit for specific performance, but had only sought the prayer for execution of the sale deed, the Execution Court can issue a delivery warrant directing the Judgment debtor to handover possession of the property, upon decree holder performing all obligations as stated in decree.

60. Bitcoin Scam: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash LOC Against Brother Of Accused Sirkrishna

Case Tile: Sudarshan Ramesh v. Union Of India

Case No: WP 1730/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 239

The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by Sudarshan Ramesh, brother of bitcoin scam accused Sirkrishna, questioning the action of Central authorities in restraining him from leaving India and travelling to the Netherlands.