Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: September 2022 [Citation 344 - 385]

MAHANTESH KOUJALAGI v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 344

The State of Karnataka v. S.B. Shivashankar. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 345

S.C. MAHESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 346

M.PRAKASH v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 347

ESHWAR R & others v KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 348

POULAMI BASU v. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 349

M Chiranjeevi v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 350

HARISH A.S. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 351

S.R. Ravi v. Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 352

DANDELI BACHAO ANDOLAN SAMITHI v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 353

Abraham T.J v B.S. Yediyurappa & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 354

AJ v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 355

M.MANJULA v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 356

DR. (SMT.) ANITHA PATIL And STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 357

SAYYED SOHEL TORVI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

AMRUTHESH N.P v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

VIJAYKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

SANDEEP REDDY v State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

KRISHNAPPA v ASHWATHAMMA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 362

SOMASHEKAR SHANKARAPPA HURUKADLI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw 363

M/S NAMBOOR JEWELLERS v. STATE BY LASHKAR POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 364

Jaganmayi Builders and Developers Private Limited & Ors. versus Sumanth Reddy & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 365

MUDIT SAXENA v UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 366

B.V. BYRE GOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 367

R D RAMADAS v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 368

SRI VASAVI EDUCATION SOCIETY v KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 369

PRAMOD H. MUTALIK v. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 370

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v SHANKARAMMA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 371

SHIVARAJA @ KULLA SHIVARAJA v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 372

M/s. Subex Limited versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 373

D Reddeppa v. The State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 374

SRK ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and ors and connected matters. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 375

KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY v. KEERTHANA Y.H & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 376

MOHAN CHANDRA P v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 377

Shadakshari C.L & others v Santhosha C.A & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 378

AP v. WIPRO LIMITED REPRESENTED. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 379

Siddappa v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 380

Devandrappa v. Huligemma. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 381

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD v SAYEEDA KHANAM W/O. LATE AZAM KHAN. 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 382

N.S.VIJAYANTH BABU v. ADVOCATES' ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU(AAB). 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 383

PRIYAMSHU KUMAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 384

K. UMESH SHETTY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 385

Judgments/Orders

1. Representation Of Peoples Act | S.127A Prescribes Non-Cognizable Offence, Magistrate's Permission Mandatory For Police Investigation: Karnataka HC

Case Title: MAHANTESH KOUJALAGI v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5528/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 344

The Karnataka High Court has said that offence under Section 127-A of the Representation of People Act (Restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters, etc) is a non-cognizable offence and hence, permission for police investigation must be granted by Magistrate in terms of Section 155 of CrPC.

2. Minimum Punishment Prescribed U/S 27(d) Of Drugs & Cosmetics Act Can Be Reduced If Accused Enters Plea Bargain: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: The State of Karnataka v. S.B. Shivashankar

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.775 OF 2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 345

The Karnataka High Court has upheld a trial court order imposing a sentence less than the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, noting that the accused had entered into a plea bargain under Section 265-B of CrPC and had accepted his guilt.

3. Article 350 Constitution | Citizens' Grievance Before Jurisdictional Authorities Can't Be Kept Unconsidered Indefinitely. Karnataka High Court

Case Title: S.C. MAHESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.16625 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 346

The Karnataka High Court has observed that Article 350 of the Constitution of India mandates that where a citizen raises a grievance before jurisdictional authorities, it cannot be kept unconsidered indefinitely.

4. Issuance Of Multiple Notices By Investigating Authority Does Not Falter Preliminary Inquiry: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M.PRAKASH v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.15624 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 347

The Karnataka High Court has said that issuance of multiple notices by the investigating agency to a person while carrying out preliminary enquiry into a case cannot be a ground for faltering the enquiry.

5. CET 2022: Karnataka High Court Directs KEA To Redo Ranking Process For Engineering & Technology Courses

Case Title: ESHWAR R & others v KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY

Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.15429 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 348

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka Examinations Authority to redo the CET rankings for admission to undergraduate courses in Engineering and Technology for the academic year 2022-23.

6. Passport Officer Can't Insist On Father's Consent Where Mother Holds Exclusive Custody Of Minor: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: POULAMI BASU v. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO.14716 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 349

The Karnataka High Court has said that once exclusive custody of a child is granted by the Family Court to a mother, the Regional Passport Officer is not justified in insisting upon the presence of the father of the ward or for his consent for issuing a passport to the child.

7. Writ Courts Can't Adopt 'Come What May Attitude' In Contractual Matters When Actions Of Public Functionaries Are Manifestly Arbitrary: Karnataka HC

Case Title: M Chiranjeevi v. State of Karnataka

Case No: WP NO 46302 of 2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 350

The Karnataka High Court has observed that ordinarily, Writ Courts do not grant indulgence in matters involving contract and non-payment of contractors' bills, more particularly when disputed facts are involved. Aggrieved parties can work out their remedies by an ordinary civil suit or by invoking arbitration clause, if there be one.

8. State Legislators Not Disqualified From Holding Posts In Committees, Society: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: HARISH A.S. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: W.P. NO.18278 OF 2021 C/W W.P. NO.19421 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 351

The Karnataka High Court has held that a Member of the State Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council is not disqualified from holding the post of Chairman of any Committee or of any society.

9. Existence Of Arbitration Agreement Can Be Presumed If No Denial Is Made In The Reply: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: S.R. Ravi v. Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 180 of 2020

Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 352

The Karnataka High Court has held that the words "statements of claim and defence" under Section 7(4)(c) of the A&C Act are to be given wider interpretation and reply to a notice of arbitration falls within the section.

10. Balance Must Be Struck Between Development & Ecology: Karnataka High Court Dismisses PIL Against Commercial Use Of Kali River Water

Case Title: DANDELI BACHAO ANDOLAN SAMITHI v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: W.P. NO.16505 OF 2007

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 353

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Dandeli Bachao Andolan Samithi, challenging the State's decision to part with water resources of Kali river and permit commercial use by a sugar mill.

11. Karnataka High Court Restores Bribery Complaint Against Former CM Yediyurappa

Case Title: Abraham T.J v B.S. Yediyurappa & Others

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5659/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 354

The Karnataka High Court has restored a bribery complaint filed against former Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa, his son B.Y. Vijayendra and others alleging offences under Prevention of Corruption Act.

12. POCSO Case Against Minor Can Be Quashed On Parties Arriving At Mutual Settlement: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: AJ v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 355

The Karnataka High Court on Friday allowed a petition filed by a minor boy and set aside the investigation initiated against him under sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl, following a mutual settlement having arrived at between the parties.

13. Magistrate Can't Direct Further Investigation By Police After Rejecting Closure Report Filed By HC Constituted SIT: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M.MANJULA v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.7784 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 356

The Karnataka High Court has held that a Magistrate court cannot direct further investigation by some other investigation agency after rejecting the B report (closure report) filed by a probe agency that was appointed by the High Court.

14. Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Doctor Accused Of Forcefully Performing Sex Change Operation On Minor

Case Title: DR. (SMT.) ANITHA PATIL And STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8213 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 357

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the FIR and chargesheet filed against a doctor under POCSO Act for allegedly conducting a forcible sex change operation on a minor boy, after kidnapping him.

The bench said, "The petitioner in the present matter is a Doctor, who is alleged to have conducted the sex change operation, and the other offences have not been alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has contended that the petitioner has not performed the operation, I am of the considered opinion that this cannot be a matter which can be decided in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that is a matter which is required to be left for trial."

15. Special Court Empowered To Try General IPC Offences Arising Out Of Case Probed By NIA: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: SAYYED SOHEL TORVI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19019 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Special NIA Court is empowered to conduct trial for general offences punishable under Indian Penal Code if the FIR emanates from the very same transaction being probed by the NIA.

A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Sayyed Sohel Torvi an accused in the Bengaluru riots case of 2020, questioning the order of the special court dated September 30, 2021 by which his application made under section 20 r/w Section 8 of the NIA Act for transfer of his case to the Court having jurisdiction to try IPC offences was rejected.

16. Graphite India 'Absolute Owner' Of Closed Bengaluru Plant, Can't Revert Land To State Govt: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: AMRUTHESH N.P v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

Case No: W.P.No.7039/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the State to reacquire the land allotted to M/s Graphite India Ltd., which had to close down its operations after several complaints were made by the residents of the locality with regard to the pollution caused by its functioning.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition filed by one Amruthesh NP seeking to revert the land allotted to Graphite India to the State government, for use either by upcoming entrepreneurs or as a lung space of the locality.

17. Accused Can't Ordinarily Move Quashing Plea If Sessions Court Granted Pre-Arrest Bail On Condition To Cooperate In Criminal Investigation: Karnataka HC

Case Title: VIJAYKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3163 OF 2021 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4322 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

The Karnataka High Court has said that an accused who has secured anticipatory bail orders at the hands of jurisdictional Sessions Judge, wherein a condition is stipulated for the accused to cooperate in the investigation process, cannot readily approach the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while dismissing two petitions filed by Vijaykumar and Abubekar said, "Petitioners have secured anticipatory bail orders at the hands of jurisdictional Sessions Judge wherein a condition is stipulated for the accused to cooperate in the investigation process. That being the position, petitioners cannot readily come before this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. It is for the Investigating Agency to look into the matter and take a call as to its investigation worthiness."

18. Mere Pendency Of One More Case Against Accused Itself Can't Be Treated As Criminal Antecedent To Deny Bail: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: SANDEEP REDDY v State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5740 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

The Karnataka High Court has observed that mere pendency of one more case against the petitioner-accused itself cannot be treated as a criminal antecedent so as to deny him bail.

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by one Sandeep Reddy and granted him bail. Reddy has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC (Punishment for dacoity). He had approached the court seeking bail on the ground of parity, stating that co-accused in the case have been granted bail.

19. Unregistered Family Settlement Admissible In Evidence Only If Agreement Is Confirmed With Approval Of All Family Members: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: KRISHNAPPA v ASHWATHAMMA

Case No: R.S.A.NO.87 OF 2010

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 362

The Karnataka High Court has held that a family settlement arrived at between parties to share immovable properties has to be among all the family members who agree to common terms and conditions and an agreement in writing between two parties to the suit arrived before the panchayat is not acceptable, unless it is a registered document.

The bench said, "Family settlement involves participation and the same needs to be signed by all the members and there has to be an acknowledgment when the agreement is arrived at, free of duress and coercion within the family members. A family settlement is admissible in evidence provided that the agreement is confirmed with approval of all family members who firmly support resolution given in the agreement at a later date which does not require registration."

20. Karnataka High Court Directs Haveri Deputy Commissioner To Act Against Alleged Illegal Slaughter Houses

Case Title: SOMASHEKAR SHANKARAPPA HURUKADLI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WP No 1646/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw 363

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Haveri district to expeditiously take action on the representation made to it about alleged illegal slaughter houses being operational in the district without any license.

21. S.451 CrPC: Karnataka High Court Says Gold Ornaments Seized Can Be Kept In Custody For Maximum 1 Month

Case Title: M/S NAMBOOR JEWELLERS v. STATE BY LASHKAR POLICE STATION

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7105 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 364

The Karnataka High Court has said that if gold bullion or gold ornaments are seized during the investigation of an offence, the maximum period that it could be held is 15 days or one month and later, it should be released and interim custody should be handed over to the victim/complainant/applicant.

22. Arbitration Clause, Effect Of Novation; Can't Be Decided Under Section 11 Of A&C Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Jaganmayi Builders and Developers Private Limited & Ors. versus Sumanth Reddy & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 365

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the issue whether an agreement containing an arbitration clause stood novated with the execution of a second agreement and thus, the arbitration agreement between the parties was not subsisting, cannot be decided at the stage of reference to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), since it involves a detailed enquiry which must be decided by the Arbitrator himself under Section 16 of the A&C Act.

23. Loan Recovery: Karnataka High Court Restrains PNB Housing Finance From Taking Coercive Measures Against Apartment Buyers

Case Title: MUDIT SAXENA v UNION OF INDIA

Case No: W.P.NO.17696/2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 366

In a significant order, the Karnataka High Court has restrained Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited from taking any coercive measures to recover the amount from loan borrowers who had entered into a tripartite agreements after booking their apartment units with M/S Mantri Developers Private Limited, in terms of "Pre-EMI Scheme".

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed a batch of petitions filed by the loan borrowers and said, "A Writ of Mandamus is issued restraining the Respondent-PNB Housing Finance Limited from taking any coercive measures against the petitioners for recovering any amount comprised in the Loan Agreements and Tripartite Agreements in question."

24. Approval From Chairman Of State Pollution Control Board Must For Initiating Criminal Action Against Defaulters Under Air Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: B.V. BYRE GOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8067 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 367

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Chairman of State's Pollution Control Board to hold necessary workshops to educate and train its officers as regards initiation of criminal proceedings under Air and Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has asked the Chairman to take assistance of NLSIU's Environment Law Centre for this purpose. He is also directed to place on record the topics that could be covered in such workshops along with the material that would be distributed in the said workshops.

25. Karnataka High Court Asks State Government To Review Employee Transfer Guidelines

Case Title: R D RAMADAS v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.11934/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 368

Concerned over the increase in number of cases related to transfer orders of government employees, the Karnataka High Court has said it is high time for the State to have relook at the relevant guidelines framed by it in 2013.

"The State being the largest litigant owes a duty to the justice delivery dispensation," said the court. The court said the state government should look into the concept of commutable distance and also consider the distinction between areas - which are well equipped with all the basic necessities like hospitals, schools, colleges, residential accommodation etc, and remote and inaccessible areas involving Hilly Terrain, Towns and Villages surrounded by forest etc or towns and villages in highly undeveloped or under-developed parts of the State.

26. Karnataka State Commission For SC/ST Cannot Direct Govt To Withhold Grants to School: High Court

Case Title: SRI VASAVI EDUCATION SOCIETY v KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 101248 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 369

The Karnataka High Court has said that Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 does not empower the Commission constituted under it to direct the government to withhold grants being made to an educational institution.

Justice M.I.ARUN of the Dharwad bench allowed the petition filed by Sri Vasavi Education Society and set aside the interim order dated 16.09.2021, by which the commission directed the government to withhold the grants being made to the petitioner institution.

27. Karnataka HC Quashes Order Prohibiting Sri Rama Sene Founder From Meeting Praveen Netturu's Family

Case Title: PRAMOD H. MUTALIK v. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7611 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 370

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an order restraining Sri Ram Sene Founder Pramod H. Mutalik from meeting the family of Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) leader Praveen Netturu, who was killed on July 26 at Bellare in Mangaluru.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Mutalik and said, "The order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the District Commissioner and District Magistrate, Mangaluru, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to issue a notice and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law."

28. Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Just Because Driver Died of Heart Attack In Parked Vehicle: Karnataka HC

Case Title: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v SHANKARAMMA & others

Case No: M.F.A. NO.20003/2010

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 371

The Karnataka High Court has held that an insurance company is not absolved of its liability to pay compensation, in case the driver of an insured vehicle dies of heart attack during the course of employment, only on the ground that the tipper lorry was not in use at the time of his death.

Referring to an earlier ruling in which the court held that driving is undoubtedly a tension-filled job, Justice H P Sandesh of Dharwad bench said, "The Court has to take note of policy taken in order to cover the risk of the driver during the course of employment. I have already pointed out that respondent No.1 [employer] in the written statement in para No.2 categorically admitted that the death is in the course of employment and the same cannot be disputed by the insurer."

29. Article 22(5): Delay In Considering Representation Against Detention Order A Ground To Nullify It, Says Karnataka HC

Case Title: SHIVARAJA @ KULLA SHIVARAJA v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU

Case No: WRIT PETITION (HC) No.39/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 372

The Karnataka High Court has said that delayed consideration by authorities of the representation made by a detenu amounts to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and constitutes a ground to nullify the order of detention.

A division bench of Justice B. VEERAPPA and Justice K.S. HEMALEKHA made the observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by detenue Shivaraja @ Kulla Shivaraja and his wife against the order passed by Commissioner of Police, Bengaluruagainst him under the provision of Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act.

30. Export Of Software Embedded Into Hardware; Sale Proceeds From Export Of Hardware Eligible For Deduction : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s. Subex Limited versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 373

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that where a software embedded into a hardware is exported by the assessee, the proceeds from export of the hardware component is eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that the hardware was separately invoiced and was not manufactured by the assessee, if the software cannot be used independently.

Taking a judicial note of the fact that the software and the hardware components were inseparable from each other, the division bench of Justices P.S. Dinesh Kumar and M.G. Uma held that issue of separate invoices by the assessee for sale of hardware and software components is inconsequential. The Court ruled that what is relevant is the intention of the parties and the product that is actually sold.

31. S.357A CrPC | Magistrate & Sessions Judge Should Recommend In Judgment Whether There Is Need For Compensation To Rehabilitate Victim: Karnataka HC

Case Title: D Reddeppa v. The State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1113/2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 374

The Karnataka High Court has suggested that while delivering final judgments after completion of trial, Magistrate and Sessions Judge must pass a reasoned order as to whether there is a need to make a recommendation for payment of compensation for the rehabilitation of the victim of a crime or not, under Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

A division bench of Justice K. Somashekar and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar said, "Looking into the welfare object behind Section 357A of the Code, which is apparent from the text of the provision, this Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge while delivering final judgments, after completion of the trial, must pass a reasoned order as to whether there is a need to make a recommendation for payment of compensation for the rehabilitation of the victim of a crime or not."

32. Shakespeare's Play Finds Mention As Karnataka HC Upholds Govt Order On Wind Energy Project

Case Title : SRK ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and ors and connected matters

Citation no: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 375

The Karnataka High Court has refused interference in petitions seeking to invalidate Government Order enhancing the capacity of its Wind Energy Project and allotting the same to one Ayana Limited.

Justice Krishna S Dixit observed that so long as State acts fairly in matters of State Largesse without compromising public interest, its decision cannot be interfered with merely citing "arguable" procedural infirmities. While holding thus, the bench made it clear that grievances, if any, need to be balanced and cannot be worked out by clever arguments.

33. CET 2022: Karnataka High Court Directs State To Consider Normalisation Of Marks For Repeater Candidates

Case Title: KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY v. KEERTHANA Y.H & others

Case NO: W.A. NO.900 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 376

The Karnataka High Court on Friday accepted the revised method formulated by the state government for assigning CET rankings to repeater-students, for admission to undergraduate courses in Engineering and Technology for the academic year 2022-23.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said, "During the course of hearing, a consensus has been evolved amongst the learned counsel for the parties in respect of second method for evaluation of the marks of II PUC batch 2021 for the UGCET academic year 2022–2023, be made the basis for assigning CET rankings to the students. It is therefore directed that aforesaid second method shall be made the basis for assigning CET rankings and the State Government shall issue a notification accordingly."

34. Karnataka High Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Former Civil Judge, Upholds Appointments Made to State Information Commission

Case Title: MOHAN CHANDRA P v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.481 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 377

Upholding the appointments made to the posts of Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners in 2019, the Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner, who was a former judicial officer, for suppression of material facts in his plea and unnecessarily harassing the appointees.

A division bench of Justice B.VEERAPPA AND JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA dismissed the intra-court appeal filed by Mohan Chandra P, who appeared in person, against the single judge bench order dated 21.04.2022 by which the writ court rejected his petition questioning the appointments.

35. Temporary Injunction Can Be Continued By Appellate Court If Trial Court Finding Not Clear On Title Of Suit Property: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Shadakshari C.L & others v Santhosha C.A & others.

Case No: MFA NO.667 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 378

The Karnataka High Court has said that if the trial court has not given clear finding in regards the possession of a suit property, it is better for the appellate court to grant an order of temporary injunction, if it was in operation till disposal of the suit before the trial court.

A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "There is no hard and fast rule that the appellate court should not refer to the evidence of the witnesses and the findings given by the trial court while deciding the application for temporary injunction. If the appellate court feels that the evidence has to be looked into, it should be for the limited purpose of forming an opinion regarding the nature or status of the property."

36. Grievance Redressal Committees Of Startups & IT Companies Can't Decide Disputes Qua Termination: Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea Against WIPRO

Case Title: AP v. WIPRO LIMITED REPRESENTED

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 47550 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 379

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that the Grievance Redressal Committees established by various Startups and IT companies, in compliance with State government's notification issued in 2014, cannot decide disputes relating to termination of employment.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that the said notification relates to grievances of an "existing employee" and thus, an ex-employee cannot challenge his termination on the ground that the enquiry against him was not conducted by the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC).

37. Prosecution Must Establish Facts Indicating 'Special Knowledge' To Shift Burden of Proof On Accused U/S 106 Evidence Act: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Siddappa v. State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200104 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 380

The Karnataka High Court has said that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, which are within the special knowledge of the accused.

A division bench of Justices Dr. HB Prabhakara Sastry and Anil B. Katti, sitting at Kalaburagi said, "It is only if the prosecution could be able to show that the facts and circumstances of the case would clearly go to show that a particular fact is especially within the knowledge of the accused, only then the burden of proving that fact would be upon the accused."

38. Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act | Election Petition May Be Presented By Advocate In Immediate Presence of Party: High Court

Case Title: Devandrappa v. Huligemma

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.200133 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 381

The Karnataka High Court has said that under Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, an Election Petition can be presented before the designated court even by the advocate of the party, in the immediate presence of that party.

A single judge bench of Justice HT Narendra Prasad sitting at Kalaburagi said, "It is clear that under Section 15(1) of the 1993 Act, the Election Petition has to be presented by the petitioner to a Designated Court. Even the advocate of the petitioner presented the petition to the Designated Court in the immediate presence of the petitioner, that fulfils the requirement of law."

39. Blood Relatives Can Share Employer-Employee Relationship Under Workmen's Compensation Act: Karnataka HC

Case Title: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD v SAYEEDA KHANAM W/O. LATE AZAM KHAN

Case No: MFA No.25711/2011

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 382

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there are no provisions prohibiting blood relatives to be employer and employee.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh sitting at Dharwad dismissed the appeal filed by the Divisional Manager of Oriental Insurance, questioning the order of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner at Koppal by which it fastened liability on the company in a claim petition filed by the legal heirs of deceased driver Azam Khan, who died in an accident in 2008.

40. Advocates Act Confers No Right To Park Vehicle Inside Court Premises: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: N.S.VIJAYANTH BABU v. ADVOCATES' ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU(AAB)

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18614/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 383

The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 30 of the Advocates' Act only confers the right on the Advocates to practice and it does not confer any right on any advocate to park his/her vehicle inside Court premises.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed a public interest litigation filed by advocate N.S.Vijayanth Babu, seeking quashing of a notice regarding issuance of new vehicle stickers for the members of the Advocates' Association.

41. Karnataka High Court Discharges Accused Who 'Assaulted' Police Officer During Drunk Driving Check

Case Title: PRIYAMSHU KUMAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.298 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 384

The Karnataka High Court recently discharged two men in a case accusing them of assaulting a traffic policeman in 2017 when they were being booked for alleged drunken driving. The police had registered a case under Section 353 IPC against the accused for preventing the cop from discharging his duty. Justice Mohammed Nawaz allowed the petition filed by Priyamshu Kumar and his friend Alok Kumar - who are both in late 20s, and set aside the order passed by the trial court rejecting their application seeking discharge in the case.

42. Test Identification Parade Can't Be Permitted After Lapse Of Several Years: Karnataka HC

Case Title: K. UMESH SHETTY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8077 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 385

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that Test Identification Parade is to ascertain the identity of accused persons and cannot be conducted after lapse of several years, as there is risk of the witnesses having lost proper memory.

It thus set aside an order passed by the trial court permitting the investigating officer to conduct a TIP of an accused after 11 years of filing of complaint.