Karnataka High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March, 2023 [Citations: 1-133]
Nominal Index [Citation 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 1- 133]Priyanaka R Patil v. Kendriya Sainik Board. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 1Ankit Kumar & others v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 2M/S. Provident Housing Limited v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 3Latha Choodiah v. Sree Balaji H. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 4P Sunil Kumar & ANR v. State...
Nominal Index [Citation 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 1- 133]
Priyanaka R Patil v. Kendriya Sainik Board. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
Ankit Kumar & others v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
M/S. Provident Housing Limited v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
Latha Choodiah v. Sree Balaji H. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
P Sunil Kumar & ANR v. State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
THE CAP A PIE v. The South Western Railways. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
Karnataka State Association of the Management of Nursing v. Allied Health Science Institution And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
Praveen Bhai Togadia & ANR v. State of Karnataka & others 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
Suchitra Cinema and Cultural Academy v. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
Prasad Raykar v. B T Dinesh 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
Bharat Punarutthana Trust V. The Government Of Karnataka & Others 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
Central Bureau of Investigation And State of Karnataka 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
M/s Wipro India Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
Rashmi Education Trust Vidyaniketan School & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
Ravi @ Kamran Ravi And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
Abdul Majeed And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
Pavan And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
State of Karnataka And Shaikh Rouf. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
S Neelakantappa And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
Honnegowda & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
Kuldeep And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
Union of India & others And State of Karnataka & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
XXX And ABC. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
XYZ And ABC. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
K V Srinivas Rao & others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
Rajeev Chandrasekhar And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
Dr.Satyakk And Government of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
National Insurance Company Ltd And Menpa Maistry & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
K M Basha And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
M/s BBP Studio Virtual Bharat Pvt Ltd And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
Shailesh Kumar V And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
Vijay Kumar & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 32
M/s Allengers Medical Systems Ltd And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
Padmanabha N S & others v. State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
Ranjith Naik K V & Others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
Thotlegowda v. State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
M Prakash And M Vinayaka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
Ameena Afroj And State of Karnataka & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
Shesha Krishna And Krishn Hegde. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
Akshata Chougala & Others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
CH K.S.Prasad @ K S Prasad And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
Cheluvaraju And Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
Somanna & Others And Prakash. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
Hemanthkumar N And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
Syadul Akhon @Shahid Ahmad And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
Jana Jagruthi Samithi & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
SRINIVAS.S And STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
Kyathappa S & others v. The Secretary & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 49
Pratibha Singh And Vineet Kumar. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 50
Santhosh Kumar H And A Keshava Bhat & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 51
High Court of Karnataka And K S Anil. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 52
M/s Premier Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd versus Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
PUNARVASU @ VASU And INDRANI S. 2023 LiveLaw (kar) 54
M V Guruprasad & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 55
G And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 56
Shadaksharappa And Kumari Vijayalaxmi. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 57
M.B.Jayadevaiah And The Managing Director, BMTC Central Offices & ANR.. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
M/s Hindustan Medical Products And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 59
Jayamma And Jayamma @ Nagamma. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
Sharan Desai v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 61
Ramachandra & ANR And State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
Sikandar Mohammad Ali Dalal & ANR And Babu Hanumanth Mindolkar & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
National Law School of India University And Manjula P R & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
Director of Income Tax Versus IBM India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
A.B. Yomakeshappa And Karnataka State Information Commission & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
Indian Coffee Workers Cooperative Society Limited And The Senior Labour Inspector & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 67
Nagamma And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 68
K J Kunjumon & others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
Patil Malligemadu Chandrashekhar & others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
Vuppalapti Satish Kumar And VTH Source Components Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
H.Nagabhushana Rao And The Under Secretary FFR Division & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
Siddalingappa S T And Karnataka State Human Rights Commission. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
Arunkumar N. T And Deputy Commissioner of Police & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
Times Now BCCL And Bhojaraj R Patil. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
H C Nandish & ANR And The Ministry of Indian Railways & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
Sachin And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
Cohiba Club And Deputy Commissioner & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
N Hanumegowda And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
Ramachandra Reddy & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
Aithappa Naika And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 81
XYZ And Karnataka State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 82
DR. K.N.Anuradha And Karnataka State Information Commission & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
The Mysore Electrical Industries Limited And Engineering & General Workers Union. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
B Ranganath Hegde And Karnataka State Legal Services Authority & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
Kattemane Ganesha v. State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
M/s Inditrade Fincorp Pvt Ltd And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 87
Jayanna B @ Jayaram And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 88
P S Leelavathi v. N Ravi Shankar & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
Karnataka Lokayuktha And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (kar) 90
Belandur GM Pan,Karyalaya And Government of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 91
Karnataka State Private Homoeopathic Medical College Managements Association And Union of India & oThers. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 92
The State of Karnataka Versus The Index Technologies India Ltd.. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 93
Basavanand Swamigalu And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
Syed Ghouse Mohiyuddin Shah Khadri And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 95
ABC & others And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
A Manju And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
Vihaan Direct Selling India Private Limited And The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement. 2023 Livelaw (Kar) 98
M Venkateshappa And The Karnataka Information Commission & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
Nagalinga And The Excise Commissioner in Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
Murugan T And P. Jayagovinda Bhat & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
Mallikarjun Desai Goudar And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 102
KARNATAKA UNAIDED SCHOOLS MANAGEMENTS ASSOCIATION And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
ABC Vs XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
ABC Vs XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 105
ABC And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
Jayamma & Others And State of Karnataka & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
Lakshminarayana And Lokesh L. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
Sameer Dinakar Bhole And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
Khaleel Ul Rehman & Others And Sharaffunnisa Muniri @ Ashraf Unnisa. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
M/s D C B Bank Limited And The Assistant Commissioner. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
Dr Sanjeev Kumar Hiremath And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
Dr Bhanu C Ramachandran And Union of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
M/S AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED And UNION OF INDIA. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
The Public Information Officer And The State Information Commissioner & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
Kavitha M And Raghu & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
Basangouda And Muddangouda & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
Bharatiya Janata Party And Election Commission of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
Master Arya Selvakumar Priya & ANR And Joint Secretary (PSP) and Chief Passport officer & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
Renuka Manghnani And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
M/s S P Metals Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
Omkarmurthy And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
The Principal Secretary & ANR And Tejasco Techsoft Private Limited. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
K. Madal Virupakshappa And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
T Roopeshkumar @ Roopi And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
Sujata & Others And Nehru @ Kamagond Patil & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
Siddu And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
Anoop Bajaj And Jayanna. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 129
KM And KC & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 130
The Director (Exams) & Others And Ravishankar & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
Himayath Ali Khan v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 132
M/S Patanjali Foods Limited Versus Union Of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Priyanaka R Patil v. Kendriya Sainik Board
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19722 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
The Karnataka High Court has struck down a criteria in the guidelines issued by the Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement, by which married daughters under the age of 25-years, were held ineligible for issuance of dependent Identity cards. The identity card, if issued, makes them eligible to apply for government jobs in the reserved category for ex-servicemen.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprsanna allowed the petition filed by one Priyanka R Patil, who is the daughter of deceased Subedar Ramesh Khandappa Police Patil who was killed in action and struck down guideline 5(c) holding it to be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Ankit Kumar & others v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.25783 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) cannot, in the absence of enabling rules, withhold the original documents of medical students who have participated in the second round of counselling and secured a seat and then desire to participate in the counselling process elsewhere in other states.
A division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice C M Joshi allowing the petition filed by Ankit Kumar and others, directed the Authority to consider their representations for return of original documents and return them forthwith.
Case Title: M/S. Provident Housing Limited v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ANR.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.18448 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, directing M/S. Provident Housing Limited to refund an amount to an apartment purchaser, who filed a complaint with the Authority seeking refund after willingly withdrawing from the contract for sale and accepting the refund amount. The project had received partial occupancy certificate before the enactment of Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act), 2016.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprsanna allowed the plea filed by the company and set aside the order dated 30.09.2020 by which the authority directed the company to refund an amount of Rs.6,84,494 to Shyama Shetty within 60 days, failing which, it would carry interest at 2% per month.
Case Title: Latha Choodiah v. Sree Balaji H.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.11172 OF 2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
The Karnataka High Court has said that remarriage of the former husband cannot be a ground to question the settlement arrived between the couple after issues were settled before the court and decree of divorce was granted.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by one Lata Choodiah seeking to set aside the memorandum of settlement arrived at under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 – the settlement was entered into on 07-08-2015 between her and her former husband.
Case Title: P Sunil Kumar & ANR v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8969 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against owners of a shop licensed for selling explosives to quarry contractors, on the ground that their employee had illegally sold the gelatine sticks to a person, who died in an explosion.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petition filed by P Sunil Kumar and others and quashed the proceedings initiated against them under Sections 3,5,6 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 9(b) of Explosive Act and 286, 304 of IPC.
Case Title: THE CAP A PIE v. The South Western Railways
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 22793 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
The Karnataka High Court has said that it would amount to violation of principle of natural justice if a tender authority passes an order upon which it did not seek to issue show cause notice.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna recently allowed in part the petition filed THE CAP A PIE, questioning the termination of its contract by South Western Railways performing work of collection, washing and ironing of bedroll linen supplied to AC coach passengers in several trains and blacklisting the firm for two years.
Case Title: Karnataka State Association of the Management of Nursing v. Allied Health Science Institution And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal 839/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the order of the Single Judge bench which upheld the constitution of a Special House Committee, empowered to visit all Nursing Colleges and Allied Health Sciences Institutions in state and carry out inspections to ascertain whether they are functioning as per directions of the Indian Nursing Council and whether they have the necessary infrastructure and other facilities.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi dismissed the appeal filed by the Karnataka State Association of the Management of Nursing and Allied Health Science Institution.
Case Title: Praveen Bhai Togadia & ANR v. State of Karnataka & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9574 OF 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed in the year 2015 by Praveen Bhai Togadia challenging the prohibitory orders banning him from entering into the Udupi District limits and participating in any Public Meetings/ Functions for a period of seven days, between March 7, 2015 to March 13, 2015. Togdia is the National President of Antar-Rashtriya Hindu Parishad.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani dismissed as having become infructuous, the petition filed by Togadia and one Baikady Suprasad Shetty.
Case Title: Suchitra Cinema and Cultural Academy v. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority & ANR.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.58854 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that where a statutory authority employs wrong terminology while granting any concession to a party, the same cannot be a ground to revoke such concession where the party itself was not at fault.
The development comes in a writ petition filed before the bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit challenging the communication issued by the Bangalore Development Authority to Suchitra Cinema and Cultural Academy, whereby the latter was asked to pay back a sum of Rs.50 Lakh on the ground that the word ‘donation’ was used for granting concessions, whilst renewing lease of the sites.
Case Title: Prasad Raykar v. B T Dinesh
Case No: Criminal Appeal 725 of 2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
The Karnataka High Court has said that a son being the legal representative is liable to discharge the liability of the deceased father under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan rejected the argument canvased by one respondent/accused B T Dinesh, that there is no legally enforceable debt against him as the loan was borrowed by his father, who expired before filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
GPS For Ambulances: Karnataka High Court Disposes PIL Being Satisfied With State's Initiatives
Case Title: BHARAT PUNARUTTHANA TRUST v. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & Others.
Case NO: WP 6073/2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
The State government on Wednesday informed the Karnataka High Court that a feature is enabled in the Vahan portal for checking whether new ambulances being registered are equipped/installed with the Global Positioning System.
As per an affidavit filed by the Additional Commissioner, Karnataka State Road Safety Authority, “National Informatics Centre has rolled out a feature for new registration of ambulances whereby the Vahan portal will now check at the time of Inspection if Global Positioning System data is available or not. This feature is now enabled in Vahan and after verification and providing training to all RTOs, this will be rolled out throughout the state.”
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation And State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 402/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
The State government on Thursday submitted before the Karnataka High Court an order granting authorisation to the Central Bureau of Investigation to attach excess properties of former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Gali Janardhana Reddy’s properties in relation to a corruption case.
Additional Advocate General Dhyan Chinnappa though pointed out to the court that an earlier authorisation was granted by the state government in the year 2015 for attaching properties of the same accused was not pursued till 2021, for around seven years by the CBI before the concerned court. He submitted that the CBI which is now complaining has many many problems which he is not dealing with.
Case Title: M/s Wipro India Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Case No: Writ Petition No.16175 Of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
The Karnataka High Court has held that the circular regarding the mismatch of input tax credit (ITC) is applicable for 2019–20 in the case of identical errors.
"Though the Circular refers only to the years 2017–18 and 2018–19, since there are identical errors committed by the petitioner not only in respect of the assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 but also in relation to the assessment year 2019–20 also, I am of the view that by adopting a justice-oriented approach, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the Circular for the year 2019–20 also," the single bench of Justice S.R. Kumar said.
Karnataka High Court Strikes Down State Govt's Power To Regulate Fees For Unaided Private Schools
Case Title: Rashmi Education Trust Vidyaniketan School & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6313 OF 2017 (EDN) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS. 33161 OF 2017, 47074 OF 2018, 47077 OF 2018, 5072 OF 2019, 6185 OF 2019, 9149 OF 2019, 11657 OF 2019, 14703 OF 2019, 6396 OF 2020, 15241 OF 2021, 15268 OF 2021 AND 16418 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
The Karnataka High Court has held that state government cannot interfere and control the fee structure of private unaided educational institutions. It thus declared as ultra vires Section 48 of the Karnataka Education Act 1983 which prohibits private unaided schools from collecting fee in any manner except as prescribed by the State government
A single judge bench of Justice E S Indiresh referred to TMA Pai Foundation case and agreed that the decision on the fee structure must be left to the private unaided educational institutions, as those educational institutions do not seek or are not dependent upon any funds from the Government. It also agreed that their financial affairs are affected by giving admissions to students through RTE.
Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Accused In Murder Case On Ground Of Parity
Case Title: Ravi @ Kamran Ravi And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11294 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a murder accused, observing that though the allegations against him and others are of serious nature but the overt act alleged against him is similar to that of other accused, who have already been granted bail.
"The charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer makes out a prima facie case against all the accused including the petitioner. Admittedly, the overt act alleged against the present petitioner is similar to that of accused Nos.2 and 3. It is not in dispute that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are already enlarged on bail. Under such circumstances, the benefit of parity is to be extended to the present petitioner," it said.
Case Title: Abdul Majeed And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10830/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
The Karnataka High Court has observed that individual role of accused cannot be considered while deciding on bail application filed by a murder accused who was part of an unlawful assembly and who allegedly committed the offence in pursuance of a common object.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh made the observation while rejecting the successive bail application filed by accused Abdul Majeed who was charged under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 342, 323, 324, 364, 307, 302, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC. Earlier his bail application was rejected by the court vide order dated 01.07.2022, on merits.
Apprehension Of Acid Attack: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail To A Jilted Lover
Case Title: Pavan And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9563 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
The Karnataka High Court refused bail to a jilted lover, accepting the apprehensions raised by the victim that if released on bail the accused would throw acid on her.
A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma dismissed the petition filed by one Pavan, who was charged for offences punishable under sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 354(D) (stalking) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC and provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Case Title: State of Karnataka And Shaikh Rouf
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200060/2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
The Karnataka High Court has enhanced the sentence of five years imposed by the special court on an accused convicted under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO), Act, observing that when the statute has prescribed a minimum sentence of seven years for the offence punishable, the Special Judge did not have any power whatsoever to reduce minimum sentence to five years.
A single judge bench of Justice V. Srishananda, sitting at Kalaburagi bench, upheld the conviction handed down to Shaikh Rouf under Section 4 of the Act and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and enhanced the sentence of the trial court.
Case Title: S Neelakantappa And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6915/2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a cheating case registered against a 61-year-old man who is alleged to have fraudulently obtained a false Caste Certificate, stating that he belongs to Scheduled Caste on which basis he secured a job in BEML.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by S. Neelakantappa, saying “The Caste Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner having not been cancelled under the provision of the Rules, (Karnataka Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Rules 1992, cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the final report is impermissible.”
Case Title: Honnegowda & ANR And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1353/2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against two employees of Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd, accused of purchasing stolen gold jewellery as the police failed to arraign the company as accused in the case.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Honnegowda and Praveen H K and said “The charge sheet is laid against the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 4 alleging that the company in which they are working as an employees have purchased the stolen gold jewellery. In the absence of the company not being arraigned as a accused, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4 cannot be held vicariously guilty of the same.
Karnataka High Court Directs State Govt to Pay ₹3 Lakh To Lawyer Arrested Illegally By Police
Case Title: Kuldeep And State of Karnataka & Others
Case no: WRIT PETITION No.24832 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to pay a compensation of Rs 3 lakh to a 23-year-old advocate, who was last month arrested illegally by the police.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said that lawyer Kuldeep's arrest was contrary to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar. The court clarified that the compensation of Rs 3 Lakh will not come in the petitioner's way to claim additional compensation in a competent civil court in enforcement of a private law remedy.
Case Title: Union of India & others And State of Karnataka & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.33252 OF 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the demand notices issued to the Union of India by the Mangalore Municipal Corporation towards payment of property tax in respect of the building used for staff quarters.
A single judge bench of Justice M G S Kamal by its order dated November 8, 2022, quashed the notices issued by the corporation dated 04-06-2010 and 16-07-2011. However, since the amount was already paid to the corporation by the department, it directed the corporation to adjust the same towards payment of service tax for the amenities provided.
Marriage With Minor Girl Not Void U/S 11 Of Hindu Marriage Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: XXX And ABC
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1493 OF 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the family court under the Hindu Marriage Act by which it declared the marriage between a couple to be null and void, as the woman was minor at the time of marriage.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty observed that Section 11 of the Act, which defines 'Void marriages', does not include legal age of marriage as a pre-condition. It thus set aside the family court order dated 08.01.2005 saying “Section 11 of the Act has no application to the fact situation of the case.”
Case Title: XYZ And ABC
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24226 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
The Karnataka High Court has said that if a wife is directed to pay maintenance to an able bodied husband who does not suffer from any disability or infirmity, it would be promoting idleness.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made it clear that “Merely because Section 24 of (Hindu Marriage) Act is gender neutral for grant of maintenance, it would be promoting idleness notwithstanding the fact that the husband has no impediment or handicap to earn.”
Case Title: K V Srinivas Rao & others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.24580/2021(LA-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.22750/2021(LB-RES), 23022/2021(LB-RES),6905/2022(LA-RES)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
The Karnataka High Court has said that if some landowners have relinquished their land it cannot be a ground to compel other landowners to do so except in accordance with law.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit, partly allowed a bunch of petitions and restrained the Land Acquisition officer of Sagar City Municipal Council, from forcibly taking away the land of petitioners for expansion of a road.
Case Title: Rajeev Chandrasekhar And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201520/2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, against Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar.
Justice V Srishananda sitting at Kalaburagi bench quashed the proceedings initiated under section 18 of the Act. The allegation against Chandrasekhar was that as Director of Kannada Prabha Publications Limited, he had violated the provisions of the Act.
Case Title: Dr.Satyakk And Government of India & Others
Case No: W.P.No.200151/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a Medical Graduate, questioning the endorsement issued to him by the Department of Health and Family Welfare Service rejecting his application for the post of Medical Officer on the grounds that he has graduated from a University in China.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde while rejecting the petition filed by Dr.Satyakk, accepted the submission of the State Government that the eligibility criteria fixed by the State of Maharashtra, which recognises foreign University degrees for employment, is not binding on the State of Karnataka.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd And Menpa Maistry & others
Case No: MFA NO.4286 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
The Karnataka High Court has said that an insurance company is liable to pay compensation to a patient who succumbs to his ailments, when the ambulance in which he is being shifted to a hospital for better treatment meets with an accident.
A single judge bench of Justice T.G.Shivashankare Gowda turned down the contention of the National Insurance Company Ltd and upheld the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting compensation to the claimants of the deceased Ravi.
Case Title: K M Basha And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201668/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against a man for posting on his Facebook page a message — the contents of which, the police claimed, amounted to insulting the soldiers and disturbing the peace and tranquillity of the society.
Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by one K M Basha and quashed the order taking cognisance of the chargesheet filed against him under Section 505 IPC. The court said before taking of the cognizance by the Magistrate for the offences punishable under Section 505 of IPC, prior sanction under Section 196(1)(A) of Cr.P.C. is necessary.
Case Title: M/s BBP Studio Virtual Bharat Pvt Ltd And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.21308 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to release balance payments due to M/s BBP Studio Virtual Bharat Pvt Ltd, which was appointed to produce a 3D film during the Global Investors Meet, held in November 2022, but the contract was cancelled last minute and film was not showcased at the event.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the communication dated 25-10-2022 issued by Marketing Communication And Advertising Ltd, cancelling the work order issued for producing the film to the petitioner.
Case Title: Shailesh Kumar V And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2797 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
The Karnataka High court has held that mere hurling of abuses without any intention to insult or make casteist remarks will not become an offence under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition filed by one Shailesh Kumar V and quashed charges levelled against him under Section 3(1)(r) &(s) of the Act, while sustaining and permitting continuation of proceedings for charges under the Indian Penal Code.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Matrimonial Website Employees
Case Title: Vijay Kumar & ANR And State of Karnataka
Case no: WRIT PETITION NO.29340/2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 32
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered against two employees of a matrimonial website by a woman subscriber, who was cheated by a man she had come into contact through the portal.
The woman in her complaint in 2017 said that she had created her profile on the "Kannada Matrimony" and subsequently she came into contact with a person by name of Amit Deepak through the portal. The accused on one pretext or the other demanded money from the complaint which she transferred to him. After speaking with a close friend, she realised that she was cheated by Deepak for a sum of Rs.1,70,000.
Case Title: M/s Allengers Medical Systems Ltd And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.17634 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
The Karnataka High Court has said that a tender inviting authority is empowered only to cancel the tender prior to notification of award and execution of the contract. Once the award is notified, it is statutorily impermissible to withdraw or cancel the tender except for violation of the tender conditions, said the court.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M/s Allengers Medical Systems Limited and directed Karnataka State Medical Supplies Corporation Limited to issue purchase order for portable X-ray machines in favour of the company pursuant to the Tender Notification dated 27-10-2021 and award of tender in its favour, within 2 weeks.
Case Title: Padmanabha N S & others v. State of Karnataka & ANR
Case no: WRIT PETITION NO.20228 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
The Karnataka High Court, while refusing to quash proceedings against accused under the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, said that despite the completion of 75 years of independence of India, "the downtrodden people [are] not able to do any business equal to that of any other business people who were said to be in upper caste."
The court made the observation in the judgment on a petition seeking quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners. who had allegedly threatened a resort owner, belonging to the Wadda community (stone cutters).
Case Title: Ranjith Naik K V & Others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3079/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
The Karnataka High Court has suggested to the State Government to appoint guest lecturers in government colleges only if they meet the minimum educational qualification prescribed by the UGC.
A single judge bench of Justice B M Shyam Prasad made the observation while disposing of a batch of petitions filed by guest lecturers questioning the government order dated 14.01.2022, insofar as it stipulates that even a candidate who does not possess minimum educational qualification as prescribed by UGC, could be appointed provided such qualification is acquired within three years and if the minimum qualification is not acquired within those three years and after three years, the appointment of such applicants would be completely restricted.
Case Title: Thotlegowda v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 165 OF 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
The Karnataka High Court has said that death of the convict does not discharge his liability from paying fine and compensation imposed by court. It can be recovered from the property which goes to his legal heirs after his death and they are legally liable for payment of fine.
A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by one Thotlegowda challenging the order by which he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135 and 138 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and directed to pay a fine amount of Rs 29,204.
Case Title: M Prakash And M Vinayaka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20269 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Director General and Inspector General of Police to hold a departmental enquiry against police inspector Praveen K.Y of the Cottonpet Police station, for failure to comply with the order passed by the Magistrate court directing registration of First Information Report on a private complaint of theft.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said lawful orders passed by the judicial authority are required to be scrupulously enforced by the police and failure to do so constitutes a constitutional tort arising out of breach of a fundamental right of access to justice for victims of crime. "Such breach amounts to serious misconduct and gross dereliction of duty justifying imposition of major penalty. Such gross dereliction of official duty by the Law Enforcement Agencies cannot be countenanced," the court said.
Case Title: Ameena Afroj And State of Karnataka & others
Case No: W.P.No.200032/2023
Citation; 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, has the jurisdiction to consider all matters 'concerning recruitment' which includes all decisions from the date of publication of notification inviting applications for the government job posts to the orders of appointment.
A single judge bench Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde sitting at Kalaburagi bench gave the clarification while disposing of a petition filed by one Ameena Afroj, who had questioned the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in adjudicating over the challenge made by her to the decision of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, classifying the petitioner as a General Merit candidate instead of under the category 2-B/KA-HK for selection to the post of a government school teacher.
Case Title: Shesha Krishna And Krishn Hegde
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6027 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a defamation case registered against a news reader of Kannada news channel. A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by Shesha Krishna who works for BTV News, refusing to accept one of the contention raised by her that she is only the news reader.
The bench said, “The allegation made against the accused persons cannot be bifurcated as the petitioner is the newsreader, acted on behalf of the accused Nos.1 (owner of channel) and 2 (reporter) which (news) was telecasted by the accused 1 and 2. Therefore, without petitioner-accused No.3, the proceedings against accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot be sustainable. Therefore, the petitioner is also required to face trial.”
Case Title: Akshata Chougala & Others And State of Karnataka & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23752 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
The Karnataka High Court has granted relief to hundreds of applicants to the post of Graduate Primary Teachers who were placed in the General merit category by the State government as they had submitted the caste and income certificate of parents instead of the certificates of their spouse.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a batch of petitions and quashed the provisional select list insofar as it relates to the petitioners being brought under the general merit category.
Case Title: CH K.S.Prasad @ K S Prasad And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.195 OF 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
The Karnataka High Court has said that contribution towards provident fund by an employee is a statutory deduction and non remittance of it by the employer in the employee’s account maintained with the Provident Fund Organisation, cannot attract the offence of cheating.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made this observation while allowing a petition filed by one CH K.S.Prasad and quashing the offences registered against him under sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: ABC And XYZ
Case No: M.F.A.NO.2786/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld a family court order which directed the mother of a seven years old girl child to hand over the custody to child's father, after observing that she herself was more attentive towards her illicit relationship at work rather than welfare of her child.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the appeal filed by the woman and observed, "If the issue regarding the relationship of the appellant with the said S (name redacted) juxtaposition the welfare of the child is considered, it appears that the appellant has given more importance to the illicit relationship of hers with the said S (name redacted) and has neglected the child...she had handed over custody of the child to her parents who were residing at Panchakul in Chandigarh while she continued to stay at Bengaluru with S (name redacted)."
Case Title: Cheluvaraju And Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16575 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
The Karnataka High Court has termed as ‘preposterous’ a petition filed by one Cheluvraju seeking to declare an affidavit filed by the Government of India before the Central Information Commission in his application, as bad in law.
The petitioner had filed an application under the Right to Information Act before the Commission seeking certain information. Following the affidavit filed by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs the application made by the petitioner came to be dismissed.
Case Title: Somanna & Others And Prakash
Case No: C.C.C. No.846/2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
The Karnataka High Court has convicted one Prakash for civil contempt and sentenced him to three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs 2,000 for wilfully disobeying court orders and alienating a property which the court had restrained him from doing so.
The court has also given the accused an option to avoid imprisonment by depositing the entire sale consideration amount received by him in alienating the property which is pending consideration of the appeal, within two months, which would be subject to the result of the said appeal or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.
Case Title: Hemanthkumar N And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24847 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka Public Service Commision to rectify the error made by a job applicant who had wrongly filled the application form under the Scheduled Tribe category instead of Scheduled Caste to which he belongs and regulate the provisional/final select list in accordance with his merit.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by one Hemanthkumar N, turned down the contention of the respondents that the order would open Pandora’s box and become a precedent. It said, “If this order opens up Pandora’s box; so be it, if it becomes a precedent; so be that. This Court would not turn a deaf ear to a cry of a Scheduled Caste candidate who has scored high marks, despite the trials and tribulations throughout that they face to lose the opportunity of getting selected for trivial reasons.”
Case Title: Syadul Akhon @Shahid Ahmad And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 252 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a bail application filed by a 42-year-old, who is alleged to have been living illegally in India for the last 20 years. According to the police, he is a Bangladesh citizen.
A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma, while refusing bail to Syadul Akhon @Shahid Ahmad, said: “It is alleged that he (petitioner) concocted the several ID Cards to project that he is an Indian Citizen. The allegation is of serious nature having serious consequences, such acts may prove to be a great threat to the Nation.”
Case Title: Jana Jagruthi Samithi & ANR And State of Karnataka.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 36109 OF 2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by one Jana Jagruthi Samithi and others seeking a directions to the State Authority, to see that certain private persons are not holding excess land beyond permissible limit and that such excess land be distributed among landless persons.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi on going through the records said “The petition is nothing but a clear misuse of a tool of public interest litigation for settling the personal score or targeting the respondents on a personal grudge.”
Case Title: SRINIVAS.S And STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10518 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
The Karnataka High Court has refused to release the mobile phone of a RTI activist, seized by the Police during investigation of a criminal case against him, citing his refusal to unlock the device for the purpose of investigation.
The petitioner allegedly videographed the proceedings of Mysore Urban Development Authority in his phone and later prevented discharging official duties of the MUDA commissioner. During investigation, the Police seized his mobile to retrieve the alleged video and send it for forensic examination. However, as per the prosecution, the petitioner did not cooperate in the investigation and flatly refused to unlock the device.
Case Title: Kyathappa S & others v. The Secretary & others
Case No: 312/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 49
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation which alleged that construction of Isha Yoga Centre is allegedly causing environmental degradation and defacing entire ecosystem in the Foothills of Nandi Hills and Narasimha Devaru Range (Betta) NDB. The plea had alleged that permission have been granted by the authorities in utter violation of environmental laws.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi dismissed the petition and said the reasons would be recorded separately.
Case Title: Pratibha Singh And Vineet Kumar.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.21852 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 50
The Karnataka High Court has issued directions to trial courts to follow a timeline, in deciding applications filed by estranged women seeking maintenance from their respective husbands under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna felt the requirement to issue the directions noting that “Proviso to Section 24 directs that an application filed under Section 24 seeking maintenance should be disposed of as far as possible within 60 days. The term “as far as possible” is being interpreted that the Court can pass orders even after six months in some cases, two years, three years or even four years after filing the application.”
Case Title: Santhosh Kumar H And A Keshava Bhat & Others.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4359 OF 2022 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4451 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 51
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a defamation complaint against an advocate, who is accused of filing a written statement with "objectionable statements against the complainant" before the Upalokayukta on behalf of his clients. The complainant is also a lawyer.
Justice K Natarajan rejected the contention of the accused - Advocate Santhosh Kumar M, that there is no criminal intention to defame the complainant or that he only acted in a good faith to protecting his client. The bench said: “The averments made by the accused or defamatory statement made by the accused will not fall under the exception of the section 499 of IPC as the statement made by the accused No.3 (Advocate) cannot be said to be in a good faith while conducting the trial or proceedings.”
A Week After Sending Him To Jail, Karnataka High Court Orders Release Of Advocate In Contempt Case
Case Title: High Court of Karnataka And K S Anil
Case No: Criminal CC 9 of 2019 C/w Criminal CC 13 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 52
The Karnataka High Court on Friday accepted the unconditional apology tendered by an advocate who was last week sent to judicial custody for contempt of court.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi said: “ By accepting the apology, the contempt proceedings are closed. Respondent accused be released forthwith.”
No GST Applicable On Supply Of Vouchers: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Premier Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd versus Union of India & Ors.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 5569 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that vouchers do not fall under the category of goods and services and therefore, the issue and supply of vouchers would not attract GST.
The bench of Justices P.S. Dinesh Kumar and T.G. Shivashankare Gowda remarked that vouchers, including Gift Vouchers and Cash Back Vouchers, are mere instruments accepted as consideration for supply of goods or services, which have no inherent value of their own.
Case Title: PUNARVASU @ VASU And INDRANI S
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20737 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (kar) 54
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an able bodied man has to take care of his wife and child even, by finding an avocation, if he has none.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made this observation while rejecting a petition filed by a husband questioning the order of the family court granting his estranged wife and child maintenance amount of Rs 10,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC.
Case Title: M V Guruprasad & ANR And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 61426 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 55
The Karnataka High Court has expressed deep anguish over the actions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) and its officials who for almost 15 years failed to pay compensation to landowners whose properties were acquired for public purpose in 2007.
Justice Krishna S Dixit, while partly allowing the petition filed by one M V Guruprasad, said, “The government cannot act as a robber of citizen’s lands.” “Taking away private lands for the purported public purpose sans compensation militates against the spirit of constitutional guarantee enacted u/a 300A, the fundamental right to property no longer being on the statute book, notwithstanding,” it added
Case Title: G And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104244 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 56
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case where "omnibus allegations" of physical and mental harassment were made by a woman against her sister-in-law.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the petition filed by a woman who was chargesheeted along with other accused under sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 149 IPC. The court said, “In the statements of the mother and brothers of the complainant, there are no specific and distinct allegations made against the petitioner.”
Case Title: Shadaksharappa And Kumari Vijayalaxmi
Case No: W.P.NO.201274/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 57
The Karnataka High Court has issued broad guidelines for trial courts to follow in appointing Court Commissioners exercising power under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also to adhere to a timeline in receiving reports of the Commissioner.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde sitting at Kalaburagi, said “The report under Order XXVI of the Code, in an appropriate case, is an effective tool available to the court and the party to the proceeding. The party to the proceeding, may use this tool for proving his/her case and the court to unravel the mystery surrounding the case.”
Case Title: Shadaksharappa And Kumari Vijayalaxmi
Case No: W.P.NO.201274/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 57
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an application made for appointment of a Commissioner for local inspection under provision Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can be made either before the commencement of the trial or after.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said “The provision is not ‘stage’ centric. Thus the provision can be invoked either before the commencement of the trial or after.”
Case Title: M.B.Jayadevaiah And The Managing Director, BMTC Central Offices & ANR.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 31943 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
The Karnataka High Court has said that in the event an employee suffers from disability of 40% or more while performing duty, as a matter of right such an employee would be entitled for benefit of downgrading of cadre in order to continue service without any adverse impact on the pay and other benefits.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj gave this clarification while allowing a petition filed by a one M.B.Jayadevaiah and quashed the general order issued by Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) and directed it to restore pay of the petitioner applicable to the post of driver which the petitioner was drawing before his cadre was downgraded in the year 2002 and pay him arrears of salary and extend all other consequential benefits.
Case Title: M/s Hindustan Medical Products And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6743 OF 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 59
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings initiated under provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act against a firm and its partners for allegedly supplying drugs of sub-standard quality.
Justice K Natarajan refused relief to M/s Hindustan Medical Products and its partner Pawan Kumar Loharuka, who had contended that he is only partner and he is not responsible and liable for prosecution. It is only the technical staff who are responsible for the manufacture of drugs, he had argued.
Case Title: Jayamma And Jayamma @ Nagamma
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.6 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
The Karnataka High Court has said that even if a blank cheque leaf, validly signed, is handed over by accused, which is towards some payment, it would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
A single judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D Huddar observed this while upholding the conviction handed down to accused Jayamma under section 138 of the Act, by the trial court and which was confirmed by the first appellate court.
Case Title: Sharan Desai v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.16114 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 61
The Karnataka High Court has suggested the Union of India to expeditiously take steps to notify certain criteria for nomination of Members from each state to Council of Architecture of India, qua their qualification and experience.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said till the compliance is made by “The State Government shall notify the criteria for nominations/selections of the member to Council for the ensuing vacancy.”
Case Title: Ramachandra & ANR And State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.201596/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against two Bank managers for changing the access of a locker, purportedly on the application of one of the joint holders. A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda said that no intention of criminality can be attributed to Bank managers for merely acting on the mandate of the customer.
Case Title: Sikandar Mohammad Ali Dalal & ANR And Babu Hanumanth Mindolkar & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 103071/2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
The Karnataka High Court has said that a court can exercise powers under Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure and pass order of staying the execution proceedings only if the suit challenging the decree and execution proceedings referred are pending before the same court and not before two different courts which are not of coordinate jurisdiction.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar sitting at Dharwad bench also clarified that the provision would apply only if the suit is instituted prior to institution of the execution proceedings and in the event the execution proceedings have already been instituted, mere institution of suit subsequently and its pendency cannot be made the basis to invoke Order 21 Rule 29 CPC.
Case Title: National Law School of India University And Manjula P R & others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1080 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by a single judge bench of the court directing the National Law School of India University, (NLSIU) to conduct re-examination in the Corporate Law paper of Formative – I Assessment, for one student out of 708 students who took the exam.
A Division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi allowed the appeal filed by NLSIU and set aside the order dated 23.08.2022 wherein it directed the University to conduct re-exam for Manjula PR.
Payroll Services By IBM Philippines Not FTS, TDS Not Liable To Be Deducted: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Director of Income Tax Versus IBM India
Case No: I.T.A NO.218 Of 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
The Karnataka High Court, while dismissing the appeal of the department, held that payroll services by IBM Philippines are not fees for technical services (FTS), and the TDS is not liable to be deducted.
The division bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda has observed that the work has been outsourced to IBM Philippines. IBM Philippines was carrying out the work described in the agreement between IBM India and P&G India. Hence, IBM Philippines was not rendering any technical service, and therefore, the income in the hands of IBM Philippines is a business income.
Case Title: A.B. Yomakeshappa And Karnataka State Information Commission & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 30170 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
The Karnataka High Court has observed that under provisions of the Right To Information Act, only such information that is available and existing and held by the public authority can be provided.
The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information that is not a part of record nor he is obliged to furnish information that is not accessible and available in his office, said the court.
Case Title: Indian Coffee Workers Cooperative Society Limited And The Senior Labour Inspector & Others
Case no: WRIT PETITION NO. 22751 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 67
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that workmen employed at the Indian Coffee Workers Co-operative Society Limited, if not paid minimum wages as prescribed, can make an application to the appropriate authority constituted under the Minimum Wages Act to consider their claim for recovery of minimum wages.
Further, it has said that Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 does not impose any embargo on an authority under the Minimum Wages Act to consider the claim.
Manual Scavenger's Dispossessed Widow Gets Land With House After Karnataka High Court's Intervention
Case Title: Nagamma And State of Karnataka
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.21320 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 68
The Karnataka High Court has for the second time come to the aid of a widow of a manual scavenger by ensuring authorities restore possession of a plot of land with a house, which was taken away as she did not have financial means to construct house on land allotted pursuant to an earlier high court order.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Nagamma and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the respondents for driving the petitioner to unnecessary litigation, and ignoring her request/representations for re-allotment of land.
Case Title: K J Kunjumon & others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.18737 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a case against four persons who allegedly tried to lure and convert a Hindu person to Christianity, in 2011.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by K J Kunjumon and others who were charged under sections 504, 323, 295A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. “There is a case and counter case registered against both the parties, such being the case, the petitioners are required to face the trial and the trial judge has to give the findings in both the cases and punish the aggressor of the crime. Therefore, at this stage, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed,” it said.
Case Title: Patil Malligemadu Chandrashekhar & others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: W.P. NO.8888/2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by lecturers, principals and associate professors working in affiliated colleges, aided and unaided by the state government, for enhancement of the age of superannuation from present 60 years to 65 years.
A single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said the contention of petitioners that even those working in Affiliated Colleges are to be treated on par with the Teaching Community drawing UGC Scales cannot be accepted, as the Teaching Community of the Universities drawing UGC Pay Scales form a distinct class of employees vis-à-vis other Teaching Community staff.
Plea To Quash S.138 NI Act Conviction Not Maintainable U/S 482 CrPC: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Vuppalapti Satish Kumar And VTH Source Components Pvt Ltd.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.991 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
The Karnataka High Court has said that a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash conviction handed down to an accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable.
Petitioner Vuppalapti Satish Kumar had approached the court seeking to quash the conviction handed down to him on 2.1.2023, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
102 Yrs Old Freedom Fighter To Get Pension Arrears After Karnataka High Court Intervenes
Case Title: H.Nagabhushana Rao And The Under Secretary FFR Division & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.405 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of 102 years old Freedom Fighter and has directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to pay arrears of pension which were withheld for a year as he was unable to submit the Life Certificate to the bank.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “Ebbing mental prowess and physical incapacity due to age was one of the prime reasons why the certificate could not be submitted in time. This, in the peculiar facts of this case, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed to take away the right of the petitioner for grant of pension, particularly, in the teeth of the guidelines.”
Case Title: Siddalingappa S T And Karnataka State Human Rights Commission.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 51993 OF 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
The Karnataka High Court has said initiation of proceedings by a complainant, post acquittal of the accused before the Karnataka State Human Right Commission, against a police officer who investigated the complaint and filed a chargesheet in the case is unsustainable in law.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani made the observation while allowing a petition filed by police inspector Siddalingappa S T and quashed the order passed by the Commission dated 20.06.2015, imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000 on the charges of dereliction of duty.
Case Title: Arunkumar N. T And Deputy Commissioner of Police & others.
Case No: WP 14221/2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday appreciated the efforts taken by the State government in providing Emergency Response Support Systems to address issues raised by citizens who are in need of assistance or in distress.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi remarked that the measures are citizen friendly, responsive and efficient. The observation came while disposing of a public interest litigation filed by one Arunkumar N T who had raised a cause in respect of the accidental misuse of the national emergency number 112 or other quick response facility numbers and misuse by certain pranksters.
Case Title: Times Now BCCL And Bhojaraj R Patil
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200023/2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.201460/2022, 201461/2022 & 201462/2022.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the summons issued to Times Now, India Today Group, India Today Editor-in-Chief Aroon Purie and news anchors Rajdeep Sardesai and Shiv Aroor by a trial court on a complaint filed by former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Bhojaraj Patil, alleging offences under Sections 499 and 500 of India Penal Code.
Justice V SRISHANANDA said the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons is mechanical in nature. The court remitted the matter for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with law.
Case Title: H C Nandish & ANR And The Ministry of Indian Railways & Others
Case NO: WP 16448/2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking to quash the decision of the State government by which it dropped the proposal for laying a railway line between Belur and Sakleshpur Taluks.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi dismissed the petition filed by one H C Nandish and another, saying it is devoid of merits. The state government had vide its order dated 17-01-2019 dropped the proposal for laying down the railway line stating that the project cost had exceeded enormously and it would not be feasible to continue the same.
Case title: Sachin And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201553 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order of the sessions court allowing an application made by the prosecution under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, permitting it to arraign a person as accused whom the police had earlier given clean chit in investigation.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by Sachin against arraigning him as accused No.2 in the case being tried for offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506, R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Cohiba Club And Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.31185 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
The Karnataka High Court has said the Excise authority is entitled to exercise powers under section 29 of the Karnataka Excise Act and cancel the license issued to a partnership firm running a Bar and Restaurant, if the transfer is not intimated to the concerned authority or fees is unpaid on change of partners in the firm.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition filed by Cohiba Club and upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the license issued to the partners of the Club.
Case Title: N Hanumegowda And State of Karnataka
Case No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an extortion complaint against a man who was alleged of threatening the complainant, stating that he is a RTI/RSS activist and would stall inauguration of a building if he is not paid money.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar noted there was no allegation against the petitioner that he put any person in fear of injury to extort money. It observed, "To constitute an offence punishable under Section 385 of IPC, a person must put any other person in fear of any injury. In the instant case, there is no material placed along with the charge sheet that, the petitioner has put the defacto complainant in fear of any injury in order to commit extortion."
Case Title: Ramachandra Reddy & ANR And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3359 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.2096 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that if a term of life imprisonment under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is imposed on an accused and another fixed term sentence is imposed for another charge, then both sentences will run concurrently and not consecutively.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna gave this clarification while allowing the petition filed by convicts Ramachandra Reddy and another and directed that the sentences imposed upon the petitioners in terms of the impugned order of conviction dated 25.11.2010, passed in S.C.No.02/2007, shall run concurrently.
Case Title: Aithappa Naika And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 672 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 81
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the sentence of two years imposed on an 81-year-old convict and modified it to three days simple imprisonment after the convict volunteered to serve at an Anganwadi Centre for a period of one year. A single judge bench of Justice R Nataraj allowed the petition filed by Aithappa Naika in part and set aside the judgment of the appellate court holding him guilty for offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and imposing a sentence of two years along with fine of Rs 5,000.
Case title: XYZ And Karnataka State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 37674 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 82
The Karnataka High Court has held that the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights cannot pass an order granting visitation rights of the child to a parent.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani observed, “The Commission is an advisory body and it could frame or suggest policy decisions with respect to the child’s rights to the State Government. The Act does not empower and conferred with any power of adjudication or to decide adversarial proceedings. The commission has no power to adjudicate any lis between two parties.”
Case title: DR. K.N.Anuradha And Karnataka State Information Commission & Others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 13791 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by the Karnataka State Information Commission while deciding on applications made before it under the Right to Information Act. A single judge bench of Jyoti Mulimani said “Given the increase of applications, it’s high time the Commission addresses the issue properly and in a right perspective.”
Case Title: The Mysore Electrical Industries Limited And Engineering & General Workers Union.
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 3788 OF 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
The Karnataka High Court has held that Mysore Electrical Industries Limited, a State Government Undertaking, which is not registered under Section 7 of the Contract Labour Abolition Act (CLRA) shifted the services of its workmen to private agencies (contractors) without their consent, declaring their employment as contract labour, only for the purpose of depriving the workers their due amounts.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj upheld the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 03-12-2011, directing the employer to restore the services of the workmen.
Case Title: B Ranganath Hegde And Karnataka State Legal Services Authority & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 798 OF 2013
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the Demand notice/Communications issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, (KSLSA) and District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), to a former (now deceased) Member of the Permanent Lok Adalat, seeking to recover excess sitting fees drawn by him.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani allowing the petition filed by B. Ranganath Hegde, quashed the Demand notice/ Communications dated 03.12.2012, 08.11.2012, 12.09.2012 and 31.08.2012 issued by KSLSA and District Legal Services Authority by which an amount of Rs 46,900 was sought to be recovered.
Case Title: Kattemane Ganesha v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.441 OF 2015 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1055 OF 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
The Karnataka High Court has said trial courts dealing with criminal matters have to appreciate evidence as a whole and cannot ignore the cross-examination.
A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice Rajesh Rai K allowed the appeals filed by a murder convict Kattemane Ganesha and the victim in the same case. While Ganesha had challenged the order convicting him in the murder case, the victim had challenged the acquittal of the co-accused.
Case Title: M/s Inditrade Fincorp Pvt Ltd And Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.25172 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 87
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by M/s Inditrade Fincorp Ltd, challenging the order passed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) freezing its bank account under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The freezing order is passed on allegations that the petitioner disbursed small loans to small borrowers, through payment gateways while having an agreement with another company which allegedly has links to China.
Case Title: Jayanna B @ Jayaram And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3987 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 88
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Special Court which rejected the application made by an accused being tried under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (POCSO) to recall the prosecutrix (victim) from cross-examination.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan observed, “Of course, as per Section 33 of the POCSO Act, the prosecutrix/victim shall not be called frequently for cross examination by the Court. However, that does not mean there shall not be any opportunity given to the accused for the purpose of cross-examination of the prosecution witness.”
Case Title: P S Leelavathi v. N Ravi Shankar & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.42752 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that an application under Sections 50, 52 of the Mental Health Act for holding judicial inquisition and appointment of guardian for a mentally ill person, has to be made within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the alleged mentally ill person resides and not where his/her property is situated.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha made the clarification while setting aside an order dated 02-11-2017, passed by a civil court in Bengaluru and allowing the application made by petitioner P.S. Leelavathi, made under Section 50 (1) (d) of the Act.
Case Title: Karnataka Lokayuktha And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 7122 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 90
The Karnataka High Court has said that recommendation made by Lokayukta for imposition of a particular penalty on a government official after due inquiry made does not take away the power of the disciplinary authority to impose a lesser penalty on the official.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected the petition filed by the Karnataka Lokayuktha questioning an order dated 06.09.2021 by which the second respondent (Chandrashekhar) was imposed a penalty, which falls short of a recommendation made by it for imposition of particular penalty.
Case Title: Belandur GM Pan,Karyalaya And Government of Karnataka
Case No: Wp 13473/1998
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 91
The Karnataka High Court on Friday disposed of a petition filed 25 years ago raising a grievance about certain activities causing pollution in the tank bed area of Bellandur Lake.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi disposed of the petition filed by Belandur Gram Panchayat Karyalaya and others. The bench said “Admittedly when the petition was filed there were no specific laws dealing with the issues of pollution and environmental damage. Further admittedly during passage of time the necessary laws have been framed having the provisions to deal with issues of air/water pollution and damage to ecology and environment.”
Karnataka High Court Upholds NEET For Undergraduate Homeopathy Courses
Case Title: Karnataka State Private Homoeopathic Medical College Managements Association And Union of India & oThers
Case NO: W.P. No.25723 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 92
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the Constitutional validity of provision of the National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020, which provides that there shall be a Uniform National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to undergraduate Homoeopathy courses in all the institutions governed under the Act.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil disposed of the petition filed by Karnataka State Private Homoeopathic Medical College Managements Association which had sought to strike down certain provisions of the Act and Regulations framed thereunder, claiming them to be unconstitutional.
Charger Sold Along With Mobile Phone Can’t Be Differently Taxed: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The State of Karnataka Versus The Index Technologies India Ltd.
Case No STRP No. 8 Of 202
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 93
The Karnataka High Court has held that the charger, which is sold along with the mobile phone in one set, is taxable at the rate of 5%.
The division bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda has observed that the main intention of a purchaser or seller while buying or selling a "mobile set" is to buy or sell the mobile phone and not the charger alone. The supply of chargers, headsets, and ejection pins is incidental to the sale. Therefore, the dominant intention test would apply, and hence, the charger cannot be differently taxed.
Case Title: Basavanand Swamigalu And State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 100082/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a disabled person raising a complaint under provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, cannot be directed to seek relief under common law remedy.
A single judge bench of S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition filed by visually challenged Basavanand Swamigalu and set aside a communication issued by the police rejecting his complaint.
Case Title: Syed Ghouse Mohiyuddin Shah Khadri And State of Karnataka
Case No: WA 1110/2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 95
The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order which quashed State's decision to permit only a Mujawar (Muslim Priest) to perform the rituals at the Datta Peeta - a holy cave shrine in Chikmaguluru which is revered both by Hindus and Muslim communities.
The State had ordered that only a Mujawar appointed by Shah Khadri shall be permitted to enter the sanctum of the "Sri Guru Dattathreya Swamy Peeta" otherwise known as "Sree Gurudattathreya Bababudnaswamy Dargha" cave and to distribute 'teertha' to both Hindus and Muslims.
Case Title: ABC & others And XYZ
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200071 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
The Karnataka High Court recently modified an order passed by the Trial court which directed a woman be paid Rs.6,000 as monthly maintenance and a room be given to her for living in the shared house of the estranged husband.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the memo filed by the estranged husband who undertook to pay maintenance amount of Rs.6,000 per month and also pay an additional amount of Rs 5,000 for alternate accommodation to the woman.
Case Title: A Manju And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10435 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Chief Election Commission, State Election Commission and the Police Department to provide proper training to the officials, who are attached to the Election flying squad, on the procedure to be followed while reporting offences pertaining to Election Code violation.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan said most of the cases registered by the Police on the complaint filed by flying squad remain only as an empty formality during the election and finally in most of the cases, the Police files 'B' final report when the candidate is elected or files the charge-sheet against the losing candidate, "even though the police knowing very well that in a non-cognizable offence, the FIR cannot be registered without permission of the Magistrate.”
Cannot Interfere With ED Case Registered In Another State : Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Vihaan Direct Selling India Private Limited And The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.2576 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Kar) 98
The Karnataka High Court has held that it cannot interfere with criminal proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement in Mumbai merely on the ground that the accused is staying and operating a bank account in Karnataka.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by Vihaan Direct Selling India Private Limited which had approached the Court seeking to quash the case registered in 2013 by the Enforcement Directorate and to declare that the search conducted under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as illegal and unconstitutional.
Case Title: M Venkateshappa And The Karnataka Information Commission & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 22745 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
The Karnataka High Court has said if an order is passed by the Karnataka State Information Commission imposing penalty on a Public Information Officer, without considering the written explanation submitted by him or permitting him opportunity to give oral explanation, then the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani allowed the petition filed by M Venkateshappa, and quashed the order of the Commission dated 18.01.2008 by which it imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000 on the petitioner.
Case Title: Nagalinga And The Excise Commissioner in Karnataka & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.23306 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
The Karnataka High Court has held that a partner who files suit seeking dissolution of the partnership firm and which is pending adjudication, cannot seek for renewal of licence under the Karnataka Excise Act, for continuance of the business.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by one Nagalinga and quashed order dated 08.12.2021 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by which it confirmed the order of the Excise Commission renewing the licence on an application made by respondent No.3 (Y B Ramachandra).
Case Title: Murugan T And P. Jayagovinda Bhat & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 554 OF 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that even if a person was intoxicated or smelling with alcohol, the same cannot be an excuse for the driver of a bus for causing the road traffic accident and causing injuries to the injured person.
A single judge bench of Justice Dr H B Prabhakara Sastry allowed the petition filed by claimant Murugan T and set aside the order rejecting the claim petition filed by the petition and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration of the issue regarding entitlement of compensation to the claimant and quantum and from whom.
Case Title: Mallikarjun Desai Goudar And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4761 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 102
The Karnataka High Court has quashed charges of rape levelled against an accused who was booked on the complaint made by the victim, after the accused refused to marry her on being in a relationship with her for over five years.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition filed by Mallikarjun Desai Goudar and quashed charges levelled under sections 376, 376(2)(n), 354, 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The court sustained the charges against him under sections 323 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC.
Case Title: KARNATAKA UNAIDED SCHOOLS MANAGEMENTS ASSOCIATION And State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 5017/2023 C/w 1699/2023, 1668/2023,
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed three circulars issued by the State government by which it prescribed a Board Examination for students of Standards 5 and 8th in schools affiliated to the state board.
A single judge bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, allowed the petitions filed by Organisation for Unaided Recognised Schools and the Registered Unaided Private Schools’ Management Association Karnataka and Karnataka Unaided Schools Management Association.
Case Title: ABC Vs XYZ
Case No: W.P.H.C. NO.46 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a man seeking direction to his wife to produce their minor son before the court and then direct his repatriation to Germany.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the petition filed by the father, it said, “The interim custody of the son has been granted to the wife by an interim order dated 08.06.2017 passed by the family court. The aforesaid interim order is still in force. Therefore, in violation of the aforesaid interim order, which binds the parties, this court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction would not direct repatriation of the son to Germany.”
Case Title: ABC Vs XYZ
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5183 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 105
The Karnataka High Court has declared a Christian couple's marriage as null and void holding that the woman had misrepresented and concealed her real age at the time of marriage.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar Patil allowed the petition filed by the husband questioning the order of the family court rejecting his petition filed under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act. The family court had held that petitioner (husband) failed to prove the grounds to declare his marriage with the respondent as null and void.
Case Title: ABC And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.R.P. NO. 1372 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that once an order is passed under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, holding that a child in conflict with law is required to be tried for heinous offences as an adult, the JJ Board has no jurisdiction to consider the bail application pending before it.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty added, "As against the said order, the juvenile has an option to file an appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 101(2) of the Act or he may also choose to file an application under Section 12 of the Act before the Children's Court to which his case is transferred."
Case Title: Jayamma & Others And State of Karnataka & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20671 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
The Karnataka High Court has while quashing an order passed by the Bangalore Development Authority denying TDR Certificates (Transfer of Development Rights) as promised to land owners while acquiring their lands for public purpose, observed, “A bare perusal of the impugned order gives an impression that it is texted with the mindset of a Draftsman of East India Company of the bygone era and not by the one whose heart is at the right place.”
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the petitions filed by Jayamma and Others and quashed the order dated 17.03.2022 issued by the Respondent - BDA whereby, the recommendation of the respondent —BBMP for issuing the TDR Certificates to them has been negatived.
Case Title: Lakshminarayana And Lokesh L
Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1189 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1151 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1153 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1158 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1311 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1346 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1350 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1355 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1356 OF 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order passed by the appellate court refusing to release interim compensation deposited by the accused convicted under Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of complainants.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed a batch of petitions and directed that 20% of the amount in deposit be released to the petitioners - complainants with due identification, with a condition that they shall refund the amount within 60 days from the date of the order or plus 30 days, as per the proviso to Section 148(3) of the NI Act, if the accused is acquitted by the Appellate Court.
Sexually Harassing In Open Spaces Like Mall & Office Highly Improbable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Sameer Dinakar Bhole And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 697 OF 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a sexual harassment complaint lodged by an employee against her manager three days before her work contract with the private company was to end.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Delivery Center Manager of M/s Mindtree Company Limited and quashed the prosecution against him initiated under section 354 (A) and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Khaleel Ul Rehman & Others And Sharaffunnisa Muniri @ Ashraf Unnisa
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8508 OF 2022 CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION NO.14494 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
The Karnataka High Court has said that a stepmother, to claim maintenance amount from legal heirs of her deceased husband, has to prove before the family court by tendering evidence and submission of documents that her husband was having a lot of properties and they are having income and thus she is entitled for maintenance amount.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan partly allowed a petition filed by Khaleel Ul-Rehman, setting aside and modifying the order passed by the family court granting Rs 25,000 per month maintenance to their step mother.
Case Title: M/s D C B Bank Limited And The Assistant Commissioner
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18206 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
The Karnataka High Court has said that a mortgagee (secured creditor/Bank) gets rights over the compensation amount to be disbursed when the property which is mortgaged with it is acquired by the state government, as per Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed a petition filed by M/s D C B Bank Limited and directed Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to refer the claim of Petitioner – Bank forthwith to the Court of I Additional District Judge, Chitradurga, with all necessary papers, with intimation to the Petitioner. The Court after notice to all the stakeholders, shall adjudge the claim of Petitioner-Bank, within an outer limit of one year.
Case Title: Dr Sanjeev Kumar Hiremath And State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2459 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a case and a counter case have to be tried together by the same court irrespective of the nature of offences involved, to avoid conflicting judgments over the same incident.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the petition filed by one Dr Sanjeev Kumar Hiremath and transferred the case filed by him pending before the Magistrate court in Bengaluru under sections 341, 324, 504 and 506 to the Special Session court where the offence registered by the accused against Hiremath under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 is also pending.
Case Title: Dr Bhanu C Ramachandran And Union of India
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24609 of 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
The Karnataka High court has directed Union of India and the Bureau of Immigration to issue exit permit to a 26-year-old USA born student who misrepresented herself as Indian Citizen and pursued MBBS course under government quota, subject to her paying fees of the MBBS course at the rate that would be charged to NRI/overseas citizen of India.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna took a lenient view and partly allowed the petition filed by Dr. Bhanu C Ramachandran. The bench said “The petitioner has shamelessly resorted to falsehood and achieved her goals by unethical means. The petitioner is not even wanting to pursue her career in this country, having secured benefits throughout her career contending that she is an Indian.”
Case Title: M/S AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED And UNION OF INDIA
Case NO: WP 56621/2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the communication issued by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in 2018 to banks, directing them to freeze accounts of NGO M/s Amnesty International (India) Private Limited, alleging violation of provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, (FEMA).
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha said in view of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, ED's notice was valid only for 60 days. "The impugned notices dated 25/10/2018 at Annexures-F1 and F2 have lost their efficacy by efflux of time as the period of sixty days has expired," it said.
Case Title: The Public Information Officer And The State Information Commissioner & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.24537 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order passed by the Karnataka State Information Commissioner dismissing the second appeal filed by the Public Information Officer, on the ground that the petitioner being the PIO cannot maintain the second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha partly allowed the petition filed by the PIO attached to the Karnataka Lokayukta and set aside the order dated 04.01.2018 passed by Commissioner.
Case Title: Kavitha M And Raghu & Others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.12703 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
The Karnataka High Court has issued directions to be followed by magistrate courts for disposal of applications being made by an aggrieved person under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, within 60 days from the date of its filing.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The law Courts which exist to remedy the wrong when it is brought to its notice has to act swiftly, as it is trite that, actus curiae neminem gravabit that the act of Court should prejudice no person. If an act of the Court should not prejudice any person; the Court should not permit any procrastination of the proceedings before it.”
Case Title: Basangouda And Muddangouda & Others
Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7094 OF 2010
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
The Karnataka High Court has held that a female Hindu becomes the absolute owner of the property on acquisition of property by way of a partition deed agreed upon in the family and the property cannot be termed as acquisition by inheritance and thus would not revert to the siblings on her death.
A single judge bench of Justice C M Joshi sitting at Kalaburagi, allowed the appeal filed by Basangouda and set aside the orders of the trial and first appellate court which held that Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act was attracted in respect of the suit property held by his deceased wife Eshwaramma allotted under a partition deed, and thus it would devolve back to her siblings.
Case Title: Bharatiya Janata Party And Election Commission of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3592 OF 2023 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 2632 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Election Commission of India to act swiftly and conclude the exercise of correcting the electoral rolls in Shivaji Nagar and Shanthi Nagar constituencies in Bengaluru, by identifying voters who have expired and those who have shifted to other areas, by March 26.
Bharatiya Janata Party had approached the High court seeking consideration of their representations submitted on 30-11-2022 and 23-01-2023 to the Commission for corrective measures to be taken in the electoral roll concerning Shivajinagar Assembly Constituency.
Case Title: Master Arya Selvakumar Priya & ANR And Joint Secretary (PSP) and Chief Passport officer & others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.21642 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a 15-year-old child by directing the Passport Officer, Bengaluru to issue him an Indian Passport. The court said the travel document will remain operational till he turns 18 years old, or else he would be rendered Stateless.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said that merely because the minor's father is not traceable and the mother "has been reckless" in not knowing the consequences of renouncement of citizenship, the fate of the child cannot be left in limbo.
Case Title: Renuka Manghnani And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.4821 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that whenever a manual khata (property document) is issued, e-khata is to be issued immediately on an application being made, otherwise, the very purpose of implementing the system of e-khata would be lost.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and the Secretary, e-Governance Department, to institute and put in effect a system for proper methodology of consideration of the application, processing the application and disposal of the application for filing of e-khata, on the website of the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department under each Gram Panchayat.
Case Title: M/s S P Metals Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Case No: Writ Petition No. 1135 Of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
The Karnataka High Court has permitted the Superintendent of Central Tax to pass suitable orders for revocation of the cancellation of the GST registration, if the petitioner/assessee files returns. The single bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad has observed that the cancellation of GST registration was without due opportunity and was arbitrary.
Life Convicts Release Committee Must Meet Once In 2 Months: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Omkarmurthy And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1300 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to ask the Life Convicts Release Committee, headed by the Principal Secretary, State Home Department, to meet once in two months to review and pass orders on applications made for premature release/remission made by convicts serving life imprisonment.
“I deem it appropriate to direct the State Government to henceforth direct the 2nd respondent/Committee to meet at least 6 times a year – once in two months, so that those application/s are considered at the right time on their individual merit and cases being filed only to place the application/s before the committee would be obviated,” said the court.
Karnataka High Court Dismisses Appeal Against 30% Cap On Trade Margin Of 42 Anti-Cancer Drugs
Case Title: HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WRIT Appeal No: 83/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal filed challenging a single judge bench order dated November 30, 2022, which had upheld a 2019 order issued by the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers imposing a cap of 30% on trade margin of 42 anti-Cancer Drugs.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal dismissed the appeal filed by Healthcare Global Enterprises Ltd. “For reasons to be recorded separately, appeal is dismissed,” said the court.
Case Title: The Principal Secretary & ANR And Tejasco Techsoft Private Limited
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 4525 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commercial Court, Bengaluru, ordering the arrest of the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Department of Health and Family Welfare in an execution proceeding.
A single judge bench Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar set aside the order dated 15-02-2023, saying it is "patently illegal”. The respondent Tejasco Techsoft Private Limited had sought to execute the award passed in arbitration and they made an application under section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking attachment of movables and immovables found in the office of the petitioners.
Case Title: K. Madal Virupakshappa And State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 1976/2023
Citation 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by BJP Leader Madal Virupakshappa in the alleged bribery case. The court had granted him interim anticipatory bail on March 7.
Virupakshappa was the Chairman of KSDL but resigned after his son V Prashanth Madal was allegedly caught red-handed by the Lokayukta while accepting a bribe in relation to a contract.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan had reserved the order on March 17, after hearing both parties. The petitioner’s counsel had contended that there is absolutely no material to attract the provisions of Section 7 (a) (b) or (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: T Roopeshkumar @ Roopi And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.392 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, the report based on which a person is to be externed must be mandatorily supplied to such person along with the notice so issued.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by T Roopeshkumar @ Roopi and said “The provision makes it mandatory for grant of reasonable opportunity and also permits the person against whom order of externment is to be passed to call any witness and examine him by filing an application.”
Service Benefits Do Not Form Bequeathable Estate Of Any Government Servant: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Sujata & Others And Nehru @ Kamagond Patil & others
Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7144 OF 2011
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
The Karnataka High Court has held that service benefits do not form the bequeathable estate of any government servant.
A single judge bench of Justice C M Joshi sitting at Kalaburagi dismissed the appeal filed by Sujata and others challenging the judgment of the trial court which was confirmed by the Senior Civil Judge vide its order dated 04.03.2011. The trial court and appellate court had decreed the suit filed by the appellants holding that Will of deceased Kalpana is proved by the plaintiffs but deceased could not have bequeathed the service benefits to the appellants, her sisters.
Case Title: Siddu And State of Karnataka
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 102074 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
Coming to the aid of a student pursuing B.Sc course, the Karnataka High Court has stayed for two weeks the execution and operation of the externment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, against him, to enable him to appear for examinations.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum sitting at Dharwad bench disposed of the petition filed by Siddu (20), who had approached the court questioning the Assistant Commissioner’s order passed under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, externing him from Jamakhandi to Sedam Taluk on the ground that there is reasonable apprehension that he would engage in commission of offences.
Case Title: Anoop Bajaj And Jayanna
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6639 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 129
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash the defamation proceedings pending against the President of Bowring Institute, who allegedly circulated objectionable cartoons defaming the complainant (an expelled member of the institute), in the newsletter to other members of the institute.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by Anoop Bajaj and said “Sending the defamatory statement and the cartoons directly insulting the respondent by way of such statement, attracts Section 499 of IPC and it is not sent in good faith by the public authority in order to attract Exception 8 to Section 499 of IPC.”
Case Title: KM And KC & ANR
Case No: CRL.R.P. NO. 919 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 130
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 216 of Criminal Procedure Code, a trial court can only alter the charge or add to the charge which is already framed. It cannot delete a charge which has been already framed by it, said the court
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said: “If a charge is framed by the Trial Court for an offence which is not made out by the prosecution by producing sufficient material during the course of the trial, the Court can always acquit the accused for the said offence or the Court can punish the accused for lesser offences but after framing of charge before pronouncement of final judgment, the Court has no power to delete any charge which is framed by it.”
Case Title: The Director (Exams) & Others And Ravishankar & ANR
Case No: WA 363/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed the Director of Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board's appeal against an order of the Single judge bench that permitted a 10th standard student of Vidya Bharathi English School to take exams without opting for Kannada as one of the three languages.
The State government has introduced Kannada Language Learning Rules, 2017. All schools, be it CBSE or ICSE, have to mandatorily impart Kannada as one of the subjects.
Case Title: Himayath Ali Khan v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24074 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 132
The Karnataka High Court has permitted a businessman,against whom a look out notice was issued by the Bureau of Immigration in connection with a loan default case, to travel to UAE and Saudi Arabia.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna disposed of the petition filed by Himayath Ali Khan and said. “The petitioner is authorized to travel to United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia for a brief period, which is made subject to filing an affidavit of undertaking before this Court that he would complete his work and come back to the shores of the nation within the time as indicated in the said affidavit from the date he starts his journey.”
Case Title: M/S Patanjali Foods Limited Versus Union Of India
Case No: Writ Petition No.14963 Of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
The Karnataka High Court has held that only the Central Government can make provision for prohibiting, restricting, or regulating the import or export of goods or services, or technology and not the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).
The single bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar has observed that only the Central Government can formulate and announce the Foreign Trade Policy by ‘Notification’ in the Official Gazette and may also, in like manner, amend that policy. The power of the Central Government to formulate and amend the Foreign Trade Policy cannot be exercised by DGFT. As per Section 3(2) of Foreign Trade (Regulation and Development Act), 1992 (FTDR Act), only the Central Government can by Order published in the Official Gazette make provisions for prohibiting, restricting, or regulating the import or export of goods or services or technology and the power of the Central Government cannot be exercised by the DGFT.