Nominal Index:XYZ And Karnataka State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 82DR. K.N.Anuradha And Karnataka State Information Commission & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 83The Mysore Electrical Industries Limited And Engineering & General Workers Union. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 84B Ranganath Hegde And Karnataka State Legal Services Authority & Others....
Nominal Index:
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
Judgments/Orders
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.”
https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-neet-homeopathy-courses-neet-223105
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.
https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/charger-sold-with-mobile-phone-taxed-karnataka-high-court-223059
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.