Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: July 4 - July 10 l, 2022

Case Title: PRABHUNAIKA K.T v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2015 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 242

The Karnataka High Court has observed that the 'Doctrine of Sameness' is not applicable if cases against the accused registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, are filed at different periods of time by different complainants.

2.S.116 Evidence Act | Tenant Who Accepts Induction Into Premises By A Landlord Can't Dispute Landlord's Title: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION v K.L.JAYAPRAKASH

Case No: M.S.A. No.28/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 243

The Karnataka High Court has said that in a tenancy dispute, when the tenant does not dispute his induction into the said property by the plaintiff (landlord) under a lease agreement, the question of doubting the title of plaintiff would not arise

3.UAPA | Individuals Not Members Of Any Terrorist Organization Can Also Be Prosecuted For 'Terrorist Act': Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Irfan Pasha v. National Investigation Agency

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 673/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 244

The Karnataka High Court has said that it is not necessary that a person being prosecuted for "terrorist act" defined under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, should be a member of a terrorist organization.

4.No Suppression Of Facts, Show Cause Notice Based On Balance Sheet: KarnatakaHigh Court

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Tax Vs ABB Limited

Case No: Central Excise Appeal No.16/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 245

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice Anant Ramanath Hedge has held that the assessee is not liable for the suppression of facts as the show cause notice was issued on the basis of the disclosures made in the balance sheet.

5.Xiaomi India's Challenge To Seizure Of Assets Before High Court 'Premature';Competent Authority Under FEMA Must Decide: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v. Union of India

Case No: WP 9182/2022

Citation no: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 246

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the Competent Authority appointed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act,1999 (FEMA) to issue a notice of hearing to M/s Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd and hear the parties concerned and pass appropriate orders in regards to the challenge raised by the company on the order passed by the Enforcement Directorate, seizing Rs.5551.27 crores.

6.[Rape] Consent Can't Be Assumed Even If Woman Is Of Bad Character/ Vulnerable:Karnataka HC Cancels Anticipatory Bail Of Accused Police Constable

Case Title: SHABANNA TAJ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4320/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 247

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the anticipatory bail granted to a police constable accused of sexually assaulting a women over a period of three years under the false promise of marriage.

7.'Chance Fingerprints' Tallying With Theft Accused Not Reliable When Spot & Manner Of Lifting Fingerprint Not Disclosed: Karnataka HC Orders Acquittal

Case Title: Thippeswamy @ Kunta v. State by Challakere Police

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.911 OF 2012

Citation; 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 248

The Karnataka High Court has said in a case of circumstantial evidence, it is not safe to rely upon the mere report of the Fingerprint expert that the 'Chance Fingerprint' given to him for examination was corresponding to the fingerprint of the accused and proceeding to convict the accused, unless the spot and the manner in which such fingerprint was lifted is disclosed in the Court.

8.Recording Of Evidence Through VC Not Right Of Any Party, Discretion With Court To Grant Leave: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: T G VEERAPRASAD & Others v. PRAKASH GANDHI & Others

Case no: WRIT PETITION NO.8283 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw 249

The Karnataka High Court has said that in civil suits, where complex issues are involved, the Court should be cautious in allowing a party to lead evidence through video conferencing mode and that mere delay, expense or inconvenience cannot be a ground to allow a litigant to have an alternate mode of leading ocular evidence.

9.Sri Ram Janma Bhumi Trust Not 'State' U/Art 12: Karnataka High Court Declines Plea By 71-Yr-Old Seeking Appointment As Chief Engineer

Case Title: DR.S.P.RAGHUNATH v. THE UNION OF INDIA

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8644/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 250

The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a 71-year-old retired Engineer in Chief of Central Government seeking a direction to appoint him as the Chief Engineer at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Theertha Kshethra on honorarium basis.

10.Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Comparing IPL Auction With Human Trafficking

Case Title: VENKATESH SETTY & Others v. SAOURAV GANGULY & Others

Case No: WP 3489/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 251

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation filed questioning the auction held every year for selecting players for the Indian Premier League (IPL) teams and claimed that it amounted to "human trafficking".

11.Stamp Duty On Arbitral Award To Be Paid As Per The Rate Applicable When The Award Was Signed : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. versus Mr. Donald Dayanand Donald.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 252

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the date for the purpose of quantifying the stamp duty payable on an arbitral award under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is the date on which the award was signed.

12.Limitation Period Is Not Applicable On Refund Of Service Tax Wrongly Paid:Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Bellatrix Consultancy Services Versus The Commissioner of Central Tax

Case No: C.E.A No. 49 Of 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 253

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice Anant Ramanath Hedge has held that the limitation period is not applicable to a refund of service tax wrongly paid.

13.Section 8 Of A&C Act Can't Be Invoked Based On A Non-Binding Arbitration Agreement: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Masters Management Consultants (India) Private Ltd. versus Nitesh Estates Limited

Citation No: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 254

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that since the agreement between the parties provided for a 'non-binding' arbitration, there was absolutely no intention of the parties to enter into an arbitration agreement and that the said agreement could not be termed as an arbitration agreement.

OTHER REPORTS

1. Karnataka HC Judge Says He Was Threatened With Transfer For Slamming ACBInvestigation

Case Title: MAHESH P S And STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRL.P 4909/2022

Justice HP Sandesh of the Karnataka High Court on Monday made a sensational revelation that he was given an indirect threat of transfer if he continued to monitor the progress of investigations carried out by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in a case allegedly involving Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (Urban).

2. Karnataka High Court Seeks Suggestions From High Powered Committee To Bring Dropped Out Children Back To School

Case Title: REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

Case No: WP 15768/2013

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed the High Power Committee constituted by it to consider the issue pertaining to 'out of school children' and suggest measures to bring the children who have dropped out to bring them back to school.

3. Karnataka High Court Extends Time For Google India To Reply To CCI Probe On Playstore Payment Policy

Case Title: GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Case No: WP 13422/2022

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday permitted Google India Private Limited to file its reply to the Director General (Investigation) Report to the Competition Commission of India, by July 30, instead of July 7 as directed.

4. 'ACB Failed To Consider Public Interest': Karnataka High Court"Compelled" To Monitor Bribery Case Involving Ex-Deputy CommissionerOf Bengaluru Urban

Case Title: MAHESH PS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRL.P 4909/2022

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday said that it would monitor the probe by Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) into a bribery case involving former Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru (Urban) as the ACB has failed to take any action in the matter despite having ample materials against him.

5. Several Blocking Orders Of MeiTY Arbitrary & Disproportionate, Some PertainTo Political Content : Twitter Inc Tells Karnataka High Court

The petition filed by Twitter Inc says that several blocking orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY) under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act are "procedurally and substantially deficient of the provision" and "demonstrate excessive use of powers and are disproportionate".