Nominal Index 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...
Nominal Index
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
Judgments/Orders
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.