Nominal Index:Omkarmurthy And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 122HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 123The Principal Secretary & ANR And Tejasco Techsoft Private Limited. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 124K. Madal Virupakshappa And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 125T Roopeshkumar @ Roopi And State of Karnataka. 2023...
Nominal Index:
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
M/S Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
Judgement/Orders
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.
Case Title: M/S Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India
Case No: Writ Petition No. 13185 Of 2020 (T-Res)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
The Karnataka High Court has an amendment to Rule 89(4) (C) of the CGST Rules by Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, unjust, and ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST Act.
The Bench of Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar has observed that Rule 89(4)(C) of the CGST Rules is ultra vires Section 54 of the CGST Act and Section 16 of the IGST Act. The very intention of the zero-rating is to make the entire supply chain of "exports" tax-free, i.e., to fully 'Zero-rate’ the exports by exempting them from both input tax and output tax. Section 16(3) of the IGST Act allows a refund of input taxes paid in the course of making a Zero-rated Supply, i.e., supplies that cover exports as well as supplies to SEZs. The rule in whittling down such refund is ultra vires in view of the well-settled principle of law that rules cannot override the parent legislation