Nominal Index: [Citations 468 - 481] KAJAL NARESH KUMAR v. Union of India & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 468 K. B. NAIK v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 469 A.N.MURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 470 ASHVEEJA T.C v. ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 471 MR. M.M. KARIAPPA & ANR v....
Nominal Index: [Citations 468 - 481]
KAJAL NARESH KUMAR v. Union of India & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 468
K. B. NAIK v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 469
A.N.MURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 470
ASHVEEJA T.C v. ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 471
MR. M.M. KARIAPPA & ANR v. ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS, INC.. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 472
GIRISH S/O VINAYAK KMUTTATTI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 473
RAJATH R v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 474
NALINI DEVI v. THE GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 475
K.S.RAMA RAO v. SUBBALAKSHMI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 476
RAMANJI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 477
SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT. LTD & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 478
SA RA GOVINDU & Others v. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 479
KEMPAMANI D E v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 480
SHREESHA SASITHOTA PRABHAKARAN v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 481
Judgments/Orders:
Case Title: KAJAL NARESH KUMAR v. Union of India & others
Case No:WRIT PETITION No.20850 OF 2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 468
The Karnataka High Court has said that mere filing of a B Report (Closure report) by the police before the jurisdictional court which is yet to be accepted would not mean that the accused is acquitted in the case, thus passport authorities would have the right to refuse to issue of passport or travel documents.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "The rigour of Section 6(2)(f) of the (Passport) Act gets evaporated only when the applicant who is facing criminal proceedings or a FIR is acquitted, discharged or the proceeding against the said applicant is quashed by a competent Court of law, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Mere filing of 'B' report would not mean that the petitioner becomes allegation free qua Section 6(2)(f) of the Act."
Case Title: K. B. NAIK v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20983 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 469
Stressing upon the significance of following principles of natural justice by any authority in power, the Karnataka High Court recently referred to the legend of Adam and Eve.
Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "God himself gave an opportunity of hearing to Adam and Eve before passing the sentence for consumption of the forbidden fruit. The principle has emerged since then. Thus, it is not today that this concept exists; it is as early as humanity."
The Judge added that the principle has since then been honed and refined through "judicial treatment" by Courts of law to render justice and ensure minimum protection of rights of an individual against any arbitrary procedure.
Case Title: A.N.MURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.22038 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 470
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that appeals filed before the State Government, challenging demand notices issued by the Deputy Director, Department of Mining and Geology which are approved by the Director, who is the Controlling Authority, are maintainable.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi said, "The petitioner has not committed any error in submitting the revision petition, being aggrieved by the issuance of demand notices by the Deputy Director on an approval by the Director, to the State Government for its consideration."
Case Title: ASHVEEJA T.C v. ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20999 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 471
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the order passed by the Endowment Commissioner, dismissing an Archak of the Bhoga Nandishwara Temple in Chikkaballapur Taluk, without holding an inquiry on charges of alleged misconduct.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna directed the respondent-authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and complete the enquiry within two weeks, as was directed by the High Court in an earlier round of litigation (against petitioner's suspension). Till then, it permitted the petitioner to perform as Archak in the temple.
Case Title: MR. M.M. KARIAPPA & ANR v. ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS, INC.
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.106 OF 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 472
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Civil court in Bengaluru restraining Vogue Institute Of Management from using the trademark 'VOGUE' as a part of their name and trading style by way of permanent injunction.
Justice M I Arun while allowing the appeal filed by the institute said, "The trial court ... has applied the test i.e., applicable to a common man who would get confused by the use of the word 'VOGUE' itself and has come to the erroneous conclusion that the defendants' institute can be passed off as the institute of the plaintiff."
Adopted Child Entitled To Seek Compassionate Appointment: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: GIRISH S/O VINAYAK KMUTTATTI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 100362 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 473
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an adopted child can seek compassionate appointment following the death of his/her adoptive parent who took care of the family.
A division bench of Justices Suraj Govindaraj and G Basavaraja observed, "A son is a son or a daughter is a daughter, adopted or otherwise, if such a distinction is accepted then there would be no purpose served by adoption."
Case Title: RAJATH R v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 8902 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 474
The Karnataka High Court has said that a Tender Inviting Authority can change, modify or amend the tender document before opening of the technical bid. The only rider is that the information should be given to all the tenderers.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "In terms of Rule 14 (of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements, Rules, 2000) before opening of technical bid, the change, modification or amendment to the tender document is a permissible exercise of power. The only rider is that the information should be given to all the tenderers. The information is required to be given to all the tenderers, if the changes are made after the last date of submission of bids, but before opening of technical bid or opening of any bid for that matter."
Case Title: NALINI DEVI v. THE GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.22058 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 475
The Karnataka High Court has restrained the Canara Bank from recovering the excess amount paid to a senior citizen in the family pension account and has asked the bank to recover the same from its officers who are responsible for not acting on the pensioner's representations for years.
The pensioner had, on several occasions starting from the year 2016, requested the bank to deduct the excess amount in instalments and unblock her account.
Case Title: K.S.RAMA RAO v. SUBBALAKSHMI
Case No: R.S.A NO. 1092 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 476
The Karnataka High Court has said that mere handing over of sale consideration by a person to the vendor, at the time of execution of sale deed, will not in itself create such persons' right in the property.
"The endorsement only indicates that the money that was paid by Rangamma was handed over by plaintiff to the vendor...a feeble attempt is made by plaintiff to lay a false claim over the suit schedule property under the garb that he has equally contributed while acquiring his properties."
Case Title: RAMANJI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10639 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 477
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a chargesheet filed against an accused under the Karnataka Police Act merely because the Police did not cite any independent witness.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan observed, "Merely the Police have not cited any independent witness in the charge sheet, but that itself is not a ground to quash the criminal proceedings." It thus dismissed the petition filed by one Ramanji who is charged under Section 78(3) of the Police Act for allegedly running matka in a gambling bid.
Case Title: SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT. LTD & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2778 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 478
The Karnataka High Court earlier this month quashed a criminal case filed against commercial vehicles manufacturer Scania India, its Directors and Managers, alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating in sale of around 70 buses.
The complaint was lodged by the proprietor of SRS Travels, a Bengaluru based travel agency. He claimed that the company sold him defective buses and he was saddled with numerous problems in the operation and maintenance of vehicles which led to huge financial losses.
Case Title: SA RA GOVINDU & Others v. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.14787 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 479
The Karnataka High Court has held that Registrar of Cooperative Societies, in exercise of its power to conduct enquiry under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, cannot assume power of a Civil Court to consider evidence in election matters.
The provision empowers the Registrar to, on his own or on the application of majority members of the society, hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society.
Karnataka Home Guards Can Be Suspended Without Prior Notice: High Court
Case Title: KEMPAMANI D E v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.17691/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 480
The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with an order suspending a Home Guard without prior notice following registration of a FIR against her. A Single judge bench of Justice S G Pandit said,
"Rule 14-B of the Karnataka Home Guards Rules, 1963 empowers the Commandant General or Commandant to keep a Home Guard under suspension. No notice would be necessary for keeping a Home Guard under suspension, since suspension would be pending or contemplated enquiry."
Case Title: SHREESHA SASITHOTA PRABHAKARAN v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9971/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 481
The Karnataka High Court has said that a petition under Section 438 (anticipatory bail) or 439 (bail) of CrPC is not maintainable when offences under Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (KPIDFE) are incorporated in the FIR.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar said that an accused aggrieved by dismissal of bail plea has remedy to file an appeal under Section 16 of the Act.