Nominal Index: [Citations 482 - 495] UMA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 482 GAJANAN v. APPASAHEB SIDDAMALLAPPA KAVERI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 483 K. SURESH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 484 ANIL KUMAR & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 485 SURESH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA DAMBAL v. THE STATE. 2022...
Nominal Index: [Citations 482 - 495]
UMA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 482
GAJANAN v. APPASAHEB SIDDAMALLAPPA KAVERI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 483
K. SURESH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 484
ANIL KUMAR & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 485
SURESH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA DAMBAL v. THE STATE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 486
MILAAP SOCIAL VENTURES INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR v. GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 487
M.S.UBEDULLA KHAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 488
NASIR PASHA v. UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 489
THE REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. MASTER THARUN C. GOWDA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 490
THE LORD BISHOP & ANR v. THE LAND TRIBUNAL & OTHERS. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 491
CHANDRA SUVARNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 492
UMAPATHI S v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 493
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. K.N. JAGADISH KUMAR @ JAGADEESH MAHADEV @ JAGADEESH. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 494
Purbayan Chakraborty v. Union of India. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 495
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: UMA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6123 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 482
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a criminal case registered against residents of an apartment who allegedly gathered and prevented officials of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) from surveying and removing encroachment over Rajakaluve (storm water drain), as per Court orders.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the contention of the petitioners that they are the residents of the Apartment and there is no illegal intention in assembling together. It said,
"The petitioners, being the owners of the Apartment, must be in the Apartment, but they all together joined their hands with an intention to prevent the public authority while discharging duty, which attracts Section 149 of IPC i.e. common object and unlawful assembly under Section 143 of IPC for committing an offence on the public servant."
Case Title: GAJANAN v. APPASAHEB SIDDAMALLAPPA KAVERI.
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 2011 OF 2013
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 483
The Karnataka High Court has held that contravention of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes if the transaction amount is more than Rs.20,000, such transaction shall be made through cheque or demand draft, does not make the transaction void and it can be called a legally recoverable debt.
Accused Gajanan had approached the court seeking to set aside the judgment of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Magistrate Court, convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,28,000.
Case Title: K. SURESH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.13219 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 484
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an advocate seeking directions to the Union and State Government to conduct a study into the feasibility of implementing 'moving garden' on all possible vehicless.
The petitioner prayed that if the concept is found to be feasible, the State Government be directed to implement it so as to maintain ecology and environment.
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case no: WRIT PETITION NO.17708/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 485
The Karnataka High Court has observed that as per Rule 214 (2) (b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, no enquiry can be initiated against a retired person in respect of an event which had taken place more than four years prior to institution of enquiry.
A single judge bench of Justice SG Pandit allowed the petition filed by Anil Kumar and T. Mallanna, former employees of Karnataka Housing Board, and quashed the Charge Memo as well as appointment of Enquiry Officer.
Case Title: SURESH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA DAMBAL v. THE STATE
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.102858/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 486
The Karnataka High Court has denied relief to a rape accused who sought bail on the ground that the trial against him is at the fag end and material witnesses including the victim and complainant have turned hostile.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz while dismissing the petition filed by one Suresh Dambal said, "When the trial is at the fag end, it may not be proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The learned Trial Judge is directed to conclude the trial as far as possible, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Case Title: MILAAP SOCIAL VENTURES INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR v. GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6220 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 487
The Karnataka High Court has said that in a suit against passing off, amendment to plaint is permissible to include the remedy for trademark infringement if the cause of actions are substantially identical and both the reliefs are virtually based on the same fundamental idea.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the application filed by Milaap Social Ventures, seeking amendment of its plaint to include remedy of trademark infringement by the respondents, Google India and Impact Guru Technology Ventures (respondent No.2), by using the mark 'MILAAP' in its keywords and metatags.
Case Title: M.S.UBEDULLA KHAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10563 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 488
The Karnataka High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a doctor accused of outraging the modesty of a woman who visited him for treatment.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar allowed the petition filed by MS Ubedulla Khan and granted him anticipatory bail on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety for the like-sum. It said, "The petitioner alleged to be a medical practitioner and the question of him absconding or fleeing away from justice does not arise at all. Further it is submitted that the statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C, of the victim has been already recorded and hence the question of tampering with the prosecution witnesses also does not arise."
Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Centre Giving Immediate Effect For PFI Ban
Case Title: NASIR PASHA v. UNION OF INDIA
Case NO: WP 21440/2022
CITATION: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 489
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed questioning the notification issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, declaring the Popular Front of India and its associates or affiliates or fronts as "unlawful associations" with 'immediate effect' for a period of 5 years in exercise of the powers under Sec 3(1) of UAPA.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna pronounced the order on the petition filed by one PFI activist named Nasir Pasha through his wife, as he is presently in judicial custody.
[Motor Accident] Burden To Prove That Driver's License Is Fake Lies Upon Insurance Company: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: THE REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. MASTER THARUN C. GOWDA & others.
Case NO: M.F.A.NO.5197/2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 490
The Karnataka High Court has said that the burden lies on the insurance company to prove that licence of the driver of vehicle which met with an accident was fake, by examining the author of the document (RTO), and unless the same is proved as a fake document, the shifting of the liability on the owner does not arise.
A single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh dismissed the appeal filed by the United India Insurance challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which allowed the claim petition filed by injured Master Tharun Gowda, 8 years old at the time.
Even A Void Order Unless Certified By A Competent Body Or Court As Being Void, Would Continue To Be Operational: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: THE LORD BISHOP & ANR v. THE LAND TRIBUNAL & OTHERS
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1762 OF 2005
Citation; 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 491
The Karnataka High Court has observed that even a void order unless certified by the magistra dicta as being void, would continue to be operational.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit made the observation while rejecting a petition filed by the Diocesan Lord Bishop and Melvin D'souza, questioning the order of the Land Tribunal to the extent that it grants occupancy rights to the respondent in case of certain lands.
"This Is The Last Straw": Karnataka HC Directs State To Allot Public Properties Only By Auction, Not As 'Special Cases' Upon Political Interference
Case Title: CHANDRA SUVARNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.19527/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 492
The Karnataka High Court recently made deprecating remarks against allotment of public properties as political favours and directed the State to ensure transparency in the allotment process through public auctions/ tenders.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was faced with a case where 700 sq.mts. of space in the port of Malpe Beach were allotted to one Santhosh V Saliana, Partner of Sea Foods, at the recommendation made by political representatives in his favour. While setting aside such allotment, the bench said, "Public property, is trite to be leased out only by way of public auction/tender failing which it would become an arbitrary exercise of power. Public property cannot be bartered away at the whim and fancy of interested persons without even the public coming to know availability of such property...This case would form the last straw of admonishing the State for bartering away public property at its whim and fancy. Any such iteration would, without doubt, be viewed seriously, as such actions cannot bear any sanction under any law. Rule of law is insurmountable."
FIR Uploading Delayed Only In Sensitive Cases By Lokayukta Police, Karnataka High Court Told
Case Title: UMAPATHI S v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP 20297/2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 493
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday was informed by the State that only in some sensitive cases the police wing of Karnataka Lokayukta delays the uploading of First Information Report (FIR) on its website.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi accepted the affidavit filed by the Additional Director General of Police (Karnataka Lokayukta) through Superintendent of Police attached to the Karnataka Lokayukta, and disposed of a PIL seeking directions for uploading of all the First Information Reports (FIRs) on the website of Police wing of Karnataka Lokayukta, within 24 hours of registration.
Karnataka HC Drops Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Advocate For Banging His Hand In Courtroom; Imposes 2 Lakh Cost
Case Title: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. K.N. JAGADISH KUMAR @ JAGADEESH MAHADEV @ JAGADEESH
Case no: CRL.CCC. NO. 1 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 494
The Karnataka High Court has dropped criminal contempt proceedings initiated against an Advocate for creating a ruckus by repeatedly banging his hand on the table in a lower court, despite the judge's warnings.
The Registrar of the City Civil Court had written to the High Court seeking action against Kumar, whereafter the suo moto proceedings were initiated.
Karnataka HC Refuses To Entertain PIL Against CLAT-PG Mandate For JAG Entry, Says Court Can't Sit In Appeal Over Selection Agency's Decision
Case Title: Purbayan Chakraborty v. Union of India
Case No: WP 19157/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 495
The Karnataka High Court on Friday allowed a law student to withdraw his PIL challenging a Central Government notification which imposes a precondition on candidates appearing for SSC (NT) JAG entry scheme 2023 to have appeared for CLAT 2022 PG program.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi orally observed that a public interest litigation petition is not maintainable in service matters. Moreover, when a selection agency wants a candidate having a certain qualifications, the Court cannot sit over the decision.