Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 479 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 499Nominal Index:Nitin Kasliwal And Debt Recovery Tribunal I. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 479Indian Rail Mazdoor Union And The Chairman And Chief Executive Officer Railway Board & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 480M/s B M Habitat AND The Commissioner And Competent Authority. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 481Laxman Warad & Others AND Town Municipal...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 479 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 499
Nominal Index:
Nitin Kasliwal And Debt Recovery Tribunal I. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 479
Indian Rail Mazdoor Union And The Chairman And Chief Executive Officer Railway Board & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 480
M/s B M Habitat AND The Commissioner And Competent Authority. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 481
Laxman Warad & Others AND Town Municipal Council. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 482
Karnataka Rajya Anganvadi Karya Kartheyara Mathu Sahaya AND Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 483
Muddumadaiah And B Jyothi. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 484
Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi AND Aneesa Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 485
Dr Ambedkar Scheduled Castes Federation Karnataka AND Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 486
Sharmada B K AND The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 487
Mutti AND Kucharu & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 488
Gulihatti D Shekar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 489.
K Madal Virupakshappa AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 490
Mohammed Noman Ahmed Almeri AND Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 491
Pusha AND Y Jansi Rani. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 492
M/s SKF India Limited v. A V Nagabhushana. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 493
D L Ramesh v. Marilingaiah. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 494
M/s Om SLV Constructions AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 495
Vasundhara A.G.K AND The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 496
Anupam Singh Tomar AND State By Kothanur Police & Another. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 497
EIT Services India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 498
M/S Myntra Designs Private Limited Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 499
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Nitin Kasliwal And Debt Recovery Tribunal I
Case No: Writ Petition No. 26333 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 479
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, or Civil/Criminal Courts and even the police do not have the power to impound the passport of a citizen.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The civil Court or the criminal Court itself do not have the power to impound the passport. Section 102 or 104 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Police to seize and the Court to impound any document. Impounding of any document produced before the Court cannot stretch to an extent that those Courts can impound the passport also. The Court–either the criminal Court or the civil Court, issuing directions to deposit a passport before it till the conclusion of trial are those orders which are without authority of law. The Tribunal – Debts Recovery Tribunal can hardly have such power.”
Case Title: Indian Rail Mazdoor Union And The Chairman And Chief Executive Officer Railway Board & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No. 24457 OF 2022.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 480
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by the Indian Railway Mazdoor Union alleging misappropriation of Government money, regarding the illegal operation of special trains.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said “On perusal of the Petition papers and the material annexed to the same, we are of the clear opinion that Petition is presented only on assumption, presumption and self impressions of the Petitioner.”
Case Title: M/s B M Habitat AND The Commissioner And Competent Authority
Case No: Writ Petition No 28561 OF 2019
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 481
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for payment of backdated property tax from 2008, on the ground that the building was completed even when the Occupancy Certificate came to be issued on 25.04.2011.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by M/s B M Habitat and quashed the order issued by the corporation dated 15.02.2018 and it directed the corporation to receive the property tax commencing from 25.04.2011.
Case Title: Laxman Warad & Others AND Town Municipal Council
Case No: Regular Second Appeal No 3206 of 2007.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 482.
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a prior notice under provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act is not mandatory while filing a declaratory suit of title and permanent injunction against the Town Municipal Council.
Section 284 (1) reads thus: 284. Previous notice for suits, etc.—(1) No suit shall be instituted against any municipal council, officer, servant or any person acting under the order or direction of such municipal council, officer or servant in respect of any act done or purporting to have been done in pursuance of this Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder until the expiration of sixty days next after notice in writing, stating the cause of action, the nature of the relief sought, the amount of compensation claimed, the name and place of residence of the intending plaintiff and the relief which he claims, has been in the case of a municipal council delivered or left at its office, and in the case of such officer, servant, or person, delivered to him or left at his office or place of residence and unless the plaint contains a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.
Case Title: Karnataka Rajya Anganvadi Karya Kartheyara Mathu Sahaya AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 16212 OF 2012
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 483
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to consider a representation seeking to increase the terminal benefits from Rs.30,000 to Rs.50,000 and from Rs.50,000 to Rs.1,00,000, to the Anganawadi Workers and Helpers, respectively.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda gave the direction while disposing of a petition filed by Karnataka Rajya Anganvadi Karya Kartheyara Mathu Sahaya said “Such consideration shall be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are also permitted to furnish any additional representation if they so desire.”
Case Title: Muddumadaiah And B Jyothi
Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No. 366 OF 2019
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 484
The Karnataka High Court has held that in a cheque bounce case, the onus is on the accused to prove that the cheque was misused after it was issued to another person in lieu of a loan borrowed from them and thus did not amount to a legally enforceable debt.
A single-judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused Muddumadaiah and upheld the conviction handed down under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi AND Aneesa Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi & ANR
Case No: Criminal Petition No 102231 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 485
The Karnataka High Court has held that a husband's non-payment of arrears to his wife and children would not invite prosecution under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar quashed the proceedings initiated against Mohammed Yaseen Naikwadi and said “The approach of learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 31 of the D.V. Act is a glaring legal error and hence, the same will have to be set aside.”
Case Title: Dr Ambedkar Scheduled Castes Federation Karnataka AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 26836 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 486
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to quash the enlistment of certain communities as Scheduled Tribes in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Second Amendment) Act, 1991 & the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Act, 2020.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the petition filed by Dr Ambedkar Scheduled Castes Federation Karnataka, through its President Mahendra Kumar Mitra.
Case Title: Sharmada B K AND The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 14352 of 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 487
The Karnataka High Court has suggested the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to implement a system of digitising and credentialing all the documents which are issued by the Corporation including but not limited to a Khata certificate, plan sanction, tax paid receipt, SAS tax paid receipt etc. so that the QR Code is also printed which when scanned the website of the Corporation be visited to verify the authenticity thereof.
A single judge of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “The Chief Commissioner, BBMP along with the Principal Secretary, E-governance, as also the concerned of digilocker are directed to look into the matter and formulate a suitable mechanism to credentialize all documents issued by the BBMP.”
Case Title: Mutti AND Kucharu & Others
Case No: Regular Second Appeal No 2272 of 2008.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 488
The Karnataka High Court has held that bequeathing property, by executing a will, by the tenant of the suit property is permitted before the grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal. The beneficiary of the will in such instances will become the absolute and exclusive owner of the property, it observed.
A single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar allowed the appeal filed by one Mutti, who had challenged the order of the trial court and the first appellate court which had decreed the suit filed by petitioner Kucharu seeking partition and prayer to allot 1/6th share in the suit properties.
Case Title: Gulihatti D Shekar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 16268 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 489.
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation questioning the transfer of investigating officer A.D.Nagaraju who is probing the alleged fraud of multiple crores of rupees which was allegedly perpetrated in the Karnataka Bhovi Development Corporation.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the petition filed by Gulihatti D Shekar and said “The Government being the guardian of the public interest and being the principal employer knows, which official should be transferred to what place and which official should be retained for accomplishing the task. The officials come and go; the process however would continue unhindered.”
Karnataka High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Former BJP MLA K Madal Virupakshappa
Case Title: K Madal Virupakshappa AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No 5633 of 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 490
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal prosecution initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, against former Bharatiya Janata Party legislator, K Madal Virupakshappa.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “There is no allegation of ingredients of Section 7(a) and (b) of the Act against the petitioner. If there is not even a whisper of any demand or acceptance of bribe by the petitioner, it is ununderstandable as to how the proceedings can be permitted to be continued against him.”
Case Title: Mohammed Noman Ahmed Almeri AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 15631 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 491
The Karnataka High court has refused to grant relief to a Yemeni national who had approached the court seeking a direction to the authorities to extend his visa.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Mohammed Noman Ahmed Almeri, rejected his contention that bilateral relations between Yemen and India, be kept in mind while considering the petition's merits.
Case Title: Pusha AND Y Jansi Rani
Case No: Writ Petition No 15979 of 2022.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 492
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a petition filed by the second wife of a railway employee seeking the release of 50% family pension by the authorities on the death of the employee in the course of employment.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Pusha who had approached the court challenging the order dated 29-07-2022 passed by the trial court directing 50% of the pension to be paid to the 1st respondent (first wife) and her children while not answering the claim of the petitioner.
Case Title: M/s SKF India Limited v. A V Nagabhushana
Case No: Writ Appeal No 997 of 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 493
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging a Labour Court award, whereby an employee dismissed from service due to intermittent absence from work for attending to ailing relatives was ordered to be reinstated.
While dismissing the appeal, which was filed against the order of a Single Judge of the court that confirmed the award, the division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit took into account the fact that the employee had put in 20 years of service before the disciplinary proceedings were initiated.
Case Title: D L Ramesh v. Marilingaiah
Case No: Regular Second Appeal No 151 OF 2016
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 494
The Karnataka High Court has held that a mention in promissory note, that the payer is at liberty to proceed against the note creator's property if he fails to repay, is an additional condition that does not contravene Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which stipulates that a promissory note must contain an unconditional undertaking to pay.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed an appeal filed by a defendant against order of the first appellate court, which reversed the decree of the Trial Court and allowed the plaintiff's suit seeking recovery of Rs.66,000 based on a promissory note.
Case Title: M/s Om SLV Constructions AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 3893 of 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 495
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) cannot refuse to clear a Civil contractor's bill, by raising a contention that documents on the work/supply order granted to the contractor were seized by investigating agencies.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “The Departmental Head or Chief Commissioner of the Corporation could always seek for copies from a Court so also could an accused. In the present case, the petitioner also being an accused, the petitioner could make such an application. Instead of making such an application, the Corporation as also the petitioner have been blaming each other and neither having obtained copies to process the bills, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for aforesaid reliefs.”
Case Title: Vasundhara A.G.K AND The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 44252 OF 2015 (LB-BMP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 48639 OF 2015(LB-BMP) WRIT PETITION NO. 48640 OF 2015
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 496
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)/civic body would not be exempted from the payment of service tax on payments made for availing third-party services to impart computer education to persons belonging to economically weaker sections.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petitions filed by Vasundhara A.G.K and others and said “Respondent is directed to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today and calculate the service tax due on the amounts paid and payable by the respondent to the petitioners and release the said amounts to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
Case Title: Anupam Singh Tomar AND State By Kothanur Police & Another
Case No: Criminal Petition No 9997 OF 2022
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 497
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case of criminal intimidation and trespass initiated by a woman against her former husband who visited her house to meet their daughter as per the visitation rights granted to him by the competent court.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a plea under Section 482 of the CrPC by the petitioner who was charged under sections 504, 506 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code.
Reassessment Proceedings Can't Be In The Nature Of Review: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: EIT Services India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case No.: Writ Petition No.15061/2013 (T-IT)
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 498
The Karnataka High Court has held that reassessment proceedings cannot be in the nature of review.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav has observed that the material that has come to light in the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2008–2009 cannot be sufficient grounds to resort to reassessment proceedings.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, seeking to reassess the income that has escaped assessment in terms of Section 147 with respect to the assessment year 2005–2006. The assessee was called upon to deliver a return within 30 days. Subsequently, the reasons for initiating proceedings under Section 147 for reopening the assessment were communicated.
Karnataka High Court Directs NFAC To Refund Rs.29.30 Cr. With Interest To Myntra
Case Title: M/S Myntra Designs Private Limited Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 19995 Of 2023 (T-IT)
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 499
The Karnataka High Court has directed the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to refund Rs. 29.30 crore with interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act to Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd.
The bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad has observed that if indeed a reference to the transfer pricing officer is under investigation, it would suffice for this Court to observe that if the adjudication, after due process, results in a demand, the petitioner, Myntra, will have to answer the demand, but in anticipation of a conclusion for a demand without even recording the reasons, the petitioner cannot be denied the refund.