Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 1 to 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 260Nominal Index:S Mohan v. State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 1Dr. R. Chandrashekara v. State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)2Malappa @Malingaraya v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 3Anish Mohammed Rawther v. The Deputy Director, EnforcementDirectorate. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 4Chepudira Madaiah v. Mallengada Chengappa. 2022...
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 1 to 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 260
Nominal Index:
S Mohan v. State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
Dr. R. Chandrashekara v. State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)2
Malappa @Malingaraya v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
Anish Mohammed Rawther v. The Deputy Director, EnforcementDirectorate. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
Chepudira Madaiah v. Mallengada Chengappa. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
Bandenawaj v. The State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
M/s.V.S.Products v. Union of India. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
Dilraj Rohit Sequeira v. Union Of India. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
Google India Private Limited v. Competition Commission Of India.2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
Pradeep Moparthy v. State Of Karnataka. 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 10
Sr Admar Mutt v. Yashoda. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
State Of Karnataka v. Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya ShreeShree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji. 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 12
Manmohankumar V.C v. The State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)13
The Member Secretary v. Chief Secretary, Govt of Karnataka. 2022Livelaw (Kar) 14
K Mallikarjuna v. H A Sudha Mallikarjuna. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
Dr Ganesh Nayak v. V Shamanna. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
Parvathamma v. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests. 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 17
Suresh v. D Ramesh. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
The Governor Reserve Bank Of India v. Velankani InformationSystems Limited. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
Yashihirao Horinouchi v. The Deputy Director Of Factories. 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 20
Abrar Kazi v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
Lalitha v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
High Court Of Karnataka v. The State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 23
Yamuna and another versus The State. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
Venkatesh And State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
Amrusha Das v. State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
Gaurav Raj Jain V. State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
Basavaraj v. Umesh. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. Shekar B S. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)30
Ramesh v. State Through Dy RFO. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
Srinivas Murthy H.N. And State Of Karnataka. 2022 Livelaw (Kar)32
Mrs Kiran Iccha Kaur Bhasin And Director-General. 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 33
Devendrappa H v. The State. 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 34
ANI Technologies Private Limited v. State Of Karnataka, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 35
Surrayya Parveen @ Annapoorna v. Labour Officer Cum MinimumWages Enquiry Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
Dr Vaibhav Khosla v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
Jeetendra Kumar Rajan v. T. G. Shivashankare Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 38
Kamal Pant v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
Joswin Lobo v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
Ramesh Malli v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Wireless, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 41
Resham & Anr v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish v. Appellate Authority For AdvanceRuling Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
Indian Institute of Management Bangalore v. Daivanti Thakare,2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
Dr Arun Kumar B C v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
M.S. Kadkol v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
All India Gaming Federation v. State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 47
Karnataka State Law University v. Mahantesh, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)48
Somashekara @ Soma v. State Of Karnataka, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 49
Sunil Kumar v. State By Periyapatana Police Station, 2022Livelaw (Kar) 50
Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. K.Koteswar Rao, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 51
Hemalatha v. Venkatesh, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 52
Shivanand S/O Karabasappa Gurannavar v. Basavva @ Laxmi W/OShivanand Gurannavar 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
M/S SAPL-GCC JV v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 54
Dhondiba Anna Jadhav v. The State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 55
Padmanabha v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 56
Michael Graham Prince v. Mrs. Nisha Misra 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 57
L.S. Tejasvi Surya v. State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
Bibi Ayesha Khanum v. Union Of India 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 59
Rabiya Abdul Hamid Bepari v. The Chairman, School ManagingCommittee, Volkart Academy. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
K T Naveen Kumar And The State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)61
Dr S Srinivasa v. Mandya University 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
Devendra Pai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
Dr Shantha Raj T R v. The State By Sub Inspector of Police 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 64
M/s. Prashanthi Affiliates Versus Deputy Commissioner ofCommercial Taxes 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
Meera Ajith v. John Doe Alias Ashok Kumar 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
Thippeswamy @ Thipeshi v. State By Jagalur P.S 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 67
Kumari M. v. The State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 68
Chiranjeevi M. Kulkarni v. Karnataka State Law University 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 69
Amol Kale v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
Darshan And State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
Kum. Mayavathi v State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
Union of India and Ors. v. M/s Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 73
Mahantesh v. Netharavati, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases,2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd V State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
Narendra Prasad P. V N. Sujatha, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
Sunil Chajed v State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
Navodaya Medical College V. The State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 79
Kasturi Rajupeta V. Union Of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
Bhavith Sheth V. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 81
Vijaya v Shekharappa 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 82
Law Students Association v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 83
Archana M G v. Abhilasha 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
Mrs. Prachi Sen v. Ministry Of Defence 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
State Of Karnataka v. Somanna 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
Praveen Surendiran V. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 87
Dasari Chakradhar V The Registrar (Evaluation) 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)88
Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 89
Prabhuraj V. The State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 90
Varavara Rao @ Pendyala V. State Of Karnataka: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 91
State Of Karnataka v. Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi 2022 Livelaw (Kar)92
Muthanna Mapangada vThe State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 93
S. SHYAMALA @ KATHYAYANI v. B. N. MALLIKARJUNAIAH 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 94
Tanaji S/O Nayaku Nikam v. Bharati W/O Tanaji Nikam 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 95
Irfan Pasha v State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
MRS DEPHNY GLADYS LOBO v. ASST COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT SENIORCITIZEN MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
P.C.Padmamba v Channaveeramma R, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 98
Rehan Khan v. Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)99
A B Devaraju and Others v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)100
NANJAPPA v. STATE BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 101
Faheem Ahmed V Union Of India 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 102
Xxxxxxxx V The Registrar General 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
M. Surendra Rao v M. Raveendra Rao and others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)104
Shanti Dhama College v The Principal Secretary 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 105
PRABHAMANI v. HEMALATHA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
CTI Future Corporation versus Ducgiang Chemical and DetergentPowder Joint Stock Company 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
Sayyad Mohammad @ Nasim V State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar)108
Wing Commander G B Athri (Retired) v Union Of India 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 109
Iqbal Ahmed v C.B.I. SCB 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka2022 Livelaw (Kar) 111
Renuka W/O Anand @ Anantsa Bakale v Ramanand S/O RamkrishnasaBasawa And Others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
M/S. A. SEATING & Others v. M/S. NANDINI MODULARS 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 113
J P I Dass School Of Nursing V State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 114
BABU S v. STATE BY KENGERI POLICE STATION 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
D V VENKATESHAPPA v. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURUMAHANAGARA PALIKE 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
Master Pavan S v. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 117
Letzkit Foundation v. The State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)118
Kumaresh K and Others v Union Of India and Other 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 119
SOHO PUB AND GRILL And STATE OF KARNATAKA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
Zuhab Hameed Shakeel Manna @ Zohib Manna v. The NationalInvestigation Agency 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
Rajkumar And The State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 122
WE CARE CHARITABLE TRUST v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 123
Lakshmikanta and Other v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)124
Ms Padmavathi Subramaniyan v The Ministry Of Civil Aviation 2022Livelaw (Kar) 125
Dr. UMESH P.G v. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 126
VASANTH ADITHYA. J v. STATE BY KARNATAKA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
Mohamed Ikbal v. Secretary to the Government of India 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 128
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka2022 Livelaw (Kar) 129
K Srinivas V The Karnataka State Election Commission 2022Livelaw (Kar) 130
Shanthi Nikethan High Court v other v. State of Karnataka 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 131
P Balaji Babu v. State Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 132
Srikanth L Ghotnekar and Other v. State of Karnataka, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 133
THE MEMBER SECRETARY OF A P P CUM AGP RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE v.THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
JANARDHANA PUJARI S And Karnataka State Law University, 2022Livelaw (Kar) 135
Murali Krishna Brahmandam v. Chief Electoral Officer, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 136
SALEEM KHAN v STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
Comanduru Parthasarathy v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 138
Sampada and others v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
Suresh v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
South India Biblical Seminary versus Indraprastha Shelters PvtLtd and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
Suo-Motu v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 5781/2021 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 142
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SHANKAR URF SHANKRAPPA S/O RAMPPAHUBBALLI, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
HUBBALLI DHARWAD ADVERTISERS ASSOCIATION and others v. STATE OFKARNATAKA and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
MOHAMED ARIF JAMEEL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 145
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., v. NAGENDRA, 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 146
Stanley Joseph v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
Sathish N v. Ambika J, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
Chennaiah @Doddachennaiah and others v. Bylappa and others Case,2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
B S PRAKASH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., and connectedmatters, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
Babu A Dhammanagi vs Union Of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 152
The Management Of Ksrtc v. K.Shivaram, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
Banu Begum W/O Khajasab Alias Mehaboobsab and Others v. State ofKarnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
Savithri v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
Pooja S v. Abhishek Shetty, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Praveen Kumar Adyapady and Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 157
Indian Council For Cultural Relations & Others v. AjayMerchant & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 158
Rashmi Tandon & Anr v. The State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 159
Ashwini v. State of Karnataka, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 160
Prashanth Sambargi v. The State of Karnataka And Anr, 2022Livelaw (Kar) 161
Injamam Shariff v. State of Karnataka, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 162
Good Shepherd Convent v. State of Karnataka And Others, 2022Livelaw (Kar) 163
Chief Executive Officer and Anr v. K.V.Puttaraju, 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 164
Sushil Goel And Anr v. State At The Instance Of Drug Inspector,2022 Livelaw (Kar) 165
M/s. Manipal Technologies Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 166
SHIVAPRASAD @ SHIVA v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)167
N.R. Sugandaraju v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
NETHRA v STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 169
V Srinivasaraju v State by Yelahanka Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)170
E S Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
Shalini and Anr. versus National Highways Authority of India andOrs. Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
CANCER PATIENTS AID ASSOCIATION v CENTRAL BOARD OF FILMCERTIFICATION, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
SUJIT S/O MADIWALAPPA MULGUND v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 174
Sangeeta Gadagin v. State Of Karnataka, & C/W Matters, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 175
Vikram Vincent v. State of Karnataka & Anr 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 176
Prakash Sharma S/O Mehdi Sharma v. State By Marathahalli 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 177
SATHISH K and others v State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)178
The Bangalore Development Authority and Others v. The PrincipalSecretary, Revenue Department and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
G.H.Abdul Kadri v. Mohammed Iqbal, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
B.A.HARISH GOWDA v. RAVI KUMAR, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
SRIKANTAIAH v STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU and ANR, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 182
ITI Limited versus Alphion Corporation & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 183
DR. K.RAVINDRANATH SHETTY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA& others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
BOPPANDA N. KUSHALAPPA v. BALEYADA K. CHERAMANNA and Others,2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
Dr Yasin Khan v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 186
BHIMAPPA JANTAKAL @ BHIMANNA & others v State of Karnatakaand ANR, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
SRINIVASA and ANR v STATE BY BEECHANALLI POLICE STATION, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 188
The Vice Chairman Settlement Commission & Anr. versus M/sZyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
ANAND C. @ ANKU GOWDA & others v. CHANDRAMMA 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 190
ACHUT D. NAYAK & Others v THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE& ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. ABDUL S/O MEHABOOBTAHASILDAR and C/W matter. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
DIVYA & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)193
M/S. CREST FACILITY MANAGEMENT v UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 194
K. SRINIVAS & others v. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTIONCOMMISSION & others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
DR CHIDANANDA P MANSUR v. UNION OF INDIA & others 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 196
BASAVARAJ ITAGI & others v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OFHEALTH SCIENCES 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
M/s Abhiram Infra Projects Private Limited versus TheCommissioner, Karnataka Slum Development Board 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
SAMANTHA CHRISTINA DELFINA WILLIS & ANR v STATE OF KARNATAKAand others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
Ananda v. State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
MAHAMMAD ALI AKBAR @ ALI UMAR v State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 201
Sobha Ltd. v. Nava Vishwa Shashi Vijaya and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 202
Gokaldas Images Private Limited versus Aries Agro-Vet Associates(Pvt) Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
CITIZENS ACTION GROUP v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others.2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
MURULY M.S. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others. 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 205
Arun Vincent Rajkumar v S Mala. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
Hanumanthappa v State of Karnataka & Others. 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 207
GANESH PRASAD HEGDE & Others v SUREKHA SHETTY. 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 208
T.L. NAGARAJU v THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
RT Rev Prasanna Kumar Samuel v State of Karnataka & others.2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
D.ROOPA v H.N.SATHYANARAYANA RAO. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
MUZAMMIL PASHA v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY. 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 212
XXXX versus XXXX. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
RAJAMMA H v THIMMAIAH V. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
BEML Ltd. v. Prakash Parcel Services Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
RATHNAMMA v. STATE REPRESENTED BY PSI, CHANNAGIRI POLICESTATION, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
Umapathi S. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
VISHWAS V v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
Lakshi Venkateshwara Kallu Kutukara Bhovi Shakhara Sangha v. TheState Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
Vikas Verma & Others v. Union of India & Others, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 220
RITHESH PAIS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
ARCHANA GIRISH KAMATH v. UNION OF INDIA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
V.KRISHNAMURTHY v. DIARY CLASSIC ICE CREAMS PVT. LTD, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 223
B.DURGA RAM v. The State By BENGALURU CITY CENTRAL P.S.=, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 224
PUBLIC TV (KANNADA NEWS CHANNEL) and ANR v. BANNADI SOMANATHHEGDE, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
XXX versus STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
D M Deve Gowda v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
REKHA & Others versus LALITHAMMA & Others, 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 228
NELSON RAJ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw 229
Kavitha v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
Mrs Leena Rakesh v Bureau of Immigration Ministry of HomeAffairs. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
YUSUB S/O MOHAMUSAB SANADI v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 232
SUPRIT ISHWAR DIVATE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 233
M.AJITHKUMAR v THE STATE BY FOOD INSPECTOR, KOPPA. 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 234
XXX v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
SHIVANAND LAXMAN ANCHI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 236
LAKSHMAIAH REDDY v. V ANIL REDDY & others. 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 237
DADA S/O BALU ROOGE v. APPASAHEB S/O KIRAN KESTE. 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 238
Sudarshan Ramesh v. Union Of India. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 239
THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES v. DR. DIGAMBARAPPA,& others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 240
Sadik Khan @Sadik v State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 241
PRABHUNAIKA K.T v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 242
CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION v K.L.JAYAPRAKASH, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 243
Irfan Pasha v. National Investigation Agency, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)244
Commissioner of Central Tax Vs ABB Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)245
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v. Union of India, 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 246
SHABANNA TAJ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 247
Thippeswamy @ Kunta v. State by Challakere Police, 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 248
T G VEERAPRASAD & Others v. PRAKASH GANDHI & Others,2022 LiveLaw 249
DR.S.P.RAGHUNATH v. THE UNION OF INDIA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 250
VENKATESH SETTY & Others v. SAOURAV GANGULY & Others,2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 251
Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. versus Mr. Donald Dayanand Donald,2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 252
M/s Bellatrix Consultancy Services Versus The Commissioner ofCentral Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 253
Masters Management Consultants (India) Private Ltd. versusNitesh Estates Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 254
T.SADANANDA PAI v. SUJATHA S PAI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 255
SYED SHABAJ v. SMT. PREMA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
SHIVASWAMY & Others v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
Philips India Limited v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 258
Shivu @ Shiv Kumar v. State of Karnataka & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 259
MISS. PRIYANKA PRADEEP GAVADE v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER. 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 260
Judgment/Orders
Case Title: PS Mohanv. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 1
The Karnataka High Court said that no permission of the CentralGovernment was required to construct lodges/ resorts within the reserve forestarea at Dubare in Kodagu district as the concerned company- Jungle Lodges andResorts Limited- is owned and controlled by the Karnataka Tourism DevelopmentCorporation.
Case Title: Dr. R.Chandrashekara v. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 2
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the StateGovernment to immediately start construction of Gastroenterology Science &Organ Transplantation Institute in Bengaluru and complete the same in a timebound manner. It will be the first hospital only for organ transplant in thecountry. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice SurajGovindaraj dismissed a petition filed by Dr. R. Chandrashekara and Dr. B.Rudrappa, pending which the construction of the hospital had been put on hold.
Case Title: Malappa@Malingaraya v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 3
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by arape accused seeking to quash the DNA report which confirmed him to be thebiological father of a child born to the victim of sexual assault. Justice HPSandesh dismissed the petition filed by accused Mallapa @Malingarya. The Courtsaid, "It is clear that ordering for DNA itself should not be as a matterof routine but wherein deserving cases, the Court can direct for DNA test andthere is no prohibition for ordering DNA test and the same is subject to eachfacts and circumstances of the case."
4.Enforcement DirectorateMay Probe PMLA Cases Throughout India, Including J&K: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: AnishMohammed Rawther v. The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 4
The Karnataka High Court has said that the EnforcementDirectorate can probe a case under the provisions of Prevention of MoneyLaundering Act, throughout India, including the Union Territory of Jammu andKashmir. Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "Sub-section (2) of section 1 ofthe (PML) Act reads "It extends to the whole of India. Thus, keeping theRPC (Ranbir Penal Code) offences away from the Act would offend the veryparliamentary intent of extending this Act "to the whole of India."
5.'Adverse Possession' OfProperty vs 'Permissive Possession': Karnataka High Court Explains
Case Title: ChepudiraMadaiah v. Mallengada Chengappa
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 5
The Karnataka High Court has said a person will not acquireadverse possession by simply remaining in permissive possession, for howeverlong it may be. Dr. Justice HB Prabhakara Sastry said, "Article 65 of theLimitation Act presupposes that the limitation starts only if the defendantsprove the factum of adverse possession affirmatively from a particulartime."
6. Section 427 CrPC-Sentence Of Escaped Life Convict Will Not Run Concurrently : Karnataka HighCourt
Case Title: Bandenawajv. The State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 6
The Karnataka High Court has said that a life convict on beingsentenced for escaping from prison on grant of parole leave, cannot claim thathis subsequent sentence, less severe in nature, runs concurrently with theprison term he was undergoing. The Court held that an escaped convict cannotseek the benefit of Section 427(2) CrPC, which says that the subsequentsentence of a person already undergoing imprisonment will run concurrently.
Case Title:M/s.V.S.Products v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 7
The Karnataka High Court upheld the notification dated July 6,2019 issued by the Union of India by which Central Excise Duty has been leviedon tobacco and tobacco products. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav said, "Itneeds to be kept in mind that taxation is not merely a source of raisingrevenue but is also recognised by the fiscal tool to achieve fiscal and socialobjective."
Case Title: DilrajRohit Sequeira v. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 8
The Karnataka High Court directed the State government toexpeditiously consider and resolve the infrastructure requirements at districtcourts in Karnataka, for effective implementation of the Live streaming rulesof judicial proceedings.
Case Title: GoogleIndia Private Limited v. Competition Commission Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 9
The Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of the petition filed by Google India challenging an order ofthe Competition Commission of India rejecting its request for access to theidentity of app developers/ start-ups allegedly suffering harm on account ofGoogle Play store payments policy 2020. A single-judge bench of Justice KrishnaS Dixit took on record the joint memo filed by the parties–Google, CompetitionCommission of India and Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF).
10. S. 482 CrPC| Can'tAppreciate Evidence In Quashing Petition: Karnataka High Court Reiterates
Case Title: PradeepMoparthy v. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 10
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a Court hearing apetition for quashing of FIR/ charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC cannotappreciate evidence as the same lies within the domain of the trial Court.Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "It is a settled principle that whiledeciding the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, evidence cannot beappreciated as it lies within the domain of the Trial Court."
Case Title: Sr AdmarMutt v. Yashoda
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 11
The Karnataka High Court has held that a cook, working for theSr Admar Mutt in Udupi district, cannot claim occupancy over appurtenant landwhich was granted to him by the Mutt for residential use. A division bench ofJustice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice P Krishna Bhatt allowed the appeal filedby the Mutt challenging the single judge bench order dated April 21, 2011, bywhich it had confirmed the Land tribunal order granting occupancy to the cook.
Case Title: State OfKarnataka v. Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shree Shree RaghaveshwaraBharathi Shri Swamiji
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 12
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a 2016 order of the trialcourt by which it discharged/ acquitted Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji,pontiff of the Shree Ramachandrapura Math, accused in a rape case. Justice V.Srishananda noted that the charge sheet in the matter was not filed by theauthorized person. It thus observed, "If the charge sheet is filed by aperson who is not the authorised person to file a final report as iscontemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, entire proceedings would definitelystand vitiated. Consequently, the further proceedings in pursuance of the saidcharge sheet is to be declared as non est."
Case Title:Manmohankumar V.C v. The State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 13
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the state government'spower and prerogative to impose conditions such as restriction of 'age' and'pass in 10th Standard' while considering the applications for grant ofcompassionate authorization under the Karnataka Essential Commodities PublicDistribution System (Control) Order. Justice P S Dinesh Kumar said, "TheState Government's power and prerogative to impose conditions while consideringthe applications for grant of authorisation is upheld."
Case Title: The MemberSecretary v. Chief Secretary, Govt of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 14
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State MentalHealth Authority to take appropriate and necessary steps for providing propermedical treatment to the mentally ill inmates of rehabilitation centres, agedhomes, destitute centres, reception centres, asylums, orphanages centres, etc.
Case Title: KMallikarjuna v. H A Sudha Mallikarjuna
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 15
Observing that "the marriage is totally dead" and thatnothing would be gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to amarriage that in fact has ceased to exist, the Karnataka High Court recentlygranted divorce to a couple who lived separately for a period of 21 years. Adivision bench of
Justice B Veerapa and Justice K S Hemalekha said, "Once theparties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient lengthof time of more than 21 years and one of them presented a petition for divorce,it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down."
Case Title: Dr GaneshNayak v. V Shamanna
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 16
The Karnataka High Court has suggested that medicalprofessionals should be protected from legal action just like public servantsare protected against bonafide errors in their action. Justice Krishna S Dixitexpressed that more often than not, the cases of medical negligence arelaunched recklessly by the patients and their relatives. The court said"Compensation culture'' which obtains in other jurisdictions is graduallygaining entry to the field of medical services in our society affecting ahealthy relationship of doctor & patient.
Case Title:Parvathamma v. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 17
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that Payment of WagesAct is a beneficial piece of enactment. The workmen cannot be denied the legalentitlement by applying technicalities while adjudicating the claimapplication. Justice Jyoti Mulimani thus quashed the order dated January 28,2015 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner rejecting the claim petitionfiled by one Parvathamma, who worked as a watcher with the Department of Forestand Environment Department, merely because her signature was missing on theclaim application.
Case Title: Suresh v.D Ramesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 18
Observing that the amount awarded to the parents is thecompensation for loss of love, affection, care and companionship of thedeceased child, the Karnataka High Court recently enhanced the compensationgranted by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) to a couple who lost their2-year old daughter in an accident. Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar modifiedthe order dated August 16, 2016, by which MACT had awarded a compensation of Rs3.50 lakh to the petitioners.
Case Title: The GovernorReserve Bank Of India v. Velankani Information Systems Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 19
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the directions issued to Reserve Bank ofIndia by a single judge bench of the High Court directing it to monitor theimplementation of Covid-19 package announced on March 27, 20202, by which RBIhad allowed Banks to declare a three-month moratorium on all term loans,outstanding as on March 1, 2020. The High Court also held that the RBI'scircular was a guideline and cannot be construed as a mandatory requirement,creating a right in favour of a borrower to avail loan moratorium.
Case Title: YashihiraoHorinouchi v. The Deputy Director Of Factories
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 20
The Karnataka High Court recently held that non-arraigning ofthe Company as an accused would not vitiate the proceedings initiated under theFactories Act, against the occupier of the factory. Justice M. Nagaprasanna inits order dated December 6, 2021 observed, "Section 2(n) of the FactoriesAct and its proviso makes it clear that one of the Directors of the companywould be responsible for proper implementation of the provisions of the Act.This ensures that more care is taken for the maintenance of the factory andvarious safety measures prescribed under the Act, so that the health, welfareand safety of the workers are not neglected. It is the occupier who wouldbecome responsible for all such acts of a factory."
Case Title: Abrar Kaziv. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 21
The Karnataka High Court has said that cricket match fixing doesnot amount to the offence of cheating and therefore the offence under Section420 IPC cannot be invoked against the alleged offenders. A single judge benchof Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "It is true that if a playerindulges in match fixing, a general feeling will arise that he has cheated thelovers of the game. But, this general feeling does not give rise to anoffence".
Case Title: Lalitha v.State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 22
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order granting bailto a lecturer, accused of sexually assaulting a minor student of his college,as the trial court failed to given an opportunity to the complainant/victim ofbeing heard before passing the order. Justice H P Sandesh set aside the orderdated August 10, 2021 granting bail to Gururaj L, and directed that the accusedbe arrested and commit him to custody under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
23. Cause Fulfilled':Karnataka High CourtCloses Suo Moto Case For Ensuring Elections To MunicipalBodies
Case Title: High CourtOf Karnataka v. The State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 23
The Karnataka High Court on Friday closed its suo moto case, registered for ensuring that elections areconducted to the Corporations/Municipalities in the State in order to complywith the mandate of Article 243-U(3) of the Constitution. The developmentensued after the State Election Commission informed the Court that all theelections to the Local Bodies and the Municipalities in the State have beencompleted by 30.12.2021, except the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike andVijayapura Municipal Corporation regarding whom the matter is pending beforethe Apex Court.
Case Title : Yamunaand another versus The State
Citation : 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 24
The Karnataka High Court has held that if persons not belongingto the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe obtains a false caste certificate, theycannot be prosecuted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and theScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
25. Breaching Promise ToMarry Will Not Amount To Offence Of Cheating Under IPC : Karnataka High Court
Case Title: VenkateshAnd State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 25
The Karnataka High Court while quashing the FIR registeredagainst a man and his family has reiterated that not abiding with the promiseof marriage will not amount to the offence of cheating under section 420 of theIndian Penal Code. A single-judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowingthe petition filed by Venkatesh and others said "Absolutely there is noingredient stated by her in order to show that there is a criminal intention ofcheating by petitioner No.1 and thereby, he has promised to marry her but hasbroken his promise."
Case Title: AmrushaDas v. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 26
The Karnataka High Court has said that estrangement between acouple should not affect their child's education prospects. Justice Krishna SDixit thus allowed the petition filed by a mother and her 8-year old daughter,seeking directions to a school in Bengaluru to issue her Transfer certificate.
Case Title: VirendraKhanna v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 27
The Karnataka High Court has said that further investigationconducted under Section 173(8) of CrPC must always relate to the incident ofalleged crime in respect of which the charge sheet has been filed already. Itis not reinvestigation. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while quashing two casesregistered under the NDPS Act, against party organiser Virendra Khanna said,"Further investigation is always in accordance with Section 173(8) ofCr.P.C,with a view to collecting further evidence supplemental to the evidencealready on record. It is not reinvestigation."
Case Title: Gaurav RajJain V. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 28
Observing that "Litigants and members of the Bar appear tohave not understood the importance and seriousness of this extraordinary writof Habeas Corpus," the Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petitionfiled by a father seeking directions to produce his 2 year old girl before thecourt, who is in safe custody of her mother. A division bench of Justice BVeerappa and Justice M G Uma while dismissing the petition filed by Gaurav RajJain, imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on him, stating that no ground to allow thewrit petition is made out and (petitioner) has abused the judicial process. Theamount is payable within a month to the Police Welfare Fund.
29. Motor Accident| CourtsCan Award Compensation Higher Than What Is Claimed: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Basavarajv. Umesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 29
Coming to the aid of a 14-year old (at the time) who sufferedpermanent disability to his pelvic region in an accident, the Karnataka HighCourt recently modified the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal,awarding compensation of Rs 50,000 under the head loss of amenities andenjoyment in life and increased it to Rs 10 lakhs.
A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice AnantRamanath Hegde said, "Since the marriage prospect of the claimant is wipedout, the claimant is deprived of all the pleasure and benefits of married life.The mental trauma of having to remain single, and answering the curiousquestions posed by the people around throughout life, for not getting married,are some of the things not easy to cope with. The trauma is going to beperennial and unabated."
Case Title: CanaraBank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. Shekar B S
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 30
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filedby Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) challenging an order of the Single judge bywhich it was directed to grant benefit of reduction of interest rate on Homeloan to a customer from the date of issuance of the circular for reduction,instead of when the customer applied for seeking reduction. A division bench ofChief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj was informed by thebank that the circular dated June 30, 2010 was pasted on the notice board ofthe bank and as such there was due communication to the customers of the bank.
Case Title: Ramesh v.State Through Dy RFO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 31
The Karnataka High Court has said that once an accused hasappeared before the court, either personally or through his counsel, he cannotseek anticipatory bail by invoking section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code(CrPC). Justice H P Sandesh thus dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filedby one Ramesh and granted him liberty to approach the Trial Court by filing thenecessary application for recalling the warrant issued against him.
32. Being Govt Employee NotA Ground For Grant Of Bail In Rape Case: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: SrinivasMurthy H.N. And State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 32
The Karnataka High court has said that being a governmentemployee is no ground to grant bail to an accused alleged of committing rape.Justice H P Sandesh while dismissing the petition filed by one Srinivas MurthyH.N. said "The fact that petitioner is a Government employee is not aground to enlarge him on bail, when the serious offence of rape is allegedagainst the petitioner."
Case Title: Mrs KiranIccha Kaur Bhasin And Director-General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 33
The Karnataka High Court has held that grounds on whichsubjective satisfaction is based while passing a detention order by theauthority under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention ofSmuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), cannot be challenged in a court of law,except on the grounds of malafides. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe andJustice M G S Kamal while dismissing a petition filed by the daughter of adetenu Gurmeet Singh Kohli said, "It is well settled in law that thereasonableness of satisfaction of detaining authority cannot be questioned in acourt of law, for the reason that satisfaction of detaining authority to whichSection 3(1)(a) of the Act refers to be subjective satisfaction of theAuthority."
Case Title:Devendrappa H v. The State
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 34
Granting relief to a bus driver employed with the KarnatakaState Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and convicted for the offence of rashdriving, the Karnataka High Court recently reduced his sentence of two monthssimple imprisonment and confined it to fine only. Justice Sreenivas HarishKumar while granting relief to petitioner Devendrappa H also said, "Thesentence of conviction shall not affect his career and shall not be treated asa remark for his employment with KSRTC."
Case Title: ANITechnologies Private Limited v. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 35
The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 63 of theCopyright Act, which prescribes a punishment of minimum 6 months that mayextend to 3 years imprisonment, is a cognizable offence and police can registeran First Information Report, on receipt of a complaint. Justice M Nagaprasannasaid, "Merely because a separate provision under Section 64 of the Actwhich depicts power of search and seizure by the Police is also found in the statute,it does not take away cognizability of the offence punishable under Section 63of the Act."
Case Title: SurrayyaParveen @ Annapoorna v. Labour Officer Cum Minimum Wages Enquiry Authority
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 36
The Karnataka High Court has said that it is the duty of theapplicant seeking relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to explain thedelay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act. In theabsence of sufficient cause, the Court of the Authority has no power to extendthe time Justice Jyoti Mulimani said, "I can say only this much that thelaw of limitation is not an equitable statute. It is a statute ofrepose."The court accordingly rejected a petition filed by one SurrayyaParveen challenging the order passed by the Labour Officer, rejecting her claimpetition on the ground of delay of 8 years.
Case Title: Dr VaibhavKhosla v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 37
The Karnataka High Court has said that educational institutionshave only a right to recover the prescribed fee for one semester/year and notrecover the entire course fees from a candidate who surrenders his seat. Adivision bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M G S Kamal relying on thejudgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy Of Education& Anr. v. State Of Karnataka & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 697 said, "It isevident that the institution has only a right to recover the prescribed fee forone semester/year."
Case Title: JeetendraKumar Rajan v. T. G. Shivashankare Gowda
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 38
Observing that "Nobody can be permitted to tarnish theimage of the temple of justice," the Karnataka High Court has dismissed 11contempt petitions filed by one Jeetendra Kumar Rajan seeking action againstthe High Court Registrar General. A division bench of Justice B Veerappa andJustice M G Uma further observed that no leniency can be shown when it comes tomaintaining the the majesty of the Court and hence, imposed a cost of Rs. 1lakh on each petition, totaling to Rs 11 lakh.
Case Title: Kamal Pantv. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.21264 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 39
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedingsinitiated against Bengaluru Police Commissioner Kamal Pant and two other policeofficers, for alleged commission of an offence under Section 166A IPC whichpertains to disobedience of law by a public servant. It includes refusal of aPolice officer to record any information given to him under Section 154(1) CrPCin relation to cognizable offences pertaining to sexual harassment.
Case Title: JoswinLobo v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.6916/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 40
The Karnataka High Court has said there is no bar on a policeofficer, who is a gazetted officer, on carrying out a personal search to draw amahazar, on an accused/ suspect under the Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh said,"Assistant Commissioner of Police is also a Gazetted Officer...Search bythe officer of the said department is not a bar and no law prescribes that he(suspect/accused) should be subjected to the personal search in the presence ofthe Gazetted Officer not belonging to the particular department."
Case Title: RameshMalli v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Wireless Case No: W.P. No. 104944/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 41
The Karnataka High Court has said that a probationer in theKarnataka police department cannot be terminated on the grounds of misconductwithout carrying out an inquiry under the Karnataka Civil Service (Probation)Rules, 1977. A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant RamanathHegde said, "It is true that the petitioner has no right to hold the postand he can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the probationaryperiod for general unsuitability, but a probationer cannot be dischargedimputing allegations amounting to misconduct. If any misconduct is alleged,then enquiry under Rule 7 of '1977 Rules' is necessary."
Case Title: Resham& Anr v. State of Karnataka
Citation : 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 42
The Karnataka High Court on Friday uploaded the interim orderpassed in the petitions challenging Hijab ban in colleges in the state. TheCourt has requested the State to re-open the educational institutions at theearliest and has restrained students from wearing any sort of religious clothesin classrooms, regardless of their faith, while the matter is pending hearing.The interim order is only applicable to those institutions which have prescribeda uniform dress code.
Case Title: TagharVasudeva Ambrish v. Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling Karnataka Case No:W.P. No.14891 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 43
The Karnataka High Court has held that an owner of a buildingcan claim tax exemption under the Goods and Services Act (GST) if theresidential premises leased out are used as a hostel to house students andworking professionals. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M IArun while allowing the petition filed by one Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish said,"The service provided by the petitioner i.e., leasing out residentialpremises as hostel to students and working professionals is covered under Entry13 of Notification No.9/2017 dated 28.09.2017 namely 'Services by way ofrenting of residential dwelling for use as residence' issued under the Act. Thepetitioner is held to be entitled to benefit of exemption notification."
Case Title: IndianInstitute of Management Bangalore v. Daivanti Thakare Case No: WA 91/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 44
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by theIndian Institute of Management (Bangalore), challenging an order of the SingleJudge bench by which it had set aside the order of the Institute, expellingnine students caught for exam malpractice. A division bench of Chief JusticeRitu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "We do not find anyinfirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and as such,do not consider it to be a necessary case for interference. The writ appeal isdismissed."
Case Title: Dr ArunKumar B C v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.9408/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 45
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the circular issued by theBruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), dated 29.2.2016 by which it directedproperty owners to relinquish the properties earmarked for road widening in themaster plan, free of cost as a condition precedent for processing theirapplications for sanctioning of building plans.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar said,"I am of the considered view that the impugned endorsements issued by therespondent - BBMP requiring the petitioners to relinquish the properties inquestion free of cost as a condition precedent for processing theirapplications for sanctioning of building plans is without authority of law andthe same violate Article 300A of the Constitution of India."
46.Punishment OfCompulsory Retirement For Accepting ₹50 Bribe Disproportionate: Karnataka HighCourt
Case Title: M.S.Kadkol v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.110912 of 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 46
Almost 18 years after an employee of the State government wassubjected to compulsory retirement for accepting a bribe of Rs. 50, theKarnataka High Court recently held that the punishment imposed on thepetitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of theoffence. It thus set aside the order of compulsory retirement issued in theyear 2004.
A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice AnantRamanath Hegde sitting at Dharwad partly allowed the petition filed by M.S.Kadkol. It confirmed the guilt of the petitioner however, set aside thepunishment of compulsory retirement and remitted the matter back to thedisciplinary authority to pass appropriate order of punishment on thepetitioner.
47. Karnataka High CourtStrikes Down Law Banning Online Gaming With Stakes
Case Title: All IndiaGaming Federation v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 18703/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 47
The Karnataka High Court on Monday held certain provisions ofthe Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021, by which the state government hasbanned online games with stakes to be ultra vires to the Constitution andstruck them down. The Act provides maximum imprisonment of three years andpenalty up to Rs. 1 lakh for violation of the provisions. A division bench ofChief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Krishna S Dixit said "In theabove circumstances these writ petitions succeed. The Karnataka Police (Amendment)Act 2021 to the extent provisions we have said, not the entire act is struckdown is declared to be ultra vires to the constitution and struck down."
Case Title: KarnatakaState Law University v. Mahantesh Case No: WA 100319/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 48
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday set aside the single judge bench order dated on December 14, 2021, by which thecourt had quashed the notification issued by Karnataka State Law University, bywhich it was to conduct offline examinations for the students of 2nd and 4thsemester of three year LLB course. A division bench of Justice S G Pandit andJustice Anant Ramanath Hegde while allowing the intra-court appeal filed byKarnataka State Law University said, "In the best interest of legaleducation. The following order, writ appeal is allowed. The order dated14/12/2021 passed in writ petition no 104008/2021, is set aside."
Case Title:Somashekara @ Soma v. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 328/2018
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 49
The Karnataka High Court has said that if an advocate representingthe accused who is in custody fails to appear before the court, the trial courtis bound to appoint a legal aid advocate to defend the accused. A single judgebench of Justice K.S.Mudagal said, "Article 39A of the Constitution ofIndia casts duty on the state not to deny access to justice on the ground ofeconomic or other disabilities. To achieve the object of Article 39A of theConstitution, the Legal Services Authority Act has been enacted. Under the saidAct, Legal Services Authorities are constituted right from national level totaluk level. The district courts have the District Legal Services Authority anda panel of advocates for rendering legal aid to the unaffordable ascontemplated under Section 304 of Cr.P.C."
Case Title: SunilKumar v. State By Periyapatana Police Station Case No: Criminal PetitionNo.4234/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 50
The Karnataka High Court has directed its Registry to post anAdditional Session Judge, Mysuru, for training in the Judicial Academy in orderto make him learn "judicial discretion", in the interest of theinstitution and to protect the interest of seekers of justice. A single judgebench of Justice H.P. Sandesh said, "The Registry is directed to seekappropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice to post the concernedJudicial Officer to the Judicial Academy for training with regard to applyingjudicious thought process while exercising judicial discretion before grantingbail in heinous offences."
Case Title: RajeevChandrasekhar v. K.Koteswar Rao Case No: Criminal Petition No.101127 Of 2015
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 51
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the defamation proceedingsagainst Member of Parliament, Rajeev Chandrashekhar, initiated in the year2012, when he was the Managing Director of Suvarna News 24/7 Kannada TelevisionChannel. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing thequashing petition filed by Chandrashekhar said "The principle of vicariousliability is not applicable to criminal offences in the absence of anyprovision laid down in the statute. The Managing Director thus cannot be heldto be vicariously liable for the acts committed by the Company or its employeesmerely because he happens to be the Managing Director of the TV newschannel."
Case Title: Hemalathav. Venkatesh Case No: Writ Petition No.39982 Of 2018
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 52
The Karnataka High Court has held that the properties which hadbeen given as dowry or otherwise at the time of marriage of the daughter, wouldbe amenable for partition and the same will have to be included in a suit forpartition, instituted by the daughter.
A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "Ina suit for partition, the properties which had been given as dowry or otherwiseat the time of marriage of the daughter plaintiff, claiming a right ofpartition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, would be amenable forpartition and the same would have to be included in a suit for partition."
Case Title: Shivanand S/O Karabasappa Gurannavar v. Basavva @Laxmi W/O Shivanand Gurannavar Case No: Criminal Petition No.101378/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
The Karnataka High Court has held that maintenance awarded to anestranged wife under the provisions of Protection of Women from DomesticViolence Act, 2005, cannot be enhanced on an application made by her undersection 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, "Amaintenance that is awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. can be varied inan application filed under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. What is sine qua-non isthat an order of maintenance should precede a petition under Section 127 of theCr.P.C., failing which, a petition under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seekingenhancement of maintenance is not available."
Case Title: M/S SAPL-GCC JV v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Case No: WRITPETITION NO.11165 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 54
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the decision ofawarding tenders of gigantic value, cannot be readily upset by the CentralGovernment on some baseless allegation being made by the unsuccessful bidders.A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit, set aside the order dated15.04.2021, passed by the Central government by which it had constituted aCommittee to conduct a detailed investigation into allegation of someirregularities perpetrated in awarding tender to M/S SAPL-GCC JV, by the NewMangalore Port Trust.
Case Title: Dhondiba Anna Jadhav v. The State Of Karnataka CaseNo: Criminal Petition No.101392/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 55
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the under section28 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition ofSex Selection) Act, 1994, a Magistrate court cannot take cognizance of acomplaint except it being registered by an 'Appropriate Authority' notified bythe Central or the State government. A single judge bench of Justice MNagaprasanna recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated againstDhondiba Anna Jadhav and others who run Sri Dhondida Anna Jadhav MemorialHospital at Gokak, based on a complaint filed by the Taluka Health Officer.
Case Title: Padmanabha v. State of Karnataka Case No: CriminalAppeal 200043/2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 56
Observing that, "corruption is a distinct type of offence.It is like cancer to society. It eats the social and economical health everysecond resulting in unimaginable consequences," the Karnataka High Courtrecently confirmed the conviction handed down to a Commercial Tax officer undervarious provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda dismissed theappeal filed by accused Padmanabha challenging an order of the special courtdated April 6, 2015, by which it sentenced the accused to 2 and half years ofsimple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh under section 7 of the Actand sentenced him to four years simple imprisonment under section 13 (1) (d) ofthe Act.
Case Title: Michael Graham Prince v. Mrs. Nisha Misra Case No:Writ Petition No.15356 Of 2020
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 57
The Karnataka High Court has held that Overseas Citizenship ofIndia (OCI) cardholders can seek matrimonial reliefs before appropriate courtsin India, against the estranged partner who is also an OCI cardholder. A singlejudge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "Subsection 2 of section 7Bof the Citizenship Act, excludes certain rights from being granted to the OCICardholders. However, this exclusion does not cover the right to seekmatrimonial reliefs at the hands of the native Courts. The subject statutorynotifications do not in so many words vest in them such a right to litigate maybe true; but, that per se does not divest them of such a right which otherwiseavails even to the OCI Cardholders."
Case Title: L.S. Tejasvi Surya v. State Of Karnataka Case no:Criminal Petition No.9961/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the permissiongranted by a magistrate court to proceed with the investigation against Memberof Parliament, L S Tejasvi Surya, under provisions of the Representation ofPeople Act. A single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav, while relegatingthe matter back to the magistrate court for fresh consideration said, "Inaccordance with the mandate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, the informant is tobe referred to the Magistrate which is preceded by the officer in-charge of thepolice station having made out necessary entry of the substance of theinformation in the book kept as mandated under Section 155. The Magistrate isto examine the informant and the complaint given by him and then proceedfurther."
Case Title: Bibi Ayesha Khanum v. Union Of India Case No: WritPetition No.2318 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 59
The Karnataka High Court recently issued directions for the effectiveimplementation of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012, andthe Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020, particularly incases where the accused were to move the Court for grant of bail. A divisionbench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj disposingof a public interest litigation filed by a mother of a survivor, said,"None can have any doubt that offences under the POCSO Act are heinous innature and are more often than not committed by depraved persons."
Case Title: Rabiya Abdul Hamid Bepari v. The Chairman, SchoolManaging Committee, Volkart Academy Case no: R.F.A.NO.100061/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
The Karnataka High Court has held that a civil court hasjurisdiction to hear and decide on a suit filed by a teacher claiming arrearsin salary, if she is discharged from her duties on account of closure of theschool and no order is passed by the school management on her claims seekingarrears in salary. A Division bench of Dr.Justice H.B.Prabhakara Sastry andJustice S. Rachaiah recently set aside the order dated November 9, 2020 passedby the civil court by which it had rejected the plaint filed by an Urduteacher, on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The courtdirected the Trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Case Title: K T Naveen Kumar And The State of Karnataka Case no:Criminal Petition 10232/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 61
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Superintendent of Jailto shift and provided treatment to K T Naveen Kumar, an accused in thejournalist Gauri Lankesh murder case, in a private hospital. A single judgebench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the petition, set aside the orderof Special Court dated December 31, 2021 and said, "The Superintendent ofjail is directed to provide treatment to the petitioner in the Columbia Asiahospital HSR Road, Bengaluru which is situated 7.7 kms from Parappana AgraharaJail. The petitioner is also directed to bear the entire medical expenditureswhich will be charged by the hospital authority. The jail Superintendent isdirected to provide sufficient security forces during the treatment andshifting the petitioner to the hospital and back."
Case Title: Dr S Srinivasa v. Mandya University Case No: WA105/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Mandya Universityto continue the services of guest lecturers for another academic year, untilthe recruitment of full time lecturers as initiated by the University iscompleted. A Division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice SurajGovindaraj while allowing an intra-court appeal filed by Dr S Srinivasa andothers challenging the order of the single judge bench dated December 21, 2021,said, "The Guest Lecturers now working shall be entitled to the benefit ofthe Notification dated 7.10.2021 for extension of service by one more academicyear until the recruitment of lecturers is completed."
Case Title: Devendra Pai Versus The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax Case No.: Writ Petition No. 52305/2018 (T-IT)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
A bench of Karnataka High Court consisting of Justice SunilS.Yadav has condoned the delay of 6 years in filing revised Income Tax Return(ITR). A single judge bench of Justice Sunil S.Yadav has observed that theintention of Circular No.014 (XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 was not that tax dueshould not be charged or that any favour should be shown to anybody in thematter of assessment, or where investigations are called for, they should notbe made. Whatever the legitimate tax it must be assessed and must be collected.The purpose of the circular is merely to emphasise that the tax officer shouldnot take advantage of an assessee's ignorance to collect more tax out of himthan is legitimately due from him.
Case Title: Dr Shantha Raj T R v. The State By Sub Inspector ofPolice Case No: Criminal Petition 7980/2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Scheduled Castes andSchedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, is prospective in natureand alleged acts committed before its enactment cannot be an offence. A singlejudge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "The offences allegedly beencommitted ago i.e., on 18.10.1975; complaint was filed with inordinate delaywith no plausible explanation for the same. Ordinarily, the stale claims wouldnot be entertained."
Case Title: M/s. Prashanthi Affiliates Versus DeputyCommissioner of Commercial Taxes Case No: Criminal Revision PetitionNo.921/2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
The Karnataka High Court has held that the District Magistrateis empowered to attach the property and not the Commissioner of BengaluruMahanagara Palike Commissioner (BBMP). The single bench of Justice S.P.Sandeshhas observed that the Commissioner of BBMP, has no authority to attach theproperty as ordered by the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court and it ought to beenforced under Section 421(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, through the collector of theDistrict.
Case Title: Meera Ajith v. John Doe Alias Ashok Kumar Case No:MFA 806/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
The Karnataka High Court has passed an order of temporaryinjunction restraining unknown persons (also known as John Doe order) frominterfering with the peaceful possession of the property owned by a woman inBengaluru. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while hearing an appeal filed by oneMeera Ajith, said, "Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) CPC states that an order oftemporary injunction may be granted against any party to the suit. According toClauses (b) & (c), injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff andagainst the defendant. The plaint must disclose the names and identity of theparties. But in a situation as has been made out in this case, if there is athreat to the possession of the plaintiff by unknown person/s, is it possibleto say that injunction cannot be granted. I do not think that injunction can bedenied if circumstances are as such that there is a serious threat to thepossession of the plaintiff by unknown persons."
Case Title: Thippeswamy @ Thipeshi v. State By Jagalur P.S CaseNo: Criminal Petition No.9980/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 67
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Principal Secretary,Health Department to issue a circular and a direction to all Medical officersworking in the state, prescribing their duties and responsibilities towards achild victim of sexual assault, who is produced before them.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh also directed thePrincipal Secretary to take action against a doctor working in the TalukGovernment Hospital, Jagalur, Davanagere District, who conducted medicalexamination of the victim in this case and issued a Sexual Assault certificatein this case, without giving any opinion.
Case Title: Kumari M. v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: WritPetition No.100875/2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 68
The Karnataka High Court recently permitted a minor rape victimto terminate her 22 weeks 3 days old pregnancy, upon noting that continuationof the same can develop anxiety, which could lead to depression effecting hermental health. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "Iam of the opinion that, it would be in the interest of the petitioner-victim,that the pregnancy is terminated." Following which it directed theDistrict Civil hospital (Belagavi) to medically terminate the pregnancy of thepetitioner by adopting all required safety considerations for such a procedure.
Case Title: Chiranjeevi M. Kulkarni v. Karnataka State LawUniversity Case No: Writ Petition No.100869/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State LawUniversity to conduct offline examinations for students of 3 years LLB Course,studying in the 2nd and 4th semester, twice— once from March 7 onwards andnext from May 16 onwards. The direction has been passed as a one time measure, onlyfor this academic year taking into account the various litigations as also theCovid-19 Pandemic.
Case Title: Amol Kale v. State of Karnataka Case No: CriminalAppeal No.537/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by10 accused allegedly involved in the murder case of journalist Gauri Lankesh,challenging an order rejecting their application for default bail by thespecial court.
A single judge of Justice K.S.Mudagal while dismissing theappeal filed by prime accused Amole Kale and others said, "The attack onthe impugned order was that the charge sheet was not filed on 23-11-2018, butthat was ante-dated. The trial Court rejected the said contentions. The appellantsdid not seek any administrative action against the Ministerial officer whoallegedly interpolated the date 23-11-2018 nor the presiding officer on theground of judicial impropriety. Under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 illustration (e) there is presumption that judicial acts or official actshave been regularly performed. Except for scandalising the office staff and theJudge, nothing was done to rebut the said presumption."
71. His Future Can't Be PutTo Jeopardy': Karnataka HC Permits 19 Yrs Old Rape Accused In Judicial Custody ToPhysically Appear For Annual Exams
Case Title: Darshan And State of Karnataka Case No: CriminalPetition/ 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
The Karnataka High Court recently permitted a 19-years old, whois in judicial custody in connection with the rape of a minor girl, to appearfor his annual examination by physically attending the examination centre.
Justice V Srishananda while disposing of the petition filed bythe accused said, "Just because, the case is pending against thepetitioner herein, which is being investigated in Crime No.8/2022, his futurecannot be put to jeopardy."
72. Karnataka High CourtQuashes 8 Year Old Case Against BSP Chief Mayavathi
Case Title: Kum. Mayavathi v State of Karnataka Case no:CRIMINAL PETITION No.7626/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an eight year oldcriminal case pending against Mayavathi, Former Chief Minister & PresidentOf Bahujan Samaj Party and Sathish Chandra Mishra National General Secretary& Member of Parliament, Bahujan Samaj Party.
A single Judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said "Inview of the explanation of the petitioners having been accepted by the ElectionCommission of India, the continuance of the present proceedings would notsecure the ends of justice."
73. Karnataka High CourtOrders GST Refund of Rs. 27 Crores Illegally Collected from Swiggy
Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. M/s Bundl TechnologiesPvt. Ltd. Case no: W.A. No.1274 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
The Karnataka High Court has ordered the Goods and Service Tax(GST) department to refund Rs. 27 crore, which was illegally collected fromSwiggy. The division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M. G. S. Kamal,while dismissing the appeal of the Central Government, observed, "Article265 of the Constitution mandates that the collection of tax has to be by theauthority of law."
Case Title: Mahantesh v. Netharavati Case No: M.F.A.No.100096/2019 (MV)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
The Karnataka High Court has said that the insurance companywill not be liable to pay compensation, if a heavy goods vehicle is driven by aperson holding a light motor vehicle license. A single judge bench of Justice SVishwajit Shetty while partly allowing an appeal filed by one Mahantesh, ownerof a tipper lorry said, "The vehicle in question which is categorised as aheavy goods vehicle comes within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 as the gross vehicle weight undisputedly exceeds 12000 kg.Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that theoffending vehicle was used in violation of the terms and conditions of the policyand therefore the insurer of the offending vehicle was not liable to pay thecompensation."
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others withconnected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
Wearing of hijab is not a part of Essential Religious Practicein Islamic faith and thus, is not protected under Article 25 of theConstitution, the Karnataka High Court has held today. A Full Bench of the HighCourt further held that prescription of school uniform by the State is areasonable restriction the students' rights under Article 25 and thus, theGovernment Order issued by the Karnataka government dated February 5 is notviolative of their rights.
75. Karnataka Education ActEmpowers Government To Prescribe Uniform: Karnataka High Court In Hijab Case
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others withconnected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of theGovernment order dated February 5, providing for prescription of dress code ineducational institutions.
A full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice KrishanS Dixit and Justice J M Khazi said, "Section 133(2) of the (Education) Actwhich is broadly worded empowers the government to issue any directions to giveeffect to the purposes of the Act or to any provision of the Act or to any Rulemade thereunder."
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others withconnected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, while upholding the ban on wearing hijab in governmentcolleges, observed that prescription of a uniform for all students will promotea sense of "constitutional secularism" within the institution."The school regulations prescribing dress code for all the students as onehomogenous class, serve constitutional secularism", the Court observed.
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connectedcases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court, while declaring that the wearing of hijab by Muslim women is not an'essential religious practice' in Islamic Faith, said that, "The HolyQuran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women". TheCourt also observed that the prescriptions in suras regarding Hijab are notmandatory. "The Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgearfor Muslim women. Whatever is stated in the above sūras, we say, is onlydirectory , because of absence of prescription of penalty or penance for notwearing hijab, the linguistic structure of verses supports this view", theCourt observed.
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others withconnected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court, while upholding the ban on wearing hijab in educational institutions,has said that the insistence on wearing of purdah, veil, or headgear in anycommunity may hinder hinder the process of emancipation of woman in general andMuslim woman in particular. A full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi,Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi said, "There is a lot ofscope for the argument that insistence on wearing of purdah, veil, or headgearin any community may hinder the process of emancipation of woman in general andMuslim woman in particular. That militates against our constitutional spirit of'equal opportunity' of 'public participation' and 'positive secularism'."
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others withconnected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court in its judgement upholding the ban onwearing hijab has said it expects a speedy & effective investigation intothe matter against 'unseen hands' who are at work to engineer social unrest anddisharmony. A full bench led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi said, "Fromthe submissions made on behalf of the Respondent – Pre – University College atUdupi and the material placed on record, we notice that all was well with thedress code since 2004."
Case Title: Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd V State Of Karnataka, Case No:CRL.P.No.102191/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 76.
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registeredunder the Drugs and Cosmetics Act against Snapdeal Private Limited and itsdirectors Kunal Bahl and Rohit Kumar Bansal for allegedly allowing sale of drug- Suhagra tablets, on its online portal without possessing a valid license.
Justice MG Uma said, "Intermediary as defined under Section2(w) of IT Act or its Directors/Officers would not be liable for any action orinaction on the part of the vendor/seller making use of the facilities providedby the intermediary in terms of a website or a market place and that theSnapdeal/accused No.2 could not be responsible and/or liable for sale of anyitem not complying with the requirements under the Act on its platform byaccused No.1 since the essential ingredients of Section 18(1)(c) of the Act nothaving been fulfilled neither Snapdeal nor its Directors can be prosecuted forthe offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act."
Case Title: Narendra Prasad P. V N. Sujatha Case No: CriminalRevision Petition No.692/2019
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 77
The Karnataka High Court has said that a private complaint madebefore the magistrate court alleging offence under section 191 of Indian PenalCode is maintainable, if the forgery of document took place outside the Courtbefore the document was produced as evidence in the court proceedings. A singlejudge bench of Justice H P Sandesh set aside the order of the magistrate courtdismissing a private complaint and remanded the matter back for freshconsideration. It said,
Case Title: Sunil Chajed v State of Karnataka Case No: WA468/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
The Karnataka High Court has said that Tahsildar Under Section140(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has power to determine the boundary ofa survey number or a holding. The aforesaid power can be exercised in respectof a survey number or a holding irrespective of the fact whether the same issituated within the Municipal limits or outside the municipal limits. Adivision bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty whilesetting aside a single judge bench order dated October 1, 20202 said,"Section 140(2) of the Act provides that if any dispute arises concerningthe boundary of survey number or a sub division of a survey number or aholding, the Tahsildar shall decide the dispute having due regard to the landrecords. Thus, it is evident that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Act haspower to determine the boundary of a survey number or a holding."
79. Karnataka High Court QuashesSeat Matrix Of Telugu Linguistic Minority In A Medical College
Case Title: Navodaya Medical College V. The State Of KarnatakaCase No: W.P.No.200365/2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 79
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the revised seat matrixissued on January 31, for postgraduate and undergraduate courses in medicinefor the academic year 2021-22, by which only Telugu Linguistic minoritystudents residing in Hyderabad-Karnataka region are allowed to apply in aLinguistic minority institution located in that region.
A division bench of Justice K. Somashekar And Justice AnantRamanath Hegde said, "The impugned communication dated 31.01.2022 andrevised seat matrix are quashed in so far as it is applicable to thepetitioner's institution (NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE).
Case Title: KASTURI RAJUPETA v. UNION OF INDIA Case No: WRITPETITION NO.19203 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
The Karnataka High Court has held that the permission from atrial court is not necessary for renewal of passport when the proceedings arestayed by a higher court. The Court directed the Regional Passport Officer toconsider a woman's application for renewal of her passport without insistingupon a facilitative order from the concerned Criminal Court before whom a caseregistered against her is pending.
Case Title: Bhavith Sheth V. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP19287/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 81
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedingsinitiated against Bhavit Sheth and Harsh Jain, the Founders and Directors ofSporta Technologies Private Limited, which promotes the 'Dream 11' gaming app.The duo had approached the court seeking to quash the FIR registered againstthem by the police under the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021, which bansonline gaming and gambling in the state.
Case Title: Vijaya v Shekharappa Case No: Criminal PetitionNo.100261/2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 82
The Karnataka High Court has said that it is not mandatory forMagistrate Courts to pass orders directing interim compensation under Section143A of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, if the accused does not pleadguilty.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "TheLegislature has cautiously worded sub-section (1) of Section 143A not to makeit mandatory in all cases where clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) wouldempower the learned Magistrate before whom proceedings are pendingconsideration to award interim compensation. It is the discretion conferred, asthe word used is "may"."
Case Title: Law Students Association v. State of Karnataka CaseNo: WP 2125/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by anon-profit organisation, Law Students Association, questioning the continuationof Prof. (Dr.) P. Ishwara Bhat as the Vice Chancellor of Karnataka State LawUniversity, allegedly beyond the prescribed age limit of 65 years.
Case Title: Archana M G v. Abhilasha Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3399 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by oneArchana M G, a Grama Panchayat Member, challenging the order of the Civil courtwhich unseated her on the ground of lack of social status as a Scheduled Tribemember. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "There is nodispute as to petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe, by birth, althoughshe claims to have acquired the said social status by marriage to a member ofscheduled tribe. Ordinarily, caste is determined by birth and caste of a personfollows that of his/her father."
Case Title: Mrs. Prachi Sen v. Ministry Of Defence Case No: WRITPETITION NO.22979 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that maternity benefitssuch as allowing an employee to work from home, under section 5 (5) of theMaternity Benefit (Amendment) Act 2017, could be given only in case where thenature of work assigned to the women is such that it is possible for her towork from home.
86. POCSO Act | ProsecutionCan Cross Examine The Victim On Her Turning Hostile : Karnataka High Court
Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Somanna Case No:. CRIMINALPETITION No.8167/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
The Karnataka High Court has said that under the Protection ofChildren from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the prosecution can cross examine thevictim on her turning hostile.
A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, "Interms of sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the POCSO Act, the Special PublicProsecutor or as the case would be, the counsel appearing for the accusedshall, while recording examination-in-chief, cross-examination orre-examination of the child communicates the questions to be put to the childto the Special Court which shall in turn put those questions to the child.Therefore, the victim is permitted to be cross-examined under the POCSO Actitself on her turning hostile which would also cover the situation undersub-section (2) of Section 33 of the POCSO Act."
Case Title: Praveen Surendiran V. State Of Karnataka Case No:Criminal Petition No.1892 Of 2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 87
The Karnataka High Court has said that a court can impound anydocuments under section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), but not thepassport of an accused, as it can be done only under the Passports Act which isa special enactment. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said,"The power of impounding a document under Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. isavailable to a Court. This cannot stretch to an extent of impounding thepassport. The passport coming within the purview of the Act and it being aspecial law would prevail over the provisions of Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. TheCourt can impound any document, but not the passport as it is dealt with undera special enactment. The power of impounding is available only to the CompetentAuthority under the Act, in terms of Section 10 of the Act."
Case Title: Dasari Chakradhar V The Registrar (Evaluation) CaseNo: W.P. NO.1120/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 88
The Karnataka High Court has suggested to the Rajiv GandhiUniversity Of Health Sciences to take action against delinquent examinersin-charge of conducting Clinical Examinations for MBBS and MD courses, who areroutinely found violating the guidelines issued by the University. A singlejudge bench of Justice P Krishna Bhat said, "It is necessary to observethat examiners appointed by the respondent- University seem to be routinelyviolating the guidelines issued by the University for holding the Clinicals examination.As a matter of fact, the learned counsel brought to my notice the order dated22-12-2020 in Writ Appeal No.615 of 2020 (EDN-RES) (Rajiv Gandhi University OfHealth Sciences V. Mr. Ramegowda Y. And Others), wherein also this Court had anoccasion to notice such malpractice and direct re-conduct of practicalexaminations."
Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filedby a husband seeking to drop charges of rape pending against him under Section376 of the Indian Penal Code after his wife filed a complaint against him.Justice M Nagaprasanna emphasised that a man who is well acquainted with awoman and performs all the ingredients as is found in pre or post amendment toSection 375 can be proceeded against for offences punishable under Section 376,thereby establishing that a man sexually assaulting or raping a woman isamenable to punishment under Section 376 of IPC.
Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo And State Of Karnataka Case No:Writ Petition No.48367 Of 2018
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 89
In a significant judgement, the Karnataka High Court hasrejected a petition filed by a husband seeking to drop charges of rape underSection 376 of the Indian Penal Code, levelled against him by his wife. TheCourt did not accept the husband's argument that the charge cannot be framedagainst him due to the exception to marital rape from the offence of rape asper Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observedthat the exemption cannot be absolute.
Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo V State Of Karnataka Case No: WritPetition No.48367 Of 2018
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 89
The Karnataka High Court has said that the trial against thehusband accused of rape and charged under section 376 of the Indian Penal Codeand also of sexually assaulting his daughter and charged under sections of theProtection of Children from Sexual Offences Act can be held before the SpecialPOCSO Court. While refusing to quash the charges under Section 376 IPC againstthe husband ,a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said , "Thedesignated Court hearing cases relating to offences under the POCSO Act can trythe offences under the IPC as well, in the facts of the case."
Case Title: Prabhuraj V. The State Of Karnataka Case No:Criminal Petition No.415 Of 2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 90
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedingsinitiated against a man under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, onthe ground that he was not aware that the premise he had given on rent, wasbeing used for running a brothel. A single judge bench of Justice MNagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Prabhuraj, stating, "In thelight of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act (Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956)and the police themselves acknowledging that petitioner was not aware as to whatwas happening in the premises, permitting further proceedings to continueagainst the petitioner would degenerate into harassment and become an abuse ofthe process of law."
91. Karnataka Govt To MoveBombay High Court Seeking Permission To Produce Varavara Rao Before A LocalCourt In Alleged Naxal Attack Case
Case Title: Varavara Rao @ Pendyala V. State Of Karnataka CaseNo: Criminal Petition No.1833 Of 2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 91
The Karnataka government has informed the High Court that itwould be moving an application before the Bombay High Court or the NationalInvestigation Agency Court in Mumbai, seeking to relax the bail conditionsimposed on Telugu poet P Varavara Rao's to allow him to appear before a courtin Karnataka's Tumkuru district, and face a trial pending against him. A singlejudge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was informed by the prosecutor that,"A necessary application before the High Court of Bombay or NationalInvestigation Agency Court, seeking relaxation of the bail conditions withregard to the petitioner not leaving the jurisdiction of National InvestigationAgency Court at Bombay would be sought, only to face the trial inS.C.No.5019/2019."
92. Inhuman, Can't IgnoreHer Trauma': Karnataka High Court Convicts Father For Sexually Assaulting MinorDaughter
Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi Case No:Crl.A.No.100190/2017
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 92
Observing that, "there is no reason for the victim girl togive false evidence against her own father," the Karnataka High Courtrecently set aside an acquittal order passed by the trial court and sentencedthe accused to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment, for sexually assaultinghis daughter when she was a minor. A division bench of Justice H.T.NarendraPrasad and Justice Rajendra Badamikar noted that the victim must have undergonea lot of mental agony and shock by her father's act. It thus allowed the appealfiled by the prosecution and set aside the trial court judgement dated February3, 2017, acquitting Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi.
Case Title: Muthanna Mapangada vThe State Of Karnataka, Case No:Writ Petition No.12880 Of 2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 93
The Karnataka High Court has permitted two aviation enthusiast/certified pilots to fly microlight aircraft once a week in accordance with law,from the grass airstrip which they have built on their own lands in Kodagudistrict.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice SR Krishna Kumar while disposing of the petition filed by Muthanna Mapangada andKudimada Somanna Subbayya, said, "Meanwhile, the petitioners shall beentitled to fly the subject Micro-light Aircraft strictly in accordance withlaw once a week till the matter is decided by the respondent No.6 (DirectorGeneral Of Civil Aviation)."
Case Title: S. SHYAMALA @ KATHYAYANI v. B. N. MALLIKARJUNAIAHCase No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3352/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
The Karnataka High Court has said that merely for the reasonthat the wife was demanding a separate house and that she was in the habit ofleaving the matrimonial house and going to her sister's and parents' house, thesame cannot be termed as "cruelty" for the purpose of seeking adecree of divorce by the husband.
Case Title: Tanaji S/O Nayaku Nikam v. Bharati W/O Tanaji NikamCase No: Regular First Appeal No.100256/2015
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 95
The Karnataka High Court has said that in absence of a specificpleading made by the defendants to a suit before the trial court thatproperties in the suit were self acquired, it is presumed that such propertiesacquired subsequently are with the aid of joint family properties and as suchthey acquire the character of joint family. A division bench of JusticeH.T.Narendra Prasad and Justice Rajendra Badamikar said, "When there is nospecific plea in the written statement, presumption is that, the propertiesacquired subsequently are with the aid of the joint family properties and assuch, they acquire the character of joint family itself."
Case Title: Irfan Pasha v State of Karnataka Case No: CriminalAppeal no 755/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
The Karnataka High Court has said that an order passed by theSpecial Court on an application filed under section 20 of the NationalInvestigation Agency Act, seeking to transfer the case from the special court,is an interlocutory order and the same cannot be challenged in appeal undersection 21 of the Act, before the High Court.
A full bench comprising of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi,Justice B Veerappa and Justice P Krishna Bhat while deciding on a referencesaid, "An interlocutory application rejected by the Special Court videorder dated 22.02.2021 would not give rise to filing of an appeal under Section21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008."
97. Only 'Indian Citizens'Can Initiate Proceedings Under Senior Citizens Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: MRS DEPHNY GLADYS LOBO v. ASST COMMISSIONER ANDPRESIDENT SENIOR CITIZEN MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, Case No: WRIT PETITIONNO.6720/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
The Karnataka High Court has held that only 'Indian Citizens'can initiate proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents andSenior Citizens Act, 2007. A Single Judge bench of Justice P. Krishna Bhatsaid, "It is evident that one of the essential elements for beingdesignated a 'Senior Citizen' for the purposes of the Act is the person beingan Indian citizen."
Case Title:P.C.Padmamba v Channaveeramma R Case No: R.S.A. No.5/2017
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 98
The Karnataka High Court has said that the power conferred onthe registering officer under the Registration Act is fundamentally to enablehim to satisfy himself about the identity of the person who has presented thedocument and enquire with him as to whether he has executed the document sopresented by him and this power cannot be enlarged by examining the witnesses,scribe etc.
99. Karnataka High CourtRejects Plea To Award Bharat Ratna Award To Late Seer Shivakumara Swami
Case Title: Rehan Khanv. Hon'ble Prime Minister of India Case No: WP 139/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 99
The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed a public interestlitigation filed by one Rehan Khan, seeking a direction be issued to the PrimeMinister of India through its Principal Secretary to consider therepresentation made by him for conferring Bharat Ratna award on late Dr Sri SriShivakumara Swami.
Case Title: A BDevaraju and Others v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 6386/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 100
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner ofMandya District to consider the representation to be given by petitionersseeking to shift the location of the site proposed for setting up a solid wastemanagement unit. The proposed site is purportedly close to a river. A divisionbench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar said,"We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with the observations thatthe petitioners may raise their grievance by way of fresh representation withina period of ten days from today before respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, DCOffice, Mandya district, who may look into the matter and if need be, take anexpert opinion, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with lawexpeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copyof this order along with the representation is placed before him."
101. Karnataka High CourtIssues Guidelines To Curb Practice Of 'Fraud On Courts' For Securing Bail
Case Title: NANJAPPAv. STATE BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1653/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 101
Observing that "Unscrupulous litigants should not beallowed to pollute the stream of justice," the Karnataka High Court hasissued directions to the Registry and District courts across the state toevolve mechanisms using modern technology to curb the practice of fraud on thecourt. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh issued the followingguidelines while rejecting the application filed by accused Nanjappa, who hadfiled multiple proceedings before various courts seeking anticipatory bail.
Case Title: FaheemAhmed V Union Of India Case No: Writ Petition No.1030 Of 2020
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 102
The Karnataka High court has dismissed a petition seeking todeclare as ultra vires the power of the local Registrar to verify andscrutinise the data so as to test the citizenship of an individual andconsequently to declare him a doubtful citizen under the Citizenship(Registration of Citizen and issue of National Identity Cards) Rules 2003 asultra vires.
Case Title: Xxxxxxxx VThe Registrar General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 103
The Karnataka High Court has directed Indian Kanoon to mask thename of a woman, who has been granted mutual divorce and has subsequentlyremarried, if the judgment in question has to remain in the company's database.
Case Title: M.Surendra Rao v M. Raveendra Rao and others Case No: WRIT PETITION No.4290 OF2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 104
The Karnataka High Court has said it is the duty of the trialcourt which records the evidence to then and there itself (immediately) hear onthe objections and decide regarding the marking of the document and itsadmissibility. It cannot reserve the right of the parties to rake up the pointat a later stage and get it marked as an exhibit and include it as evidence.
Case Title: ShantiDhama College v The Principal Secretary Case No: Writ Petition No.3503/2022(Edn-Res)
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 105
The Karnataka High Court has observed that applications made bycolleges seeking affiliation/ recognition etc. for a specified academic yearmust be decided with "clock work precision" and final order grantingor refusal of affiliation should be issued well before the commencement of thatacademic year. A single judge bench of Justice P. Krishna Bhat observed,"The filing of application seeking affiliation entails payment ofconsiderably high fees. If decisions on such applications are not taken withina timeframe, they become irrelevant or infructuous due to efflux of time andthereby applicants suffer irreparable hardship."
Case Title: PRABHAMANIv. HEMALATHA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.23811 OF 2021(LB-ELE)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 106
In a peculiar case, the Karnataka High Court recently allowedcounting of ballot papers that belonged to another constituency after findingthat there was "irrefutable evidence" to show that they were utilisedfor election in the constituency to which the parties before the Courtbelonged. The dispute pertained to elections to Karle Grama Panchayat. ThePetitioner had obtained 232 votes and the Respondent had obtained 231 votes.This was on the basis of four votes that were initially rejected as not genuine,for being cast on ballot papers from another constituency.
Case Title: CTI FutureCorporation versus Ducgiang Chemical and Detergent Powder Joint Stock Company
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 107
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that an internationalcommercial arbitral award rendered between parties that have no connection withIndia can be enforced by a Court in India if the property against which theaward is sought to be enforced lies within the territorial jurisdiction of theCourt.
Case Title: SayyadMohammad @ Nasim V State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.5934 Of 2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 108
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused charged underthe Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act does not get aright to default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC, merely because the chargesheet/ final report filed by the Police after investigation is without FSLreport.
109. Karnataka High CourtDismisses Plea Seeking Removal Of Alleged Anomalies In Centre's 'OROP Policy'
Case Title: WingCommander G B Athri (Retired) v Union Of India Case No: Writ Petition No.4237Of 2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 109
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed seekingdirections to the Union Government to implement the recommendation of one-manjudicial committee resolving anomalies in the implementation of One Rank OnePension (OROP) to all the pension drawing persons as on July 1, 2014.
Case Title: IqbalAhmed v C.B.I. SCB Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.538 of 2014,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 110
The Karnataka High Court has said it is not necessary toregister FIR whenever a police officer receives information over the phone orin some other way about an offence which is likely to take place. It clarifiedthat the mandate under Section 154 for registration of FIR comes into picturewhen cognizable offence "has been committed". Justice SreenivasHarish Kumar said, "It is not necessary to register FIR whenever a policeofficer receives information over the phone or in some other way about anoffence which is likely to take place. Rather it is the duty of the policeofficer to take immediate measures to prevent the crime from happening, or ifcommitted in his presence, to take action according to section 41 of Cr.P.C, FIRmay be registered later on."
Case Title: KarnatakaState Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 18741/1996
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 111
The Karnataka High Court has till April 21, put in abeyance itsorder directing not to disburse the salary of the Principal Secretary, Healthand Family Welfare (Medical Education) for failing to install M.R.I. ScanningMachine at the Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (DIMHANS).A division bench led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi had in November 2021,directed the State Government to upgrade DIMHANS, by March 1, 2022, to a higherpsychiatry centre and to install and make operational the MRI Machine in thehospital.
Case Title: Renuka W/OAnand @ Anantsa Bakale v Ramanand S/O Ramkrishnasa Basawa And Others Case No:Writ Petition No. 103766 Of 2018,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 112
The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines to be followed bycourts and Lok Adalat for ascertaining the genuineness of the parties, beforeallowing a compromise decree, filed before it. A single judge bench of JusticeSuraj Govindaraj issued the directions in a petition filed by a party, claimingthat its interest in the suit property was compromised by way of a compromiseentered into by a person before the Lok Adalat claiming to be its power ofattorney holder, without its knowledge.
Case Title: M/S. A.SEATING & Others v. M/S. NANDINI MODULARS Case No: CRIMINAL REVISIONPETITION NO.1242/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 113
The Karnataka High Court has said that if a party, opposing theproceedings instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,fails to raise the ground of delay in filing the complaint before the court offirst instance, the Court in Appeal is empowered to remand the matter back forfresh consideration on the issue of condonation of delay under Section 142(b)of the Act.
Case Title: J P I DassSchool Of Nursing V State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.4980 Of 2022
Citation : 2022Livelaw (Kar) 114
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government andthe Karnataka State Nursing Council to consider and take final decision on theproposal forwarded by 25 nursing schools seeking to start fresh courses inGeneral Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) for the academic year 2021-22.
Case Title: BABU S v.STATE BY KENGERI POLICE STATION Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2119 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 115
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a customer found ina brothel at the time when it is raided cannot be prosecuted. A single judgebench of Justice M Nagarpasanna allowed the petition filed by one Babu S andquashed the proceedings pending against him under sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of theImmoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and section 370 (Trafficking of person) ofthe IPC.
Case Title: D VVENKATESHAPPA v. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE. Case No:W.P.NO.1402/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 116
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government andBruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to grant Transferable DevelopmentRights (TDR) Certificates to a group of petitioners who surrendered their landto the corporation few years ago and still haven't received the TDR in-lieu ofcompensation.
Case Title: MasterPavan S v. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No.195/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 117
Observing that whereas the maximum punishment in respect of thealleged offence for which the accused, who was 17 years old at the time, isbooked is of 3 years and he has already spent about 2½ years in custody, theKarnataka High Court passed an order granting bail.
The petitioner who was aged about 17 years, along with otheraccused persons, who are 21 in number, are said to have committed murder of twopersons. Hence, the police have investigated the matter and filed thecharge-sheet. The Petitioner herein was booked under Sections 143, 144, 147,148, 341, 302, 120-B, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2) of PDPPAct.
Case Title: LetzkitFoundation v. The State of Karnataka Case No: WP 10092/ 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 118
The Karnataka government on Wednesday informed the High Courtthat it has published the draft rules which provide for the procedure forinquiry and counselling to be followed by Child Welfare Committees, in cases ofsurrender of a child by parents/ guardians to the Committee.
119. Karnataka High CourtUpholds Constitutional Validity Of Proviso (v) To S.14(1) SARFAESI Act
Case Title: Kumaresh Kand Others v Union Of India and Other Case No: WP 5990/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 119
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the Constitutional validityof proviso (v) Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction ofFinancial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
Section 14 provides procedure in which Chief MetropolitanMagistrate or District Magistrate may assist secured creditor in takingpossession of secured asset.
Proviso (v) to sub-section (1) thereof states that anyapplication by the secured creditor under Section 14 shall be accompanied by anaffidavit duly affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured creditor,declaring that consequent upon such default in repayment of the financialassistance the account of the borrower has been classified as a non-performingasset.
Case Title: SOHO PUBAND GRILL And STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: WRIT PETITION No.6971 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 120
The Karnataka High Court has directed a restaurant, Soho Pub& Grill, to earmark a separate area in its premises, after obtaining alicence, for allowing its patrons to smoke hookah. "Smoking of hookahshould not cause inconvenience to other customers since smoking has beenprohibited in public places, an exclusive area with separate enclosure isrequired to be reserved for hookah bar," Justice SG Pandit observed.
Case Title: ZuhabHameed Shakeel Manna @ Zohib Manna v. The National Investigation Agency CaseNo: Writ Petition No.5913 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 121
The Karnataka High Court recently rejected a petition seekingdefault bail filed by an accused alleged to be having links with bannedterrorist organizations. The applicant allegedly entered into criminalconspiracy to radicalize and motivate gullible Muslim youths to join IslamicState in Iraq and Syria ('ISIS'). A single judge bench of Justice MNagaprasanna while rejecting the plea filed by Zuhab Hameed Shakeel Manna @Zohib Manna said, "I do not find any error or reason rendered by theInvestigating Officer as put forth by the SPP to be contrary to Section 43D(2)of the Act."
Case Title: RajkumarAnd The State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.6118 Of 2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 122
The Karnataka High Court has said that Section 370 of the IndianPenal Code cannot be invoked merely on the presumption that an accused indulgedhimself in human trafficking. A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasannawhile quashing criminal proceedings initiated against one Rajkumar said,"What can be gathered from the complaint and the chargesheet that is filedby the police is that, it is presumed that the petitioner had indulged himselfin human trafficking and therefore, Section 370 of the IPC was invoked againstthe petitioner."
Case Title: WE CARECHARITABLE TRUST v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1682/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 123
The Karnataka High Court has said that applications filed beforeauthorities seeking approval for upgradation of the schools should be decidedin a time bound manner as the applications are filed for specific academic yearand if the decision making authorities take too long a time for disposing ofthe applications, the academic year itself would have been over rendering the applicationsirrelevant or infructuous.
Case Title:Lakshmikanta and Other v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 4457/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 124
The Karnataka High Court while upholding the constitutionalvalidity of Article 243R (2)(a) of the Constitution has reiterated thatnominated members to the Municipal Council shall not have right to vote in themeeting of the Council.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S VishwajithShetty, while dismissing a petition filed by six nominated councillors of theMalur Town Municipal Council said, "The elected members of the Council arechosen by popular vote and carry with them, the mandate of the people, whereas,nominated members of the Council are appointed as Councillors. The electedmembers and nominated members cannot be said to be belonging to the same classand there is no pleading that differentiation between elected and nominatedmembers is either unreasonable or is arbitrary or that it does not rest on anyrational basis. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, challenge to thevalidity of Article 243R (2) (a) that it violates Article 14 of theConstitution of India, fails."
Case Title: MsPadmavathi Subramaniyan v The Ministry Of Civil Aviation Case No: Writ PetitionNo.21448 Of 2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 125
The Karnataka High Court has said that since Air India Limitedis now a private Company owned by M/s.Talace Pvt. Ltd., the grievance of theemployees can be redressed only before the competent authority which can dealwith the question and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Asingle judge bench of Justice R Devdas made the observation while dismissing apetition filed by petitioner Padmavathi Subramaniyan and two other employees ofAir India Limited. The petitioner had approached the court with a grievance inmatter of seniority.
Case Title: Dr. UMESHP.G v. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE Case No: W.A.No.148/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 126
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the notification dated June25, 2010 issued by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare by which itde-recognize all the "Vaidya Vidwan" certificates awarded by theAndhra Ayurvedic Parishad from 1975 till 2010 as invalid.
127. Law Intern AllegedlyAssaulted At Law Firm: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR
Case Title: VASANTHADITHYA. J v. STATE BY KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3167/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 127
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash a caseregistered by the police against an Advocate under various sections of theIndian Penal Code and Information Technology Act, 2000, on a complaint filed bya Law Intern.
Case Title: MohamedIkbal v. Secretary to the Government of India. Case No: WP 5821/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 128
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Central and StateGovernments to ensure proper implementation of schemes launched for providinghousing to eligible siteless/houseless urban and rural BPL/EWS familiesbelonging to various categories of weaker sections of the society.
129. After Nudge From HighCourt, Karnataka Govt Installs MRI Scanning Machine At DIMHANS
Case Title: KarnatakaState Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 18741/1996
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 129
The Karnataka Government on Thursday informed the High Courtthat an M.R.I scanning machine has been installed and made operational at theDharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (DIMHANS). A divisionbench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna took on recordthe compliance affidavit filed by the government stating that installation ofthe MRI Scanning machine is complete and trial runs are in progress and eventhe Medical Superintendent has been appointed.
Case Title: K SrinivasV The Karnataka State Election Commission Case No: Writ Petition No.3415 Of2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 130
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by fourpersons challenging the order passed by the Karnataka State Election Commissiondisqualifying them from continuing as the elected members of the Municipality,on failure to lodge a true and correct account of electoral expenditure withthe Returning Officer, within prescribed time.
131. Display School Name InSSLC Certificate Issued To Students: Karnataka High Court To State
Case Title: ShanthiNikethan High Court v other v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 6532/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 131
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government andother respondents to show the names of the schools, whose recognition waswithdrawn in the middle of academic year, in S.S.L.C. marks card of thestudents.
Case Title: P BalajiBabu v. State Bank of India Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.46450 OF 2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 132
The Karnataka High Court has directed State Bank Of India torefund the amount forfeited by it from a prospective purchaser of a propertybeing sold under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets andEnforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) as it did not disclosethat title of the subject property was not with the original borrower of theloan.
Case Title: Srikanth LGhotnekar and Other v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition no2912/2022,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 133
The Karnataka High Court has refused anticipatory bail to aFormer Member of Legislative Council and another person in an alleged case ofextortion, registered against them by a civil contractor earlier this year. Asingle judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav while refusing anticipatory bailto Srikanth L. Ghotnekar and Anil Chawhan said, "It must be noted thatthough an offence under Section 506 IPC and 363 IPC are bailable, theallegation of extortion is serious."
Case Title: THE MEMBERSECRETARY OF A P P CUM AGP RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE v. THE KARNATAKA STATEINFORMATION COMMISSION
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNO.57977 OF 2016,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 134
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by thestate government challenging an order of the State Information Commission whichdirected the authority to provide certified copies of answer scripts written bythe applicant for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, in the year 2013.
Case Title: JANARDHANAPUJARI S And Karnataka State Law University Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.8775/2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 135
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State LawUniversity to consider sympathetically and decided on a representation to bemade by a law student who could not complete his Five Year B.A LLB coursewithin the stipulated period of 10 years from the admission to the course.
Case Title: MuraliKrishna Brahmandam v. Chief Electoral Officer Case No: WP 8443/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 136
Observing that the petition is misconceived, the Karnataka HighCourt dismissed a public interest litigation filed by one Murali KrishnaBrahmandam seeking directions to the State and Chief Election Commissioner tonot conduct the 2023 Assembly election in the state, but to directly electpeople's representatives from all political parties as petitioner will elaborate.
Case Title: SALEEMKHAN v STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 130/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 137
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to one SaleemKhan, an alleged member of the Al-Hind Group which is allegedly reported to beinvolved in terrorist activities.
A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice S. Rachaiahsaid, "Mere attending meetings and becoming Member of Al-Hind Group, whichis not a banned organization as contemplated under the Schedule of UA(P) Actand attending jihadi meetings, purchasing training materials and organizingshelters for co-members is not an offence as contemplated under the provisionsof section 2(k) or section 2(m) of UA(P) Act."
Case Title: ComanduruParthasarathy v. State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2802 OF 2022,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 138
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that even when theaccused is secured on body warrant, the liberty of the said accused is lost andthat period would come to the aid of the accused for seeking default orstatutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. A single judge bench ofJustice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one ComanduruParthasarathy and set aside the order of the trial court, refusing default bailto the accused.
Case Title: Sampadaand others v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 8202/2022,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 139
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filedquestioning government notification by which it amended the Karnataka EducationDepartment Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules,1967 and excluded subjects namely Psychology and Journalism at the graduatelevel as the minimum qualification for recruitment to the post of graduateprimary teacher.
Case Title: Suresh v.State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 981/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 140
The Karnataka High Court has said that if the prosecution failsto prove the presence of the accused at the place of occurence of offence, itis not appropriate to draw adverse inference as per Section 114 of the IndianEvidence Act and Court cannot invoke Section 106 of the Act to ask the accusedto disclose reasons for the offence.
Case Title: SouthIndia Biblical Seminary versus Indraprastha Shelters Pvt Ltd and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 141
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that reference of a disputeto arbitration cannot be allowed if it would lead to splitting up of the causeof action and cause determination on matters which were not contemplated forarbitration. The Single Bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad held that therecannot be a complete adjudication of the claimant's rights unless the thirdparties were also heard, therefore, the matter was demonstrably non-arbitrable.
Case Title: Suo-Motuv. The State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 5781/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 142
The Karnataka High Court refused permission to a batch of tradeunions seeking to hold a peaceful procession in the capital on InternationalLabour Day, i.e. on May 1.
A vacation bench of Justice R Devdas and Justice K S Hemalekhasaid, "This court is of considered opinion that there is a clear directionpassed in order dated 3-3-2022 that the state government authorities willensure that no protest/procession are held in the entire city of Bengaluru, exceptfreedom park."
Case Title: THE STATEOF KARNATAKA v. SHANKAR URF SHANKRAPPA S/O RAMPPA HUBBALLI Case No: CRL.A.NO.100242/2018,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 143
The Karnataka High Court recently increased the sentence ofimprisonment from seven years to ten years, imposed on an accused convicted forraping a minor girl and charged under sections of the Protection of ChildrenFrom Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Case Title: HUBBALLIDHARWAD ADVERTISERS ASSOCIATION and others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 104172 OF 2021,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 144
The Karnataka High Court has declared that there is no conflictbetween the power to levy GST under GST Act and power of Municipal Corporationto levy advertisement fee or advertisement tax under Section 134 of theKarnataka Municipal Corporations Act.
Case Title: MOHAMEDARIF JAMEEL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6795 OF2022 (S-RES-PIL)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 145
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filedseeking to declare the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection andAppointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act 2022 as unconstitutional,illegal and void. Through the said Act, the government has validated therecruitment of 362 gazetted 'probationers' of the 2011 batch, selected by theKarnataka Public Service Commission.
Case Title: UNITEDINDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., versus NAGENDRA Case No: MFA NO.8801 OF 2018,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 146
The Karnataka High Court has said that a person who is a driverby profession if loses complete vision of one eye in a motor accident, then hewould not be able to continue his profession of driving, thus it would have tobe considered as permanent physical disability and 100% loss of earningcapacity.
Case Title: StanleyJoseph v. State Case No: Criminal Petition no 1172/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 147
In a cheating case instituted by a woman against film directorStanley Joseph, the Karnataka High Court has said that though going back on apromise to marry will not amount to cheating in this case, but obtaining a loanand not repaying the same will amount to criminal intention to cheating,attracting Section 420 of IPC.
Case Title: Sathish Nv. Ambika J Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 474 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 148
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that if a wife movesout of the matrimonial house due to ill-treatment meted out by husband, hecannot claim that she moved out by mutual consent and thus he is not liable topay maintenance amount.
Case Title: Chennaiah@Doddachennaiah and others versus Bylappa and others Case No: RSA No 743/2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 149
The Karnataka High Court has said that in a suit relating togrant of injunction in respect of an immovable property, the right to sue isnot personal to the plaintiff but survives to his legal representative and thesuit for injunction would not therefore abate on the death of the parties.
150. Karnataka High CourtIssues Guidelines For Making Or Continuing Entries In Rowdy Register /HistorySheets In Light Of 'Privacy Jurisprudence'
Case title: B SPRAKASH versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., and connected matters, Case No:W.P.NO.4504/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 150
The Karnataka High Court recently issued guidelines to befollowed by the police before entering the name of an individual to theRegister of Rowdies, which is maintained by every police station.
Case Title: Babu ADhammanagi vs Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 151
A division bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed a writpetition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 95, 99 and 100 ofthe Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("the Code") as it found nomerit to the challenge.
The Court held that the process contemplated under Sections 95to 100 is a time bound process, which requires the Resolution Professional to firstly give reasons in support of hisrecommendation. Secondly, the role ofthe Resolution Professional is limited to giving his recommendation and thereis no element of adjudication on the part of the Resolution Professional. It isAdjudicating Authority which takes the final decision on whether theapplication is to be admitted or rejected, and it is not bound by therecommendation of the Resolution Professional.
152: Karnataka High CourtStays ED Order Seizing Xioami India Assets
Case title: XiaomiTechnology India Private Limited v. Union of India Case No: WP 9182/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 152
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday stayed the order issued bythe Enforcement Directorate dated April 29, by which it has seized Rs.5551.27Crore of M/s Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited under the provisions ofForeign Exchange Management Act,1999.
Case Title: TheManagement Of KSRTC v. K.Shivaram Case No: Writ Petition No.17583/2017(L-KSRTC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 153
The Karnataka High Court has said that a workman who claimscompensation due to injuries suffered during the course of employment, hisclaims under the Employees Compensation Act 1923, would lie before theEmployees Compensation Commissioner and not before the Labour Court.
Case Title: BANU BEGUMW/O KHAJASAB ALIAS MEHABOOBSAB and Others Versus State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION NO. 100659 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 154
The Karnataka High Court has said that in the absence of adeclaration that a child is deserted by his biological or adoptive parents orguardians, filing of chargesheet under section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (CareAnd Protection Of Children) Act 2015, is without any substance.
155. Karnataka HC QuashesCriminal Proceedings Against 68-Year-Old Woman Charged Under SC/ST Act
Case Title: Savithriv. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition 8857/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 155
Observing that, "She had no criminal intention in theinitial stage while obtaining the (caste) certificate and seeking reservationand got (job) appointment, but she bonafidely believed that she will get thecaste of her husband in view of marrying the person who belongs to member ofSC/ST," the Karnataka High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedingspending against a 68-year-old woman (Brahmin by birth), who was charged underprovisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989.
Case Title: POOJA S v.ABHISHEK SHETTY Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.24220 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 156
The Karnataka High Court recently directed a husband to pay Rs25,000 as litigation expenses to allow the wife to engage an advocate and tocontest the proceedings filed by him seeking dissolution of marriage.
Case Title: PraveenKumar Adyapady and ANR v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition888/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 157
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that as per Section 13 of theNotaries Act, there is a bar for taking cognizance by the Court for offencescommitted by an advocate and notary while adding that under the Act, the policehave to obtain the permission of the Central Government or State Government forfiling the charge sheet and taking cognizance.
Case Title: INDIANCOUNCIL FOR CULTURAL RELATIONS & others v. AJAY MERCHANT & Anr Case No:W.P. No.32335 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 158
The Karnataka High Court has said that a person appointed by theIndian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) and placed with the BritishCouncil Library, is an employee of the British Council Library and it caninvestigate and take disciplinary action against the employee on complaint ofmisconduct.
Case Title: RASHMITANDON & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6638OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 159
The Karnataka High Court has held that proceedings under Section420 of the Indian Penal Code are maintainable even if a complaint has beeninvoked Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: Ashwini v.State of Karnataka Case No: WRIT PETITION No.755 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 160
The Karnataka High Court has said that once the court acceptsthe complaint filed under section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) anddirects particular police to investigate, the police cannot decline toinvestigate.
Case title: PRASHANTHSAMBARGI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and ANR. Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.349OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 161
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedingsinitiated under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), whereinthe Magistrate court referred the complaint filed for defamation under section499, 500 of the Indian Penal Code to the police for further investigation.
Case Title: InjamamShariff v. State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4045/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 162
The Karnataka High Court has observed that merely because aperson is alleged to be habitual offenders or have criminal antecedents,keeping them in jail for an offence which is yet to be investigated is'unjust'.
Case Title: GOODSHEPHERD CONVENT v STATE OF KARNATAKA and Others Case No: WRIT PETITIONNo.47882 OF 2014 (LB-BMP)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 163
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed the order passedby Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) demanding payment of bettermentcharges/ fee from an over 150 year-old school which proposes to construct additionalfloors on the existing school campus by way of an extension.
Case Title: ChiefExecutive Officer and Anr v. K.V.Puttaraju Case No: W.P.No.46017/2017
Citation: 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 164
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an order passed bythe Controlling Authority/ Appellate Authority under the Payment of GratuityAct, 1972, which directed government bodies to pay gratuity amount claimed byformer employees from the time they were employed as daily wage earners tilltheir employment was regularised.
Case Title: SushilGoel And Anr v. State At The Instance Of Drug Inspector Case no: CRIMINALPETITION No.6875 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 165
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the criminalproceedings initiated against the Proprietors/ Directors of a drugsmanufacturing company for alleged production of sub-standard quality drugs,while observing that they did not play an "active role" in thealleged offence.
166. 18% GST Payable On'Pattadar Pass Book Cum Title Deed' ; Karnataka High Court Upholds AAR Ruling
Case Title: M/s.Manipal Technologies Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka Case No: WP No. 4866/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 166
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice S. Sujatha and JusticeShivashankar Amarannavar, while upholding the ruling of the Authority ofAdvance Ruling (AAR), held that 18% GST is payable on 'pattadar pass book cumtitle deed'.
167. Karnataka High CourtAcquits Murder Convict, Sets Aside Life Term After Man Serves 13 Yrs In Jail
Case Title:SHIVAPRASAD @ SHIVA v. State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.573/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 167
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the conviction of aman, incarcerated since 13 years, for the offence of murder under Section 302IPC. The Court thus set aside the life term imposed by Special CBI Court andordered his forthwith release.
168. Karnataka High CourtGrants Bail To PT Teacher Charged Under POCSO Act For Misbehaving With Student
Case Title: N.R.Sugandaraju v. State of Karnataka, Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2917/2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 168
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to a PT Teacheraccused of misbehaving with a student studying in the 10th standard of theschool and charged under section 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children fromSexual Offences Act, 2012.
Case Title: NETHRA vSTATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2306 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 169
Observing that it is not the law that bail should always bedenied in a case where the offence punishable is of death or life imprisonment, the Karnataka High Court recentlygranted bail to a woman accused of murdering her husband. A single judge benchof Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Netra and grantedher bail relying on section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Case Title: VSrinivasaraju v State by Yelahanka Police. Case No: Criminal Petition no4770/2015.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 170
The Karnataka High Court while refusing to quash the case ofabetment of suicide against an accused, has observed that perception ofthreatening word differs from person to person and thus, it would not beappropriate in the facts of the case to quash the FIR without a full-fledgedtrial.
171. Police Sub-Inspector IsEmpowered To Investigate & File Charge Sheet: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: E SPraveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka, Case No: Criminal Petition 2807/2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 171
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Police Sub-Inspector isempowered to investigate and file charge sheet. There is no defect in thecharge sheet filed by the Police Sub-Inspector after due investigation.
Case Title: Shaliniand Anr. versus National Highways Authority of India and Ors.
Citation : 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that an award of compensationpassed by an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956does not attract stamp duty.
Case Title: CANCERPATIENTS AID ASSOCIATION v CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION
Citation : 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 173
Case no: WP 5861/2022
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filedby Cancer Patients Aid Association against the movie "KGF-2" forallegedly promoting smoking by displaying the habit as healthy and heroic.
Case Title: SUJIT S/OMADIWALAPPA MULGUND v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Case No: WP 15144/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 174
The Karnataka High Court has issued general directions forspeedy conclusion of investigations in criminal matters. A single judge benchof Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav in its interim order said, "There is a requirement to pass directions for speedy conclusionof investigation, that may be applicable to the matters in general."
Case Title: SangeetaGadagin v. State Of Karnataka, & C/W Matters. Case No: WP 3522/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 175
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government toforthwith take necessary steps to implement the Integrated Child DevelopmentServices Scheme (ICDS Scheme) in the state. Otherwise, the Court observed thatthe fundamental right to nutritious food of 50 lakhs beneficiaries inKarnataka, particularly of pregnant women, lactating mothers and children,stand violated.
Case Title: Vikram Vincent v.State of Karnataka & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 176
The Karnataka High Court has directed the police to investigatealleged charges of performing unnatural sex, levelled against a husband by hisestranged wife.
Case Title: PrakashSharma S/O Mehdi Sharma v. State By Marathahalli Police Station Case No:CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4281 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 177
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to an accused who wasworking as a receptionist at a hotel which was allegedly being used as abrothel.
Case Title: SATHISH Kand others v State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4172 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 178
The Karnataka High Court recently held that closure ofproceedings on account of settlement arrived at between the parties even foroffence of Rape, punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, is permissible.Observing thus, it quashed the proceedings pending against four persons on thecomplaint made by a woman belonging to the same family.
Case Title: TheBangalore Development Authority and Others v. The Principal Secretary, RevenueDepartment and others
Case No: WA 4121/2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 179
The Karnataka High Court has said that proceedings initiated bya father in respect of a claim of title over a property which is decided by thecourt will bind the son also. He cannot be permitted to agitate for the samecause, following the principle of res-judicata.
Case Title: G.H.AbdulKadri v. Mohammed Iqbal Case No: Crl.RP.No.1323/2019
Citation; 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 180
The Karnataka High Court has said that a criminal trial cannotbe held in the absence of an accused unless personal appearance is dispensedwith for valid reasons. There cannot be dispensation of examination of anaccused under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) if incriminatingevidence appears in the evidence of the witness.
Case Title: B.A.HARISHGOWDA v. RAVI KUMAR Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.175/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 181
The Karnataka High Court has suggested that the CentralGovernment make necessary amendments to Section 372 of the Criminal ProcedureCode, in order to provide an opportunity to victims to approach the Court inappeal seeking enhancement of sentence imposed on a convict.
Case Title:SRIKANTAIAH v STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU and ANR Case no: WRIT PETITIONNo.12/2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 182
The Karnataka High Court has said that a second petition undersection 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing the criminalproceedings will be maintainable but only in exceptional cases where there arechanged circumstances.
Case Title: ITILimited versus Alphion Corporation & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 183
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that even with respect to aHigh Court that does not exercise an Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, aCommercial Division is required to be established for the purpose ofconsidering applications and appeals arising out of an International CommercialArbitration. The Court added that the said Commercial Division must comprise ofa Single Judge.
Case Title: DR.K.RAVINDRANATH SHETTY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA & others Case No:W.P.No.21453/2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 184
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the LandTribunal conferring occupancy rights in respect of a land in favour of thetenant, on the ground that all the legal heirs of the deceased owner were notarrayed as parties to the proceedings and their right to oppose was snatchedaway.
Case Title: BOPPANDAN. KUSHALAPPA v. BALEYADA K. CHERAMANNA and Others Case No: C.R.C No.1 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 185
The Karnataka High Court recently clarified that thenotification issued by the High Court in the year 1979, has limited scope andinvests the power in Senior Civil Judges only for issuance of SuccessionCertificates under Part-X of the Indian Succession Act and not for Probate.
Case Title: Dr YasinKhan v. State of Karnataka and Others Case No: WA NO. 100292/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 186
The Karnataka High Court has observed that Constitutional Courtscannot be disproportionately harsh to the arguable guilt of the litigants.
187. SC/ST Act Can't BeInvoked Merely Because Victim's Mother Belongs To Scheduled Caste: Karnataka HC
Case Title: BHIMAPPAJANTAKAL @ BHIMANNA & others v State of Karnataka and ANR Case No: CRIMINALPETITION No.101825 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 187
The Karnataka High Court has held that a person, whose oneparent belongs to the scheduled caste community and another parent to forwardcaste, will have to in his complaint under the Schedule Caste & ScheduledTribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989, specifically plead that he belongsto the schedule caste.
Case Title: SRINIVASAand ANR v STATE BY BEECHANALLI POLICE STATION. Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.716OF 2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 188
Almost 14 years after an Elephant died due to electrocution, theKarnataka High Court has upheld the conviction handed down to two persons whoput up electric fencing around their agricultural land which led to theelephant's death.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz upheld theconviction handed down to the accused Srinivasa and Basavaraju under Sections138(1)(a) of the Electricity Act 2003 and Section 429 of IPC. However, theCourt set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 9 r/w Section 51 ofthe Wild Life Protection Act.
Case Title: The ViceChairman Settlement Commission & Anr. versus M/s Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd& Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 189
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that merely because the ratioin which service tax was required to be paid by the service recipient and theservice provider was not strictly adhered to, the assessee cannot be madeliable to pay double tax by denying him the CENVAT Credit.
190. Bigamy Is A ContinuingOffence; Wife's Consent For Second Marriage Immaterial: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: ANAND C. @ANKU GOWDA & others v. CHANDRAMMA
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION No.9849 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 190
The Karnataka High Court has said that bigamy under section 494of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a continuing offence and the consent of wifefor the subsequent marriage would become immaterial for consideration of theoffence.
Case Title: ACHUT D.NAYAK & Others v THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE & ANR
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION NO. 100284 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 191
The Karnataka High Court has said that the power under Sections133, 138 and 139 of CrPC to prevent public nuisance has to be exercised byaffording sufficient opportunities to the parties and to record evidence and toarrive at a legal finding that the action of the person has resulted innuisance to the general public at large.
Case Title: NEW INDIAASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. ABDUL S/O MEHABOOB TAHASILDAR, and C/W matter.
Case No: MISCELLANEOUSFIRST APPEAL NO. 103807 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 192
The Karnataka High Court has held that 'Loss of futureprospects' has to be factored in, notwithstanding the fact that it is not acase of death but a case of injury without amputation resulting in whole bodydisability, which ultimately has a bearing on the reduced earning capacity.
Case Title: DIVYA& ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Anr
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION No.675 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 193
The Karnataka High Court has said the bar under Section 199 CrPCon a Magistrate from exercising powers under section 156(3) of the CriminalProcedure Code (CrPC) on a complaint involving offences punishable underSection 500 of the Indian Penal Code, would be applicable even in cases whereoffences are alleged for other offences in addition with Section 500 of theIPC.
Case Title: M/S. CRESTFACILITY MANAGEMENT v UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNO.39350/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 194
The Karnataka High Court has said that blacklisting or debarringof a Contractor from participating in any contract has civil consequences andthus, prior notice indicating the reasons for blacklisting and debarment has tobe communicated and on receiving reply, a final order may be passed.
Case Title: K.SRINIVAS & others v. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & others
Case No: WRIT APPEALNO.408 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 195
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of State ElectionCommission, disqualifying four persons from continuing as the elected membersof Municipality over their failure to lodge a true and correct account ofelectoral expenditure with the Returning Officer within prescribed time.
Case Title: DRCHIDANANDA P MANSUR v. UNION OF INDIA & others
Case no: W.A.NO.100198/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 196
The Karnataka High Court has observed that fixation ofretirement age of public servants has a direct bearing on the state exchequeras well as employment opportunities for others. In view thereof, it dismissed awrit petition filed by the former Dean of a College, seeking directions to thestate government to continue his service upto the age of 65 years, instead of62 years.
197. RGUHS Agrees To ConductFresh Practical Exam For Final Year MBBS Students Before Karnataka High Court
Case Title: BASAVARAJITAGI & others v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
Case no: W.P.NO.9494OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 197
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the practicalexaminations conducted for the student-petitioners pursuing their final yearMBBS course at certain colleges affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of HealthSciences (RGUHS), in a plea alleging that the same was not conducted inaccordance with law and was done in violation of the University guidelines.
198. Arbitral Award CannotBe Modified By Executing Court On The Basis Of Just A Memo: Karnataka HighCourt
Case Title: M/sAbhiram Infra Projects Private Limited versus The Commissioner, Karnataka SlumDevelopment Board
Case No.: WRITPETITION No.4845 OF 2021
Citation : 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 198
The Karnataka High Courthas ruled that in the absence of an application filed under Section 33 of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for correction oftypographical errors in the arbitral award, the Court cannot pass an ordermodifying and correcting the arbitral award on the basis of a Memo filed beforeit by a party.
Case title: SAMANTHACHRISTINA DELFINA WILLIS & ANR v STATE OF KARNATAKA and others
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNo.24602 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 199
The Karnataka High Court has held that a power of attorneyholder of an accused cannot maintain a petition be it under Article 226 or 227of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or CriminalPetition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
200. S.216 CrPC | Charge CanBe Altered Anytime During Trial: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Ananda v.State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION No.1829 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 200
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 216 of theCriminal procedure Code (Cr.P.C) thetrial court can alter the charge framed even if the trial has progressed to alarge extent.
Case Title: MAHAMMADALI AKBAR @ ALI UMAR v State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION No.4449 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 201
The Karnataka High Court has held that on the child attaining 18years of age, the rigor under Section 33(5) of the Protection of Children fromSexual Offences Act, 2012 Act gets diluted and sequentially, will not become abar for seeking recalling and further cross-examination of the victim underSection 311 of the CrPC on an application made by the accused.
Case Title: Sobha Ltd.v. Nava Vishwa Shashi Vijaya and Ors.
Case No.: C.M.P. No.24 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 202
The High Court of Karnataka held that the petition under Section11(6) of the A&C Act would be premature when the parties have not compliedwith the precondition of conciliation.
The Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi dismissed thearbitration petition for the appointment of an arbitrator on the ground thatthe petitioner had directly approached the Court without taking recourse to theprecondition of conciliation.
Case Title: GokaldasImages Private Limited versus Aries Agro-Vet Associates (Pvt) Limited &Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 203
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the landlord-tenant disputes governed bythe Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are arbitrable in nature.
The Single Bench of Justice E.S. Indiresh observed that theSupreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia versus Durga Trading Corporation (2020) had overruled its decision in Himangi Enterprises versus Amaljit Singh Ahulvalia (2017). TheCourt thus held that the landlord-tenantdisputes between the parties under the lease deed, which was governed by theTransfer of Property Act, could be referred to arbitration.
Case Title: CITIZENSACTION GROUP v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others, Case No: WP 38401/2014.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 204
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Executive Engineers(designated officers) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to takesteps and remove encroachments which exist in the tank area of Subramanyapuralake and Begur lake.
Case Title: MURULYM.S. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNO.10688 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 205
The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 40 of the WildLife (Protection) Act, 1972 permits private ownership of live elephants andthere is no bar in giving them up in adoption, so long as the transaction is ofnon-commercial nature.
206. S.147 NI Act | EveryOffence Under Negotiable Instruments Act Is Compoundable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: ArunVincent Rajkumar v S Mala
Case No: CRIMINALREVISION PETITION No.579 OF 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 206
The Karnataka High Court recently said that Section 147 of theNegotiable Instruments Act makes every offence punishable under the Act ascompoundable and there is no bar on parties to compound the offence.
Case Title:Hanumanthappa v State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: CriminalPetition No. 3997/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 207
The Karnataka HighCourt recently granted bail to an accused alleged of sexually assaulting aminor girl and marrying her, after the victim and her mother turned hostile incourt during the trial.
208. Stridhan Cannot BeRetained By Family Of Husband On Annulment Of Marriage: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: GANESHPRASAD HEGDE & Others v SUREKHA SHETTY
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION No.4544 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 208
The Karnataka High Court has said that annulment of marriagecannot mean that all the articles that woman carried to the matrimonial housecan be retained by the family of the husband.
Case Title: T.L.NAGARAJU v THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
Case No: WRIT PETITION(HC) NO.42/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 209
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the decision of thesuitability of partners to a marital tie rests exclusively with the individualsthemselves. Neither the State nor the Society can intrude into that domain.
210. 'No Material AgainstHim': Karnataka High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Bishop
Case Title: RT RevPrasanna Kumar Samuel v State of Karnataka & others
Case No: WP 5923/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 210
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedingsinitiated by a Sessions Court against Reverend Prasanna Kumar Samuel under theProtection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. He is the Bishop ofChurch of South India (CSI) Karnataka Central Diocese, Bengaluru.
Case Title: D.ROOPA vH.N.SATHYANARAYANA RAO
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION NO.72 OF 2022
Citation; 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 211
The Karnataka High Court has held that a pure officialcommunication between two people, without it being referred to any otherdepartment or a quarter, cannot become the ingredient of Section 499 of theIPC.
Case Title: MUZAMMILPASHA v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNo.19012 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 212
The Karnataka High Court has directed the National InvestigationAgency (NIA) to furnish in two weeks time the documents which includestatements of witnesses recorded by the local police investigating the DJ Halliriot case of 2020 (before the probe was transferred to NIA), to an accused inthe case.
Case Title: XXXXversus XXXX
Case No: MFA NO.102625/2015(MC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 213
The Karnataka High Court has held that a wife calling herhusband an impotent without legally substantiating the same by itself wouldamount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(ia) of the Hindu MarriageAct.
Case Title: RAJAMMA Hv THIMMAIAH V
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNo.11265 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 214
The Karnataka High Court has said that an application filedunder section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,should be decided by the Magistrate within two months (sixty days) from thedate of its presentation.
Case Title: BEML Ltd.v. Prakash Parcel Services Ltd. M.F.A. No. 4180 of 2019 (AA).
Citation no: 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 215
The High Court ofKarnataka has held that a subsequent Section 8 application would benon-maintainable when the order of the arbitrator accepting objection to itsjurisdiction was not challenged.
Case Title: RATHNAMMAv. STATE REPRESENTED BY PSI, CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION.
Case No: CRL.PNo.3571/2021
Citation no: 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 216
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Magistrate or theSpecial Court (under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act) isconferred with the power/jurisdiction to consider the application for 'interimcustody' of the conveyance/vehicle under the provisions of Sections 451 and 457of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases arising out of the provisions ofNDPS Act.
Case Title: UmapathiS. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNO.10789 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 217
The State Government informed the Karnataka High Court about theappointment of former judge of the High Court, Bhimanagouda Sanganagouda Patil,as the Lokayukta of Karnataka. Following which the bench dismissed the petitionfiled by Advocate UMAPATHI. S.
Case Title: VISHWAS Vv THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNo.5609 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 218
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed criminal proceedingspending against an Architect, observing that it would be too far to stretchSection 304A of the IPC to contend that a person who had designed the house isresponsible for death of a worker while undertaking construction under acontractor.
Case Title: LakshiVenkateshwara Kallu Kutukara Bhovi Shakhara Sangha v. The State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 11537/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 219
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to considerthe representation to be made by members of the Bhovi Community, who areinvolved in traditional stone cutting work and take an appropriate decision inaccordance with law, in respect of allowing them to continue their work inMeesaganahalli village.
Case Title: VikasVerma & Others v. Union of India & Others.
Case No: WA 5651/2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 220
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the dismissal from serviceorder passed by the Disciplinary Authority against eight constables of CentralIndustrial Security Force (CISF), for allegedly blackmailing and repeatedlyraping the wife of another constable. The order was passed without holdingregular inquiry.
Case Title: RITHESHPAIS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION No.3597 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 221
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiatedagainst an accused under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, holding that allegedabuses hurled by him to the complainant were in the basement of a buildingwhich was not a place of public view or a public place.
Case Title: ARCHANAGIRISH KAMATH v. UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WP 11644/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 222
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filedby Table Tennis Player Archana Kamath, questioning the decision of the TableTennis Federation in not selecting her in the team which would represent Indiain the upcoming CommonWealth Games, 2022, to be held in England.
Case Title:V.KRISHNAMURTHY v. DIARY CLASSIC ICE CREAMS PVT. LTD
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION No.632 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 223
The Karnataka High Court has directed Magistrate courts to takeinto consideration conduct of the accused while deciding application filed bydrawee in a cheque dishonour case, seeking interim compensation under section143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Case Title: B.DURGARAM v. The State By BENGALURU CITY CENTRAL P.S.
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION NO.2072 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 224
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedingspending against a man holding that the FIR lodged by the complainant was 45days after the alleged incident of assault and no plausible explanation wasgiven for the delayed filing of FIR.
Case Title: PUBLIC TV(KANNADA NEWS CHANNEL) and ANR v. BANNADI SOMANATH HEGDE
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNO.10262 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 225
The Karnataka High Court has quashed defamation proceedingsinitiated against Public TV, a Kannada news channel, and HR Ranganath, ChiefPatron of the channel, initiated based on a private complaint filed allegingthat several media entities has spoken ill about the advocate's fraternity atlarge.
Case Title: XXX versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION NO.2743 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 226
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against awoman under sections 498-A, 506, 504 and 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DowryProhibition Act by another woman alleging that the accused was having anillicit relationship with her husband.
227. There Cannot Be Any'Deemed Forest' Under The Forest Conservation Act: Karnataka High CourtReiterates
Case Title: D M DeveGowda v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Case No: WP 10502/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 227
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a land can eitherbe a "forest" or a "forest land", but there cannot be any"deemed forest" in absence of any provision under the ForestConservation Act.
Case Title: REKHA& Others versus LALITHAMMA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNO. 55337 OF 2018(GM-CPC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 228
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a plaintiff'srequest for amendment of plaint can be considered even after commencement oftrial, in case the fundamental character of the suit is not changed and noprejudice is caused to the responding party.
Case Title: NELSON RAJv. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINALAPPEAL NO.336 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.267 OF 2022 & CRIMINAL APPEALNO.337 OF 2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw229
The Karnataka High Court has said that courts are bound to takeinto consideration all the contentions raised by the parties while hearing abail petition filed before it and then pass an appropriate order.
230. Karnataka High CourtAcquits Woman Accused Of Murdering Her Two Months Old Child By Throwing InRiver
Case Title: Kavitha v.State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINALAPPEAL No.1372 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 230
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the conviction andsentence of life imprisonment imposed on a woman for allegedly causing thedeath of her two months old girl-child, who was suffering from epilepsy andsome respiratory problems, by throwing her into a river.
Case Title: Mrs LeenaRakesh v Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home Affairs.
Case No: WP 11213/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 231
The Karnataka High Court has said the request for issuance of aLook out Circular (LOC) or preventing a person (defaulter of loan) fromtravelling abroad cannot be a mode of recovery of dues by a bank, unless thereis an element of fraud and economic interest of the country is involved.
232. Karnataka High CourtOrders ₹10 Lakh Compensation For Death Of 2-Yr-Old In Stray Dog Attack
Case Title: YUSUB S/OMOHAMUSAB SANADI v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNO. 110352 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 232
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is a statutoryobligation which has been imposed upon the local municipal authorities tosafeguard the human beings cohabitating within their jurisdiction, from thedanger of any stray dogs and/or any attack by such stray dogs.
Case Title: SUPRITISHWAR DIVATE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNO. 115362 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 233
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused who isarrested can normally not be handcuffed. It is only under "extremecircumstances", for instance where there is possibility of the accused/under trial prisoner escaping custody or causing harm to himself or causingharm to others, that handcuffing of an accused can be resorted to.
234. Accused Can't BeConvicted For Charge Which Is Not Framed By Trial Court: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M.AJITHKUMARv THE STATE BY FOOD INSPECTOR, KOPPA
Case No: CRIMINALREVISION PETITION NO.1527/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 234
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction handeddown under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the trial court for acharge which it did not frame against the accused, and remanded the matter backto be considered afresh.
Case Title: XXX v.STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITIONHABEAS CORPUS No.57 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 235
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petitionfiled by a transgender person, seeking directions to the police to produce an18-year old girl, alleged to be his partner.
Case Title: SHIVANANDLAXMAN ANCHI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNo.16983 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 236
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by aformer Civil Judge, Junior Division questioning the order dated March 22, 2021passed by the state government ordering compulsory retirement from service.
Case Title: KLAKSHMAIAH REDDY v. V ANIL REDDY & others
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNO.10926 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 237
The Karnataka High Court has held that a counsel/advocateappearing for the parties are entitled to be physically present at the remotepoint from where the evidence of such party is being recorded through videoconferencing.
Case Title: DADA S/OBALU ROOGE v. APPASAHEB S/O KIRAN KESTE
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNO. 102158 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 238
The Karnataka High Court has held that even if the plaintiff hasnot sought a relief of possession in a suit for specific performance, but hadonly sought the prayer for execution of the sale deed, the Execution Court canissue a delivery warrant directing the Judgment debtor to handover possessionof the property, upon decree holder performing all obligations as stated indecree.
239. Bitcoin Scam: KarnatakaHigh Court Refuses To Quash LOC Against Brother Of Accused Sirkrishna
Case Tile: SudarshanRamesh v. Union Of India
Case No: WP 1730/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 239
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed bySudarshan Ramesh, brother of bitcoin scam accused Sirkrishna, questioning theaction of Central authorities in restraining him from leaving India andtravelling to the Netherlands.
240. Ad Hoc AppointmentsCan Be Made On Rotational Basis,Seniority Not A Criteria: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: THEUNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES v. DR. DIGAMBARAPPA, & others
Case No: WRIT APPEALNO.100263 OF 2022 C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.100264 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 240
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the SingleJudge bench which held that appointments to the post of Director of Universityof Agricultural Sciences, on ad-hoc basis, shall be done on seniority basis.
Case Title: Sadik Khan@Sadik v State of Karnataka
Case No: CriminalPetition 4834/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 241
"When petitioners have committed brutal murder of oneperson they cannot seek bail to save life of another person i.e. theirfather," the Karnataka High Court observed while denying bail to twomurder accused.
Case Title:PRABHUNAIKA K.T v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION No.2015 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 242
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the 'Doctrine ofSameness' is not applicable if cases against the accused registered under theProtection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, are filed at different periodsof time by different complainants.
Case Title: CHURCH OFSOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION v K.L.JAYAPRAKASH
Case No: M.S.A.No.28/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 243
The Karnataka High Court has said that in a tenancy dispute,when the tenant does not dispute his induction into the said property by theplaintiff (landlord) under a lease agreement, the question of doubting thetitle of plaintiff would not arise
Case Title: IrfanPasha v. National Investigation Agency
Case No: CRIMINALAPPEAL No. 673/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 244
The Karnataka High Court has said that it is not necessary thata person being prosecuted for "terrorist act" defined under Section15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, should be a member of aterrorist organization.
245. No Suppression OfFacts, Show Cause Notice Based On Balance Sheet: KarnatakaHigh Court
Case Title:Commissioner of Central Tax Vs ABB Limited
Case No: CentralExcise Appeal No.16/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 245
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar andJustice Anant Ramanath Hedge has held that the assessee is not liable for thesuppression of facts as the show cause notice was issued on the basis of thedisclosures made in the balance sheet.
Case Title: XiaomiTechnology India Private Limited v. Union of India
Case No: WP 9182/2022
Citation no: 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 246
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the CompetentAuthority appointed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act,1999 (FEMA) toissue a notice of hearing to M/s Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd and hear theparties concerned and pass appropriate orders in regards to the challengeraised by the company on the order passed by the Enforcement Directorate,seizing Rs.5551.27 crores.
Case Title: SHABANNATAJ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION NO.4320/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 247
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the anticipatory bailgranted to a police constable accused of sexually assaulting a women over aperiod of three years under the false promise of marriage.
Case Title:Thippeswamy @ Kunta v. State by Challakere Police
Case No: CRIMINALREVISION PETITION No.911 OF 2012
Citation; 2022 Livelaw(Kar) 248
The Karnataka High Court has said in a case of circumstantialevidence, it is not safe to rely upon the mere report of the Fingerprint expertthat the 'Chance Fingerprint' given to him for examination was corresponding tothe fingerprint of the accused and proceeding to convict the accused, unlessthe spot and the manner in which such fingerprint was lifted is disclosed inthe Court.
Case Title: T GVEERAPRASAD & Others v. PRAKASH GANDHI & Others
Case no: WRIT PETITIONNO.8283 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw249
The Karnataka High Court has said that in civil suits, wherecomplex issues are involved, the Court should be cautious in allowing a partyto lead evidence through video conferencing mode and that mere delay, expenseor inconvenience cannot be a ground to allow a litigant to have an alternatemode of leading ocular evidence.
Case Title:DR.S.P.RAGHUNATH v. THE UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WRIT PETITIONNo.8644/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 250
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a71-year-old retired Engineer in Chief of Central Government seeking a directionto appoint him as the Chief Engineer at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Theertha Kshethraon honorarium basis.
251. Karnataka High CourtDismisses Plea Comparing IPL Auction With Human Trafficking
Case Title: VENKATESHSETTY & Others v. SAOURAV GANGULY & Others
Case No: WP 3489/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 251
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a publicinterest litigation filed questioning the auction held every year for selectingplayers for the Indian Premier League (IPL) teams and claimed that it amountedto "human trafficking".
Case Title: ShriramCity Union Finance Ltd. versus Mr. Donald Dayanand Donald.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 252
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the date for the purposeof quantifying the stamp duty payable on an arbitral award under the KarnatakaStamp Act, 1957 is the date on which the award was signed.
253. Limitation Period IsNot Applicable On Refund Of Service Tax Wrongly Paid:Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/sBellatrix Consultancy Services Versus The Commissioner of Central Tax
Case No: C.E.A No. 49Of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 253
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar andJustice Anant Ramanath Hedge has held that the limitation period is notapplicable to a refund of service tax wrongly paid.
Case Title: MastersManagement Consultants (India) Private Ltd. versus Nitesh Estates Limited
Citation No: 2022LiveLaw (Kar) 254
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that since the agreementbetween the parties provided for a 'non-binding' arbitration, there wasabsolutely no intention of the parties to enter into an arbitration agreementand that the said agreement could not be termed as an arbitration agreement.
Case Title:T.SADANANDA PAI v. SUJATHA S PAI
Case No: M.F.A.NO.1797 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 255
The Karnataka High Court has held that an able bodied man havingthe capacity to earn cannot seek for permanent alimony on divorce from hiswife.
256. 'Sexual Acts CommittedWith Minor After Marriage': Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To POCSO Accused
Case Title: SYEDSHABAJ v. SMT. PREMA & ANR
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION NO. 3422/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 256
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to an accused arrestedunder the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Child MarriageAct while noting that the accused had subjected the minor girl to sexual act"after" they had got married, following elopement.
Case Title: SHIVASWAMY& Others v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR
Case No: CRIMINALPETITION No.2776 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 257
The Karnataka High Court has held that a complaint of criminaltrespass cannot be made if the property on which the accused is alleged to havetrespassed is not in the possession of the complainant.
Case Title: PhilipsIndia Limited v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: W.A. NO. 557OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 258
The Karnataka High Court has held that there has to be reliableevidence to indicate that the authority adjudicating objections is biased andthe decision cannot be questioned merely because the officer is a limb of theGovernment.
Case Title: Shivu @Shiv Kumar v. State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CriminalPetition No 3596/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 259
The Karnataka High Court has observed that false promise ofmarriage must be of immediate relevance or bear a direct nexus to the woman'sdecision to engage in the sexual act, to attract an offence of rape.
Case Title: MISS.PRIYANKA PRADEEP GAVADE v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Case NO: MFA NO. 25028OF 2010
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Kar) 260
The Karnataka High Court has said if the medical evidenceindicates that a minor child cannot straighten one of the lower limbs and oneof the upper limbs has lost its power for use, it is as good as the human bodybecoming useless, so far as the person's ability to work and earn livelihood isconcerned. Thus, the minor claimant has become functionally 100% disabled evenwhen the medical expert has stated she has suffered 50 percent disability.
Karnataka High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part II [Citations 261-521]