Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: February 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 54 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 105

Nominal Index:

H S Abdul Riyaz Basha AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 54

Anil H Lad AND Authorised Officer, Punjab and National Bank. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 55

MPHASIS LIMITED AND Ashok S Narayanpur. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 56

Kushal Ram Reddy AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 57

ABC & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 58

P V Rudrappa AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 59

M/S. NORTHROOF VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S. XYNC STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 60

Siddaramaiah AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 61

Ranga Trilochana Bedi @ R.T Bedi AND Kabir Bedi. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 62

M R Mohan Kumar & Others AND NIL. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 63

ABC and XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 64

ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 65

The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited AND Sidram Vithoba Maragali. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 66

Dr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty and Bureau Of Immigration. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 67

A Adinarayana Reddy AND S Vijayalakshmi & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 68

Central Relief Committee AND Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru District & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 69

Mohammed Refeeq AND S. Mohammed Fairoz Ahamed & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 70

Pallavi AND Mallamma & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 71

Seethalaxmi AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 72

Shelhan AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 73

M/s Ozone Urban Infra Developers PVT Ltd AND Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 74

The Bar Association Kittur & Anr AND The State Bar Counsel & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

Acharya Pathasala Educational Trust AND Rashmi Khatawakar & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 76

M/s. Armstrong Design And Acmite India Manufacturing Private Limited AND The Assistant Labour Commissioner. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 77

ABC AND State By Mysuru Women Police Station & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

State of Karnataka AND Prathap. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 79

Exalogic Solutions Private Ltd AND Union of India & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 80

H R Satyanarayana vs H C Suresha and Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 81

M/s. ICDS Ltd vs Sri Bhaskaran Pillai and Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 82

Smt. Vasanthi Ramdas Pai Versus Income Tax Officer. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 83

BBMP POWRAKARMIKAR SANGHA AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 84

The Divisional Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited AND Yunus & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 85

Annappa Appasab Mokashi & ANR AND The SLAO & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 86

T Narayana Reddy & ANR AND Nirmala & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 87

Shahen @ Hanifa AND Shivakumar Bolishetty & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 88

South Western Railway Catering Contractors Association AND The Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 89

M G Purshotham & Others AND N K Srinivasan & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 90

Bharatiya Janata Party AND Rizwan Arshad. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 91

Achutha Ayurveda Medical College Hospital and Research Centre & Others AND Union of India & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 92

K Lakshmi AND Canara Bank. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 93

Dr Rajesh Kumar D AND State of Karnataka & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 94

ABC AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 95

Shivappa AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 96

Mazin Abdul Rahman @ Mazin. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 97

Sharath Chandrasekhar AND Union of India. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 98

Sikandar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 99

Junaid B AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 100

Chinnammayya AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 101

A Alice AND Karnataka Transmission Corporation Limited. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 102

B A Umesh AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 103

B Mohammed Kunhi & ANR AND Abdul Saleem Hassan. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 104

Shariff Constructions AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 105

Judgments/Orders

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act | High Court Sets Aside 2009 Notification For Land Acquisition Upon Noting No Steps Were Taken For 14 Yrs

Case Title: H S Abdul Riyaz Basha AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition 26117 of 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 54

The Karnataka High Court has observed that the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) which is entrusted to establish and develop industries in suitable areas in the State, must first determine the area that is required for the establishment of industries after conducting a study and only thereafter venture to acquire the lands.

A Single judge bench of Justice M I Arun made the observations while allowing a plea filed by H S Abdul Riyaz Basha whose land was notified for acquisition under a preliminary notification, but no final notification was passed for the last 14 years.

The court said “The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 is enacted to make provision for the orderly establishment and development of industries in suitable areas in the State. To achieve this object, the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board is established and it is required to specify areas for industrial development and make available land therein for establishment of industries.”

Karnataka High Court Denies Relief To Landowner Who Approached Court With 9 Yrs Delay, Compares Him To 'Rip Van Winkle'

Case Title: Anil H Lad AND Authorised Officer, Punjab and National Bank

Case No: Writ Petition 467 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 55

The Karnataka High Court has refused relief to a landowner who challenged the bank auction sale of his land on failure to repay the loan, nine years after the sale took place.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Anil H Lad, referred to the short story of Rip Van Winkle, penned by American author Washington Irving in the year 1819, about a Dutch – American who falls asleep and wakes up after twenty years, only to see a changed world, having missed the American revolution, on waking up from deep slumber.

Then it said “The doors of this Court to such Rip Van Winkles is not ajar but closed.”

Industrial Disputes Act | Project Leader Can't Be Implied To Be Doing Clerical, Manual Or Technical Work: Karnataka HC Sets Aside Labour Court Order

Case Title: MPHASIS LIMITED AND Ashok S Narayanpur

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.5443/2021

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 56

The Karnataka High Court has said that an employee working as a project lead in an Information Technology Services and Consulting company, would not come in any of the classifications envisaged under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to order his reinstatement.

A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha allowed the plea filed by Mphasis Ltd and set aside the award of the Labour Court holding that Ashok S Narayanpur, the employee, was a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and that the petitioner refusing employment to him from 29.08.2016 was not justifiable. The Labour Court directed his reinstatement to his original post and further held that the respondent is entitled to continuity of service and all other future consequential benefits.

Karnataka High Court Issues 'Preventive Measures' To Be Adopted By BBMP To Curb Unauthorised Constructions

Case Title: Kushal Ram Reddy AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 11261 of 2023.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 57

The Karnataka High Court has issued general directions to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) suggesting preventive steps to be taken so that new constructions are not carried out in violation of building plans.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj took on record the office order dated 27.07.2023 issued by the Chief Commissioner to all the officers enclosing the flowcharts showing stages of action to be taken for removal of violated portion and demolition of unauthorised construction, as also the table showing the timeline for officers for taking action for unauthorised construction.

Effective Discipline Requires Balance Of Punishment & Positive Reinforcement: Karnataka HC Quashes Abetment Case Against Principal, Teacher Over Suicide Of 2 Students

Case Title: ABC & ANR AND State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No 924 OF 2016

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 58

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case of abetment to suicide registered against a principal and school teacher after two children studying in a school committed suicide and left a suicide note holding them responsible for their act.

A single-judge bench of Justice G Basavaraja allowed the plea filed by the petitioners and discharged them for the offences under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

In doing so the court said “It is [not] uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not being attentive or not being up to the mark in the studies or for bunking classes or for not attending the school. The prosecution papers, including the voluntary statement of the accused, reveals that only in order to safeguard the future educational interest of the deceased students, as they were not up to the mark in preparatory examination, accused have taken special coaching classes to them. As often whispered, teachers are nation builders, who can build the nation solid and strong by imparting the right education among their students. Discipline can improve students' character and analytical skills – which are important to succeed in life. effective discipline requires a balance between punishment and positive reinforcement.”

Disciplinary Authority Should Consider Acquittal Order Before Awarding Penalty Of Dismissal From Service: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: P V Rudrappa AND State of Karnataka

Case NO: Writ Petition No 9642 OF 2020

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 59

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal whereby the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on a former Panchayat Development Officer, accused of demanding and accepting bribes.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraj allowed the petition filed by P V Rudruppa and said, “Cases of mindless sacking of employees nowadays galore. Proportionality in penalty is rarely seen. We say this with a lot of penury at heart. “Petitioner was a victim, we repeat. Strangely, justice eluded him even at the level of Service Law Tribunal. This happened when there is absolutely no material to prima facie substantiate the allegations of demand & acceptance of bribe for doing the public duty.”

Pending Registration Of Company Under MSMED Act, Council Has No Jurisdiction To Initiate Conciliation And Refer Dispute For Arbitration: Karnataka HC

Case Title: M/S. NORTHROOF VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S. XYNC STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,

Case No: Writ Petition No 5509 OF 2023.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 60

The Karnataka High Court has held that a company which at the time of raising a money claim dispute has not been registered under the Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, it then cannot approach the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, seeking to initiate conciliation proceedings over the dispute and on failure of the same the Council cannot refer the matter for Arbitration.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M/s. NORTHROOF VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED and quashed the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 07.01.2023 and 22.02.2023, rejecting its application to decide the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability of the proceedings.

Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Case Against CM Siddaramaiah For Alleged Illegal March In 2022, Directs Him To Appear Before Special Court

Case Title: Siddaramaiah AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P 7533/2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 61

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Congress' State incharge Randeep Singh Surjewala, and legislators Ramalinga Reddy and MB Patil, seeking to quash a criminal case registered against them in 2022 for alleged illegal march towards the residence of then Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai, shouting slogans and demanding the resignation of KS Eshwarappa, then Minister.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the petition filed by the accused and directed Siddaramiah to appear before the Special Court on February,26. Further, it imposed Rs. 10,000 cost on each of the petitioners for arraying the police officer as party respondent in her personal capacity.

Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea By Elder Brother Of Actor Kabir Bedi For Restraining Sale Of Actor's Autobiography Due To Alleged Defamatory Statement

Case Title: Ranga Trilochana Bedi @ R.T Bedi AND Kabir Bedi.

Case No: M.F.A. NO.8528/2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 62

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea by R.T Bedi, elder brother of film Actor Kabir Bedi, challenging an order of the trial court rejecting his prayer to temporarily restrain Kabir Bedi and the publishing house Westland Publications Private Limited, from selling his autobiography titled 'Stories I Must Tell: The Emotional Life of an Actor.'

Further, he sought an ad-interim order of injunction against the defendants for removal of all defamatory statements made against the plaintiff (R. T. Bedi ) from the book.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh dismissed the appeal and said “I do not find any ground to grant the relief as sought in the appeal. The Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the I.A.Nos.2 and 3 and it does not require any interference of this Court and the appeal suffers from devoid of its merits.”

[Succession Act, 1925] Probate Can Be Granted In Plea By Beneficiary Of Will Even If No Executor Has Been Named: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M R Mohan Kumar & Others AND NIL

Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 4399 OF 2023.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 63

The Karnataka High Court has held that probate can be granted on a plea made by the beneficiary named in a will, in case no executor had been named.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh allowed the appeal filed by M.R. Mohan and others and set aside the order of the trial court rejecting their petition filed for issuance of probate. Allowing the appeal the court granted Probate/Succession Certificate in favour of the appellants as sought.

If Husband Fails To Adhere To Decree For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights, Wife Can Seek Interim Maintenance Before Executing Court: Karnataka HC

Case Title: ABC and XYZ

Case No: Writ Petition No 2215 OF 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 64

The Karnataka High Court has held that in the absence of a stay on the decree for restitution of conjugal rights (RCR), if the husband fails to take the wife back to the matrimonial home, then it would be open to the wife to seek interim maintenance for herself and their child even at the stage of execution of the decree.

The Court was dealing with a challenge by the husband, against an order of the Family Court directing him to pay a sum of Rs 25,000 per month as interim maintenance for his wife and child upon the wife executing a decree for RCR when the husband failed to take her back to the matrimonial home.

'Malicious Parent Syndrome' Of Purposely Separating Child From Other Parent Worrisome, Affects Child's Psyche: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ABC AND XYZ

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3749 OF 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 65

The Karnataka High Court has expressed concern over the emerging trend of 'malicious parent syndrome' whereby a malicious parent engages in attempts to punish the other parent by separating the child, denying child visitation and lying to children.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while allowing a petition filed by the third husband of a woman, who was charged under POCSO Act on a complaint made by the biological father of the child.

Court said the trend is "worrisome" as wrangling parents forget that they are projecting their own child to have been a subject of such assault.

Karnataka HC Directs Insurer To Compensate Villagers Carrying Pet Animals When Travelling For Outstation Work, Despite MV Rules Violation

Case Title: The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited AND Sidram Vithoba Maragali

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23428 OF 2011 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23430 OF 2011.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 66

The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal which granted compensation to villagers who met with an accident and suffered injuries while travelling in tractor-Trailers along with their pet goats.

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda though agreed with the contention of the insurance company that there is a violation of Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 in prohibiting the transportation of the animals in the TT Unit, it said, “This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that two goats died and two persons were injured who are the inmates of T.T. Unit and they are the claimants.”

Further it observed, “They (claimants) are the rustic villagers and when they move in groups for harvesting the sugarcane crop, entire family members will be moving to the sugarcane land along with their pet animals, as nobody would be available in the home-front to look after them. As such they are to be carried along with the family members.”

Purpose Of LOC Not Loan Recovery Particularly When Favourable Decree Obtained: Karnataka HC Suspends LOC Against NMC Health Founder

Case Title: Dr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty and Bureau Of Immigration

Case No: WP 4385/2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 67

The Karnataka High Court on Friday suspended the Lookout Circulars (LOCs) issued by Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank and the endorsement issued by Bureau of Immigration against founder of NMC Health, Dr Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty (B R Shetty) and permitted him to travel to UAE.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “The writ petition conditionally succeeds, LOC's are suspended. A writ of Mandamus is issued to Bureau of Immigration to permit petitioner to travel forthwith to UAE, if there is no other impediment.”

S.138 NI Act | Single Complaint For Dishonour Of Multiple Cheques Issued Qua Same Transaction Maintainable: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: A Adinarayana Reddy AND S Vijayalakshmi & ANR

Case No: Criminal Petition No 5909 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 68.

The Karnataka High Court has held that a single complaint made under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is maintainable for multiple cheques issued by the respondent/accused on the same cause of action.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by complainant A Adinarayana Reddy and set aside the order dismissing the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against accused S Vijayalakshmi and another.

It said “When all the cheques were issued by the husband and wife for the same cause of action and cheques were dishonoured, a common notice was issued against the accused. Such being the case, instead of filing the multiple complaints, single complaint for dishonour of multiple cheques are maintainable.”

[Karnataka Prohibition Of Beggary Act] Central Relief Committee Kept 'Pot Of Litigation Boiling' For 7 Yrs Instead Of Rehabilitating Slum Dwellers: High Court

Case Title: Central Relief Committee AND Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru District & Others

Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.55797 OF 2017

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 69

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Central Relief Committee constituted under the Karnataka Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1975, questioning an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, declaring a particular area possessed by it, to be a slum.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the plea said “The Central Relief Committee has kept the pot of litigation boiling for the last 7 years and no rehabilitation of the slum dwellers has taken place. If a major portion of the land had been taken away, it would have been a circumstance altogether different, which is not the one in the case at hand. Therefore, the challenge is rendered unsustainable.”

Karnataka High Court Permits DNA Profiling Test In Suit Seeking Partition Of Property

Case Title: Mohammed Refeeq AND S. Mohammed Fairoz Ahamed & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 52855 of 2019

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 70

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a defendant in a suit for partition of property, challenging the order passed by trial court directing him and the plaintiff to appear before the Forensic Laboratory to draw blood samples to conduct DNA profiling test to decide on their paternity relationships.

A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma dismissed the petition filed by Mohammed Refeeq and said “If the request for DNA profiling is not accepted, the right of the plaintiff to seek the status of the family members of the defendants, to be the son of late L.P.Ghouse Baig and Umerabi and to claim share in the suit property will be denied. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner or any other defendants, if DNA profiling is conducted.”

Motor Accident Compensation Can't Be Lower Merely Because Deceased Minor Was A Girl: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Pallavi AND Mallamma & Others

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100618 OF 2014

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 71

The Karnataka High Court has held that there cannot be any discrimination between a minor girl or minor boy while granting compensation for a motor accident.

In Kishan Gopal vs. Lala (2014), the Supreme Court had ruled that in the case of death of a minor in a road traffic accident, the claimants would be entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakh.

A single judge bench of Justice V. Srishananda said "In the case on, no doubt the victim is minor girl. There cannot be any discrimination between a minor girl or minor boy."

Pensioners To Be Handled With Sympathy, Doctrine Of Delay & Laches Not Thumb Rule Where No Third Party Rights Created: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Seethalaxmi AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 3674 OF 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 72

The Karnataka High Court has held that the State pensioners have to be handled with sympathy and that the doctrine of delay and laches per se cannot defeat the legitimate right of a citizen in a case where no third party rights are created.

Observing thus, a division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja partly allowed the petition filed by one Seethalaxmi who had approached the court grieving the denial of one solitary increment which avails to all civil servants who have studied in Kannada Medium upto SSLC with Kannada as one of subjects in the syllabus.

State Bar Council Has No Authority To Question Law Degree Certificate On Grounds Of Ineligibility To Obtain Certificate: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Shelhan AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR

Case No: Writ Petition No 11806 OF 2020

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 73

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Karnataka State Bar Council refusing to enrol a government servant who pursued a law degree while being in service and sought enrollment after his retirement on the ground that he did not submit any documents to show that he has attended the classes conducted by the college.

A single judge bench of Justice Ashok S Kinagi allowed the plea and quashed the order by the State Bar Council, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's request for enrollment afresh.

RERA | Karnataka High Court Raps Panchayat For Issuing Occupancy Certificate Without Inspection, "From Within Four Corners Of AC Chambers"

Case Title: M/s Ozone Urban Infra Developers PVT Ltd AND Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Others.

Case No: Writ Petition No 26194 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 74

The Karnataka High Court recently pulled up the Kannamangala Gram Panchayat for issuing occupancy certificate to a retirement home project without carrying out any inspection as to the actual state of the site.

While refusing to interfere with Karnataka RERA's order declaring the project 'Serene Urbana' an "on-going project", Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the apartment complex did not even have water and power supply.

“None of the amenities that were assured and promised to lure the retired home buyers were in place. Sewage treatment plant was yet to come up. Lifts were not provided...Water supply was not

complete...Therefore, it is necessary to admonish the competent authorities who are empowered to issue occupancy certificates not to sit in four corners of their air-conditioned chambers and issue occupancy certificates, to the developers, for their asking," Court said.

Karnataka High Court Calls For Intervention Of State Bar Council To Mediate Dispute Between Two Factions Of Lawyers In Kittur Taluk

Case Title: The Bar Association Kittur & Anr AND The State Bar Counsel & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 100505 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court has requested the Chairman of the State Bar Council to find a way to mediate the dispute between the two factions of lawyers in Kittur Taluk, so as to maintain harmonious relation between the members of the Bar.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the suggestion while dismissing a plea filed by the Bar Association, Kittur, challenging the resolution of the Karnataka State Bar Council cancelling the registration of the Bar Association, Kittur, dated 07.03.2010 and recognizing the Advocates Bar Association, Channamman Kittur in its place. The Court found that there was no locus for the petitioner to file the plea.

[O.7 R.10 CPC] Defendant In A Suit Cannot File An Application For Return Of Plaint Due To Lack Of Territorial Jurisdiction: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Acharya Pathasala Educational Trust AND Rashmi Khatawakar & ANR

Case No: Writ Petition No 100173 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 76

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an application under Order 7 Rule 10 (Return of plaint) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) can be maintained only by the plaintiff and not by the defendant in a suit.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a plea by Acharya Pathasala Educational Trust by holding that "an application under Rule 10 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure can be maintained only by the plaintiff and not by the defendant.”

Conferring 'Protected Workman' Status On Delinquent Workman Facing Disciplinary Action May Encourage Others To Indulge In Such Activities: Karnataka HC

Case Title: M/s. Armstrong Design And Acmite India Manufacturing Private Limited AND The Assistant Labour Commissioner

Case No: Writ Petition No 1049/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 77

The Karnataka High Court has held that if it is proved in the disciplinary proceedings that a workman is guilty of the allegations or if a charge sheet is filed in a criminal case by the police in that event, the said workman cannot be accorded the status of “protected workman”.

A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha set aside the order passed by the Labour Commissioner on an application moved by Armstrong Design And Acmite India Manufacturing Workers Union, recognizing all five workmen including one Umesha K P, against whom departmental enquiry was initiated and later dismissed as a “protected workmen” for the year 2023-24.

[S.498A IPC] Woman Alleged Of Having Illicit Relationship With Complainant's Husband Can't Be Charged With Cruelty, Adultery No Longer An Offense: Karnataka HC

Case Title: ABC AND State By Mysuru Women Police Station & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3051 OF 2023 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2579 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case of cruelty under Section 498A IPC against a woman (accused no 9) who was alleged to be in an illicit relationship with the husband of the complainant.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the plea filed by the woman held: “The allegation against accused No.9 is nothing but adultery. The allegation also reveals that she was abating accused No.1 for committing the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Accused No.9 is not a family member or in-laws in order to implicate under Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, proceeding against accused No.9 cannot be sustainable for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC or any other offence. The Supreme Court in the case of JOSEPH SHINE Vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2019), has struck down the provision of Section 497 of IPC as violative of Articles 14, 15(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has held adultery is not an offence punishable under the IPC and it may be used for civil cases seeking remedy in the matrimonial cases."

POCSO Convict Not Entitled To Benefit Under Probation Of Offenders Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: State of Karnataka AND Prathap

Case No: Criminal Appeal No 1335 OF 2017

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 79

The Karnataka High Court has held that the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, cannot be extended to a person convicted under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).

A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil overturned the acquittal order passed by the trial court and sentenced Prathap to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 8 of the Act. It observed, “The Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is a special enactment which came into force w.e.f. 20.06.2012. This enactment is subsequent to coming into force of the Probation of Offenders Act. In the case on hand the accused is liable to be punished according to section 8 of POCSO Act which prescribes a minimum sentence of 3 years imprisonment in addition to fine. Therefore, the minimum punishment has to be imposed. The provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act do not have application.”

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Of Kerala CM's Daughter's Company Challenging SFIO Probe

Case Title: Exalogic Solutions Private Ltd AND Union of India & ANR

Case No: Writ Petition No 4268 of 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 80

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (February 16) dismissed the petition filed by Exalogic Solutions Private Ltd - a company of which Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's daughter Veena Vijayan is a director - challenging the investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against the company.

A bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Exalogic Solutions challenging the direction issued by the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs asking the SFIO to investigate the affairs of the company.

Arbitration Referred By Civil Court Without Invoking S. 11 Of Arbitration Act Doesn't Require Registration, It's Part Of Decree: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: H R Satyanarayana vs H C Suresha and Others.

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 33944 OF 2013 (GM-CPC).

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 81

The Karnataka High Court single bench comprising Justice MG Uma held that when a Civil Court refers the parties to arbitration and appoints an arbitrator without invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award merges with the decree accepted by the court, therefore, doesn't warrant to be registered and drawn on a stamp paper.

Arbitration Agreement Valid Even If It Refers To Arbitration Act, 1940 As Applicable Law: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s. ICDS Ltd vs Sri Bhaskaran Pillai and Others.

Case Number: M.F.A. NO.6319/2014 (AA)

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 82

The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice HP Sandesh held that even if an arbitration agreement erroneously refers to the 1940 Act after the enactment of the 1996 Act, it does not render the agreement invalid. It held that arbitral proceedings initiated under it before the enactment of the 1996 Act could continue under the old Act unless the parties agreed otherwise.

After Amendment Mere Reason To Believe Can't Be Ground For Carrying Out Reassessment: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Smt. Vasanthi Ramdas Pai Versus Income Tax Officer

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 8797 Of 2022 (T-IT) C/W Writ Petition No.8815 Of 2022 (T-IT)

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 83

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Assessing Officer has to be prima facie satisfied that there is “escapement of income”, unlike earlier law which permitted action based on mere reason to believe. Now mere reason to believe, cannot be a ground for carrying out assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

The bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit has observed that under the old section, the opening words were “If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year”. As against that, in the amended section, the opening words are: “If any income chargeable to tax, in the case of an assessee, has escaped assessment for any assessment year”. So, what is conspicuously missing from the new section is the term “reason to believe”.

Karnataka High Court Directs BBMP To Clear Rs 90 Crore Due Towards PF Accounts Of Powrakarmikas

Case Title: BBMP POWRAKARMIKAR SANGHA AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.16539/2022 (L-PF) C/W WRIT PETITION No.4449/2018

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 84

The Karnataka High Court has directed Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to comply with the order of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directing it to deposit an amount of Rs 90,18,89,719 towards provident fund, pension fund and insurance fund contribution for Powrakarmikas, for the period from January 2011 to July 2017.

A single judge bench of Justice KS Hemalekha dismissed the petition filed by the Corporation assailing the order of attachment dated 23.01.2018 passed by authority. The Corporation had contended that the impugned order passed by the authority is without giving any notice of hearing.

Accident Witnesses Often Don't Come Forward, Police Records Sufficient To Conclude Claimant's Injuries In Absence Of Contradictions: Karnataka HC

Case Title: The Divisional Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited AND Yunus & Others

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104098 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104099 OF 2017

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 85

The Karnataka High Court has held that unless there is some material indicating of active collusion between the injured and driver/owner of the offending vehicle to lay a false claim seeking compensation, proof in the form of police records would be sufficient enough for the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal to come to conclusion that claimant has proved his case of suffering injuries in the accident.

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda dismissed an appeal preferred by Shriram General Insurance Company challenging the validity of judgment and award passed on 30.08.2017 allowing the claim petitions filed by Yunus and others. An amount of Rs.77,350 and Rs.1,19,050 was granted respectively.

Land Acquisition | Lived Like Nomads, Couldn't Contact Advocate: Karnataka HC Asks Reference Court To Reconsider Villagers' Plea For Enhanced Award

Case Title: Annappa Appasab Mokashi & ANR AND The SLAO & ANR

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102077/2014.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 86

The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of land owners whose land was acquired by the government but their reference application seeking enhancement of compensation was disposed of for want of necessary evidence being placed on record.

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the appeal filed by Annappa Appasab Mokashi and others challenging the order passed by the Reference Court (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Athani) dated 25.11.2023 disposing of the reference application and the confirmation order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer awarding the compensation.

Self Acquired Properties Of Hindu Joint Family Member If Thrown In "Common Hotchpot" To Be Treated As Joint Family Property: Karnataka HC

Case Title: T Narayana Reddy & ANR AND Nirmala & others

Case No: Regular First Appeal No 491 OF 2016

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 87

The Karnataka High Court has held that if a member of a joint Hindu family voluntarily throws his/her self-acquired property into common hotchpot with the intention of abandoning his/her separate claim over it and render it to be of all other members as well, such a property becomes a joint family property.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja while dismissing an appeal filed by T Narayana Reddy and another said, “Partitioning of the self acquired property amongst all the members of the family by the matriarch raises a very strong presumption as to the subject properties having been put into a common hotchpot. That being the position, there is an eminent case for the invocation of the doctrine of common hotchpot.”

[Order 3 Rule 2 CPC] Trial Court Can't Prejudge Evidence Of Special Power Of Attorney While Dealing With Plaintiff's Application To Lead Evidence: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Shahen @ Hanifa AND Shivakumar Bolishetty & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 100190 OF 2021

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 88

The Karnataka High Court has said the trial court cannot assess and prejudge the evidence that would be given by the Special Power of Attorney, while considering an application made under Order III Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking permission to lead oral and documentary evidence through a special power of attorney.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “In terms of Order III Rule 2 of CPC, the option having been provided under the CPC for leading of such evidence, the assessment of evidence cannot be done at the stage of consideration of application under Order III Rule 2 of CPC. It is only after the evidence is led and the witness is cross-examined, would the court be in a position to assess whether the person, who has deposed has personal knowledge or not.”

Karnataka High Court Upholds Railway Policy To Have Base Kitchens Near Stations, Says It's A Policy Decision To Ensure Good Quality & Hygiene

Case Title: South Western Railway Catering Contractors Association AND The Union of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.4162 OF 2024 C/W WRIT PETITION No.4296 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 89

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the 2023 addendum to the Railways Catering Policy of 2017, by which Base Kitchen infrastructure and qualified and skilled manpower to handle food production have to be put in place not only at originating but also at enroute stations for ensuring good quality and hygienic food to passengers on trains.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by South Western Catering Contractors Association and others questioning the Commercial Circular notified on 14-11-2023.

Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act | Presumption Of Validity Operates In Favour Of Registered Adoption Deed, Strict Proof Not Required: Karnataka HC

Case Title: M G Purshotham & Others AND N K Srinivasan & Others

Case No: Regular Second Appeal No 498/2007

Citation NO: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 90

The Karnataka High Court has said that a strict burden of proof for an adoption cannot be insisted upon when the adoption deed is registered.

A single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh allowed an appeal filed by MG Purushotham who had challenged the order of the trial court and the first appellate court allowing the suit filed by NK Srinivasan and others, declaring him as the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and held that the adoption deed was null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

Political Party Can Be Sued For Defamation: Karnataka HC Declines To Quash Congress Legislator's Suit Against BJP Over Allegedly Defamatory Tweets

Case Title: Bharatiya Janata Party AND Rizwan Arshad

Case No: CRL.P 11213/2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 91

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea filed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) seeking to quash a defamation complaint filed by Indian National Congress Legislator Rizwan Arshad, over allegedly defamatory tweets made by the party against him, in the year 2019.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said “The tweets A and B if not C and D (as per annexures mentioned in the petition) prima facie hurt the reputation of the complainant, if they are taken at face value, assuming that they are true.”

'Not Many Takers For Seats In Ayurveda Colleges': Karnataka High Court Declines Plea For Additional Counselling Rounds To Fill Vacant Seats

Case Title: Achutha Ayurveda Medical College Hospital and Research Centre & Others AND Union of India & Others

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 92

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by 26 Ayurveda Medical Colleges seeking a direction to the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) to provide extra rounds of counselling or extend the last date for admission for students to be admitted in the colleges. A division bench of Chief Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and T G Shivashankare Gowda said,

“The classes have already commenced from November 2023. At this juncture, if the admission process is extend the last date for admission for students to be admitted in the colleges. A division bench of Chief Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and T G Shivashankare Gowda said, “The classes have already commenced from November 2023. At this juncture, if the admission process is extended, it cannot be limited only to petitioner institutions excluding other Ayurvedic Colleges across the State. This would result in discontinuance of the academic schedule and the newly admitted students would not be able to cope up with the course.”

Compassionate Appointment | Looking Into Daughter's Marital Status To Determine Her Dependency On Deceased By Itself Not Discrimination: Karnataka HC

Case Title: K Lakshmi AND Canara Bank

Case No: Writ Petition No 27347 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 93

The Karnataka High Court has held that merely because the appointing authority looked into a daughter's marital status to determine her dependency on a deceased employee will not by itself amount to gender discrimination.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum clarified that the object of compassionate appointment is firmly rooted in addressing the immediate financial crisis faced by families following the demise of a family member.

Karnataka Examination Authority Allotted MD Respiratory Seat 'Illegally': High Court Imposes Rs.1 Lakh Cost

Case Title: Dr Rajesh Kumar D AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 7951 OF 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 94

The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on Karnataka Examination Authority after holding that allotment of MD in Respiratory Medicine seat made in favour of a candidate was wholly illegal.

A division bench of Chief Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda allowed the petition filed by Dr. Rajesh Kumar D and set aside the order allotting seat to Pradeep Naik G and directed the KEA to allot the MD in Respiratory Medicine seat in favour of the petitioner and issue necessary orders in that behalf within two weeks.

Citing Weak Socio-Economic Background Of Accused & Survivor, Karnataka High Court Quashes POCSO Case Over Consensual Relationship With Minor

Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No 13469 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 95

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the criminal prosecution initiated against a 20-year old youth for allegedly marrying a minor girl and committing sexual intercourse, leading to her giving birth to a child.

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by the youth who was charged under Sections 366(A), 376(1) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

Fast Track Courts & Alternate Dispute Resolution Not Sufficient To Reduce Burden, Courts Should Curb Abuse Of Legal Procedures: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Shivappa AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No 100280 OF 2022.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 96

The Karnataka High Court has observed that Courts should be very conscious and unless it is satisfied that the material evidence placed before it warrants exercise of power under Section 216 (Court may alter charge), the powers under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. should not be exercised.

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said “Abuse of legal procedure is one of the major factors for delay in disposal of cases. Unless the Courts dispense with such procedures which are totally unnecessary and causes no prejudice to the parties if they are dispensed with, it would not be possible for the Courts to take effective steps for speedy disposal of the cases.”

It added “Providing Fast Track Court and use of Alternate Dispute Resolution, is not sufficient to reduce the burden of the Courts. The courts have to be proactive and they are not only required to dispense with unnecessary procedures but are also required to ensure that legal procedures are not abused.”

UAPA | Article 21 Can't Be Stretched To Protect Those Posing A Threat To Nation's Sovereignty & Integrity: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mazin Abdul Rahman

Case No: Criminal Appeal No 2248 of 2023.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 97

The Karnataka High Court while dismissing an appeal by an accused charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, said “Article 21 cannot be stretched too long to afford protection to persons who have least concern for rule of law and pose threat to sovereignty and integrity of the nation.”

A division bench of Justices Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the appeal filed by accused Mazin Abdul Rahman who is charged with sections 120B, 121, 121A of IPC and sections 18, 20 and 38 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, for being associated with banned terrorist outfit Islamic State (IS), challenging the order of the special court refusing bail to him.

Passport Authority Can't Refuse Renewal/ Re-Issue Citing Pending Criminal Investigation Where Cognizance Is Not Yet Taken: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sharath Chandrasekhar AND Union of India

Case No: Writ Petition No 18066 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 98

The Karnataka High Court has held that Passport authorities cannot deny re-issuance/renewal of passport to those passport holders against whom pending criminal cases are at the stage of investigation, and the concerned court has not yet taken cognizance of the offence.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna directed the authorities to act in accordance with the clarification issued vide Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs wherein it is clarified that mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation do not come under the purview of Section 6(2)(f) (of the Passport Act) and that criminal proceedings would only be considered pending against an applicant if a case has been registered before any Court of law and the court has taken cognizance of the same.

The bench said “it is expected of the Passport Authorities to act in accordance with the clarification as obtaining in the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 and not drive every passport holder to knock at the doors of this Court, for redressal of their grievance.”

S.32(5) Of Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act For Formation Of New Layouts Not Applicable To Single Plot Development: High Court

Case Title: Sikandar AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 677 OF 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 99

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a private person is not required to forego portion of his land for the formation of the public road without receiving any compensation from the authorities.

A single judge bench of Justice M I Arun allowed the petition filed by Sikandar and said “Respondent 4 (The Commissioner, Tumakuru Urban Development Authority) and 5 (The Commission Tumakuru Mahanagara Palike) are directed to pass necessary award and compensate the petitioner or owner of the property, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, which is used/intended to be used for formation of the road.”

S.222 CrPC | Minor Offence Should Be Cognate Of Major Offence, Can't Be Entirely Different Constituted By Different Ingredients: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Junaid B AND State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Appeal No 1328 of 2012.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 100

The Karnataka High Court has held that a minor offence within the meaning of Section 222 CrPC would not be something independent of the main offence or an offence merely involving lesser punishments. The minor offence should be composed of some of the ingredients constituting the main offence and be a part of it, Court said.

A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar said, “In other words the minor offence should essentially be a cognate offence of the major offence and not entirely a distinct and different offence constituted by altogether different ingredients.”

Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act | Right To Vote & Contest Available To Member Does Not Automatically Pass On To Legal Representative: High Court

Case Title: Chinnammayya AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 1805 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 101

The Karnataka High Court has held that a nominee or a legal representative of a member of a Co–operative Society, who is admitted as a member after the death of a member, cannot vote and contest in the election to the Board of a Co-operative Society or a general meeting, if he has not completed one year after being admitted as a member.

A single judge bench of Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde dismissed a petition filed by one Chinnammayya who made a claim to vote at the elections held by Begihalli Milk Producers Co-operative Societies Ltd and challenged the decision of the Society which included her in the ineligible voter's list.

Tubectomy & Vasectomy Serve The Same Purpose Of Preventing Further Childbirth: Karnataka HC Directs KPTCL To Encash Rtd Employee's Privilege Leave

Case Title: A Alice AND Karnataka Transmission Corporation Limited

Case No: Writ Petition No 33653 OF 2014

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 102

The Karnataka High Court has directed State's Power Transmission Corporation to encash 90 days unavailed privileged leave sanctioned for maternity care to a retired woman employee, which was forfeited from the terminal benefits on the grounds that the requirement of her husband undergoing vasectomy was not met with.

A Single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by A Alice and granted her liberty to make a fresh representation to the Superintendent Engineer, BESCOM and seek 90 days encashment of privilege leave which was forfeited.

Karnataka HC Refuses Parole To Serial Killer Umesh Reddy, Says Competing Public Interest Can't Be Ignored Especially In Case Of Life Convict

Case Title: B A Umesh AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 23950 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 103

The Karnataka High Court has said that in cases where the convicts are undergoing life imprisonment, competing public interest cannot be ignored while considering their application seeking parole.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by convict BA Umesh alias Umesh Reddy, a serial killer seeking 30 days parole to attend to his ailing mother and carry out repairs to her house.

The court said “It is not that in every case, one should be granted parole for the asking. Both sides of the coin will have to be considered, one, the necessity for grant of parole ingrained in the reformation theory of sentencing the other, competing public interest. Particularly in cases where the convicts are undergoing life imprisonment the other side of the coin cannot be ignored.”

Court Fee Payable In Landlord's Eviction Suit Can't Include Security Deposit Which Is To Be Refunded To Tenant Upon Vacating Premises: Karnataka HC

Case Title: B Mohammed Kunhi & ANR AND Abdul Saleem Hassan

Case No: Civil Revision Petition no 461 OF 2019

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 104

The Karnataka High Court has held that in a suit filed by a landlord for evicting a tenant, the landlord is required to pay a Court fee on the rent payable and not include the security deposit which is an advance paid by the tenant to the landlord.

A single judge bench of Justice M I Arun said “In a suit filed by the landlord for evicting the tenant, he is required to pay a Court fee on the rents payable and cannot take into consideration the security deposit, which are the advance amounts paid which he is required to refund to the tenant upon the tenant vacating the premises concerned.”

Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines To Be Followed While Reopening Self-Assessment Of Property Tax

Case Title: Shariff Constructions AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & ANR

Case No: Writ Petition No 1867 of 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 105

The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) while reopening self-assessment of property tax against property owners where returns are not filed and in cases of random scrutiny.

A single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav said “It is noticed that in most of the petitions filed by the property owners, the contention that is taken is that the demand notice raised as well as the show cause notice issued, are not preceded by the procedure stipulated under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 and accordingly, it is submitted that unless there is an inspection in their presence, the consequential notices and orders are required to be set aside.”

Further it said, “In light of numerous petitions filed questioning the correctness of the procedure followed by BBMP while reopening the self-assessment returns, need has arisen to lay down the procedure that is required to be followed in cases of reopening self-assessment where returns are not filed and in cases of random scrutiny.”