Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: October 2024 [Citations: 421 - 453]

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 421 to 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 453

Nominal Index:

Arafath Ali @ Arafath AND National Investigation Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 421

Sanjana Raghunath AND Karnataka Examination Authority & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 422

Roshan A AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 423

Vishwanath Koraga Shetty AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 424

Reserve Bank of India & ANR AND Sanjukumar & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 425

M/S Patanjali Foods Limited (Formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Limted) vs. Commissioner of Customs. 2024 LiveLaw (kar) 426

Kesar Colour Chem Industries vs. Intelligence Officer. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 427

B J Rajni & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 428

The Legal Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited AND Nagamma & Others and Smt Nagamma and Others AND Sri P Penkatesh and others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 429

M S Praveen Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 430

S Bsavaraj AND Bar Council of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 431

Arunkumar AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 432

Pradosh S Rao AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 433

Vishwanath Basappa Batti AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 434

Nagabhushana B AND Registrar General & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 435

Bangalore Development Authority & Anr and Sachin Nagarajappa and another matter. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 436

Vishal Khatwani AND State of Karnataka.2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 437

Keerthan Kumar & Anr AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 438

Veermachaneni Raghavendra Prasad AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 439XXX AND Azim Premji University & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 440

Canara Bank AND Subramanya Rao K & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 441

State of Karnataka & Others AND H S Kanthi. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 442

Saikat Bhatacharyya AND Union of India.2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 443

ALL INDIA DALIT ACTION COMMITTEE ® AND Rahul Gandhi & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 444

Prajwal Revanna v. State of Karnataka and other petitions. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 445

M/s Steel Rocks INC & ANR AND M/S. BANGALORE ELEVATED TOLLWAY PVT. LTD & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 446

B Gopal Krishna & ANR AND District Commissioner, District Appropriate Authority & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 447

Krishna Naik AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 448

BHIMAPPA GUNDAPPA GADAD AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 449.

Lalji Kesha Vaid AND Dayanand R. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 450

G V Prasad & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 451

Mohammed Shiyab AND National Investigating Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 452

Akash Jaiswal AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 453

Judgments/Orders

Individual Not Greater Than Country, Personal Liberty Subservient To National Interest: Karnataka HC Denies Bail To Alleged ISIS Operative

Case Title: Arafath Ali @ Arafath AND National Investigation Agency

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 704 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 421

The Karnataka High Court has observed that whenever national interest is involved or a challenge is posed to unity, sovereignty and integrity of the nation, individual liberty recedes to background, as an individual is not greater than the Nation where he has taken birth.

A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice J M Khazi made the observation while rejecting the bail petition filed by accused Arafath Ali @ Arafath, who is charged under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and IPC, for allegedly radicalising the youth and promoting the ideology of Islamic State (ISIS).

Pay ₹10 Lakh To MBBS Student Who Was Denied Sports Quota Seat Despite Representing India Abroad In Chess Tournament: Karnataka HC To State

Case Title: Sanjana Raghunath AND Karnataka Examination Authority & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.18327 of 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 422

The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to pay Rs 10 lakhs as compensation to an MBBS student and chess player, who was wrongly denied a seat under sports quota even though she had represented India abroad in Chess Competitions, compelling her to take admission in a private college on a private seat.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind while disposing of a petition by one Sanjana Raghunath in its order said, “The participation of the petitioner in Asian Youth Chess Championship 2018 is while representing India. Further, the winning in Asian Youth Chess Championship 2018 is in a Super-A game under Schedule–II to Rule 2006. The petitioner is therefore declared to be eligible to be categorised as P-I, and the categorization of the petitioner as P-V was wrong in view of the Rules and the same is unsustainable.”

Terrorist Activities Are Perpetrated By Fanatics To Achieve Religious Supremacy, Must Blame Themselves If They Get Into Trouble: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Roshan A AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 7897 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 423

The Karnataka High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Central Government to hand over the investigation in the alleged murder case of one Harsha at Shivamogga, to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice J M

Khazi, dismissed the petition filed by one Roshan A who is an accused in the case. The court said, “If according to the petitioner, the sanction order was issued without applying mind or is invalid for any other reason, the same has to be thrashed out by the trial court after recording evidence.”

Karnataka HC Quashes Murder Case Against Accused To Save Judicial Time After Witnesses Turned Hostile In Separate Trial Against Co-Accused

Case Title: Vishwanath Koraga Shetty AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9746 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 424

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a murder case against an accused after the co-accused in the case who were tried while the accused was absconding, came to be acquitted by the trial court.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Vishwanath Koraga Shetty and quashed the proceedings pending against him for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 120B, 302, 201 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

Adhere To 2017 Notification On Production Of Demonitized Currency, So It Can Be Exchanged As Legal Tender: Karnataka HC To Trial Courts

Case Title: Reserve Bank of India & ANR AND Sanjukumar & ANR

Case No: WA 200185 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 425

The Karnataka High Court has asked trial courts, before whom demonetized banknotes have been produced by investigating agencies on or before December 30, 2016, to follow the procedure for releasing the notes mentioned in Centre's 2017 notification, so that concerned persons can exchange it for legal tender.

A division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar in its order said “Unless there is adherence to the requirements of the notification strictly, parties to the litigation would be prejudiced irreparably without any lapse on their part. Accordingly, the investigating agencies and the Courts are to adhere to the requirements of the notification dated 12.05.2017 strictly.”

Ruchi Soya (Patanjali) – Claim Not Included In Approved Resolution Plan Stand Extinguished : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S Patanjali Foods Limited (Formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Limted) vs. Commissioner of Customs

Case No.: CSTA No. 4 of 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (kar) 426

The Karnataka High Court division bench comprising Mr. Justice S.G. Pandit and Mr. Justice C.M. Poonacha has held that once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), claims which are not included in the resolution plan are extinguished, and no further proceedings can be initiated against the corporate debtor in respect of such claims. The Court also clarified that Rule 22 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which deals with abatement of appeal upon death, adjudication as insolvent or winding-up, does not apply when a resolution plan has been approved as the objective of a resolution plan is to continue the business of the company as “a going concern.”

Recovery By Department During Pendency Of Investigation In The Name Of 'Self-Ascertainment Of Tax' U/S 74 CGST Act Is Violative To Art 265: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Kesar Colour Chem Industries vs. Intelligence Officer

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 17853 of 2021

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 427

The Karnataka High Court held that voluntary determination by the assessee himself as regards the liability of tax, is sine qua non for 'self-ascertainment of tax' under CGST Act.

The High Court therefore clarified that when notice sought to be issued u/s 74(1) indicate a fresh and complete adjudication and does not refer to short fall of actual tax required to be paid as contemplated u/s 74(7), the State itself is estopped from contending that there was self-ascertainment by the assessee.

'Heart Of Cardio Institute Itself Not In Right Place': Karnataka HC While Regularising Service Of Nurses Engaged On Contract Since 20 Yrs

Case Title: B J Rajni & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12683 OF 2023 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 12691 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 428

The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of Ten Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) working on contractual basis for over 20 years in Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research, by directing that their services be regularised from the date they completed 10 years of service.

A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda allowed the petitions filed by B J Rani and others and said “Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have worked for more than 20 years, it would be just and necessary to direct the respondents to regularise the services of petitioners from the date they completed 10 years of service. The respondents shall not take into consideration the renewal break of a day or two while computing this period of 10 years.”

Insurer Has To Pay Claimants, Recover Amount From Vehicle Owner In Absence Of Valid Permit At The Time Of Accident: Karnataka HC Reiterates

Case Title: The Legal Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited AND Nagamma & Others and Smt Nagamma and Others AND Sri P Penkatesh and others

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7089 OF 2016 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6824 OF 2016.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 429

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that even though the vehicle which causes an accident does not hold a valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount due to the claimants and recover it from the vehicle's owner.

A single judge bench of Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda refused to accept the contention of Shriram General Insurance Company Limited that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was plying on the road without valid permit and fitness certificate. The court rejected the company's argument that since a "fundamental breach" on vehicle owner's part is "demonstrated", so the Insurance Company can avoid its "liability completely" and its for the owner to pay the compensate the claimant.

Party Cannot Mount Fresh Challenge Against Land Grant Order Or Claim Title Over Property In Review Plea: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M S Praveen Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1713 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 430

The Karnataka High Court has said that parties cannot be permitted to mount a fresh challenge to a land grant order which has been duly upheld by the coordinate Bench, under the guise of a review petition.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed a petition filed by one M S Praveen Kumar and said, “Allowing such a challenge would not only undermine the established legal tenets but also threaten the stability of property rights that rely on judicial finality.”

Bar Council Of India Cannot Issue Gag Orders Restraining Speech Of Advocates Or Its Members: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: S Bsavaraj AND Bar Council of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.11480 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 431

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) does not have the power to issue gag orders restraining the speech of Advocates or even the members of the Bar Council.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The Chairman of the Bar Council of India ostensibly cannot pass any such gag order which takes away the fundamental right of any Advocate. The power of the Courts either competent civil court or the constitutional Court, cannot be permitted to be usurped by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, as is done in the case at hand.”

Registration Of FIR U/S 154 CrPC After BNSS Came Into Force Not A Curable Defect: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Arunkumar AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200913 OF 2024.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 432

The Karnataka High Court has held that from July 1, 2024 onwards when the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) came into force, the police registering an FIR under the repealed Criminal Procedure Code, is incorrect.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan, sitting at Kalaburagi bench, allowed the petition filed by Arunkumar and quashed the FIR registered against him under Section 376, 323, 506 and 420 of Indian Penal Code on July 1.

The court said “The FIR registered by the Lingasugur police in Crime No.180/2024 under Section 154 of Cr.P.C is hereby quashed. However, the complaint filed by the de-facto complainant is retained and remitted back to the police to register the FIR under Section 173 of BNSS and proceed to investigate the matter under BNSS and file a final report under Section 193 of BNSS.”

Can't Shift Undertrials From One Prison To Another At Whims And Fancies Of Prosecution: Karnataka HC In Murder Case Involving Actor Darshan

Case Title: Pradosh S Rao AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23848 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 433

The Karnataka High Court has directed the prison authorities to re-shift one of the accused involved in the Renukaswamy murder case in which Kannada actor Darshan Thoogdeep Srinivas is also an accused, to the Central Prison, Bengaluru from Belagavi Central Prison.

Accused Darshan was recently spotted sitting along with other prisoners inside the prison and sipping coffee and smoking. His photographs went viral on social media. Following which a requisition came to be made before the Magistrate for shifting all the accused involved in the case.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Pradosh S Rao who is accused no. 14 in the case and set aside the order of the Magistrate court permitting his transfer.

Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Refusal Of Interim Injunction If Decided After Hearing All Parties: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Vishwanath Basappa Batti AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 202681 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 434

The Karnataka High Court has said that only an appeal can be filed against an order refusing interim injunction if the order is passed after hearing all the parties to the proceedings and a writ petition challenging the same is not maintainable.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Vishwanath Baati.

The petitioner had sought for issuance of writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned order passed by the trial court on the application made under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and allow his application.

Karnataka HC Grants Relief To Court Officer, Directs Authority To Consider His Claim For Reimbursing Emergency Medical Expenses

Case Title: Nagabhushana B AND Registrar General & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17956 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 435

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that government servants are entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at non-empanelled private hospitals provided they were referred there by a recognized government hospital.

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Nagabhushana B, an Assistant Court officer, who had questioned the order rejecting his application seeking reimbursement of the amount.

Karnataka HC Upholds Power Of Bangalore Development Authority To Reject Auction Bid Without Giving Reasons Under Commercial Site Rules

Case Title: Bangalore Development Authority & Anr and Sachin Nagarajappa and another matter

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 593 OF 2024 (BDA) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 883 OF 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 436

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the power of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to accept or reject the bid made by a successful bidder for sites auctioned by it, without assigning any reasons.

A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice G Basavaraja said, “The act and conduct of the BDA appears to be bona fide and in the interest of public and also to the benefit of BDA, which in turn, is for the benefit of the general public.”

Karnataka HC Issues Guidelines To Trial Court For Release Of Property Like Mobile Phones, Laptops Seized During Criminal Case Investigation

Case Title: Vishal Khatwani AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.RP No.210/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 437

The Karnataka High court has issued model guidelines to be followed by the trial courts while dealing with release of the seized properties either under Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., or under Section 497 of BNSS, till the State Government issues directions in this regard.

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda in its order said, “State Government is required to frame necessary rules which would be in consonance with the power of the Court for disposal of all the seized properties including the electronic devices, digital devices, seized medical samples, food items, adulterated petroleum products which are highly inflammable in nature, perishable objects, precious metals like gold and silver etc.”

Shouting 'Jai Sriram' Inside Mosque Doesn't Outrage Religious Feelings: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case

Case Title: Keerthan Kumar & Anr AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 25591 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 438

Quashing a case against two men accused of an offence under IPC Section 295A for allegedly shouting 'Jai Sriram' in a mosque, the Karnataka High Court said it was not understandable how the slogan would outrage the religious feelings of any class.

This the high court said after noting that the complainant in the case had himself said that Hindus and Muslims were living in harmony in the concerned area. It further said that as no ingredients of the offences alleged were made out, permitting further proceedings against the petitioners would become an abuse of process of law. The two men were booked under various IPC offences including Sections 447(Punishment for criminal trespass), 505(Statements conducing to public mischief), 506(Punishment for criminal intimidation), 34 (common intention) and 295A.

Karnataka High Court Dismisses PIL To Display MRP Of Tractors, Other Agricultural Equipments On Companies' Websites And Govt Portal

Case Title: Veermachaneni Raghavendra Prasad AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WP 25025/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 439

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to the Central Government to make it compulsory for all manufacturers of Agricultural equipments and of Tractors, to mention the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of their products and to display the same in the showroom and website and on the government managed agricultural portal.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by one Veramachaneni Raghavendra Prasad, saying “By the very nature of the subject matter of grievance and prayer made it is evident that the subject matter travels in the realm of executive action for enforcement of rule or law by enacting them by competent law making authority. The court would not like to enter into the area of executive functions.”

Karnataka High Court Asks All Universities, Colleges To Consider Framing 'Mental Health And Anti-Discrimination Policy' For Students

Case Title: XXX AND Azim Premji University & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14743 OF 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 440

The Karnataka High Court has suggested Universities and Colleges, private or government, to formulate Mental Health Policy and Anti-discrimination policy, so as to prevent and address the serious and deleterious effects these sensitive issues may have on the lives of students.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj appreciated the steps taken by Azim Premji University in formulating and implementing the policies and said, “This action on part of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 would also be required to be emulated by all other Universities and Colleges private or government, so as to prevent and address the serious and deleterious effects these sensitive issues may have on the lives of students, many a time resulting in suicides and other socially abnormal behaviour which impacts not only students, and their immediate family, but also the community as a whole, including the teacher and student community thus requiring to be handled with the care and sensitivity that it deserves.”

[SARFAESI Act] Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Is Statutory Consequence If Auction Purchaser Fails To Deposit Balance Within Time: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Canara Bank AND Subramanya Rao K & ANR

Case No: WA 349/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 441

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that when an auction purchaser fails to deposit the balance amount within the statutory period prescribed under the SARFAESI Act, despite having been granted an extension, the forfeiture of his earnest money deposit is a statutory consequence.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while allowing an appeal filed by Canara Bank and set aside the single judge bench's January 12 order by which it had directed the Bank to return the earnest money amount of Rs.3.25 crores to the respondents (original petitioners before the single judge bench).

Administrative Tribunal Cannot Alter Punishment Unless It Records That Dismissal Was Disproportionate To Charges Levelled: Karnataka HC

Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others AND H S Kanthi

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1647/2020

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 442

The Karnataka High Court has held that unless a finding is recorded that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on a government employee is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal will not get jurisdiction to substitute the punishment.

A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice C M Poonacha allowed the petition filed by the State of Karnataka and set aside an order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, modifying the punishment of dismissal imposed on one H S Kanti, a former Typist to compulsory retirement.

Voluntary/Confessional Statement Made U/S 67 Of NDPS Act Cannot Be Used As Evidence Against Accused: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Saikat Bhatacharyya AND Union of India.

Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 443

The Karnataka High Court recently allowed a petition filed by a 25-year-old and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act (NDPS), after a parcel containing ganja was seized from a courier company having his mobile number on it.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Saikat Bhatacharyya and quashed the proceedings under section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(A), 23(a), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of the Act.

The court said “The proceedings against the petitioner cannot be permitted to be continued, as there is not an iota of corroboration that would pin down the petitioner to the offences, except the voluntary/confessional statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 67 of the Act, which is clearly hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.”

Resolution Professional At S.94/95 Stage Cannot Decide On Maintainability Of Petition By Entering Into Merits: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manyata Realty & Ors.

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.498 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 443

The Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and K.V. Aravind, held that the role of the Registrar while registering the application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is not adjudicatory in nature and this duty of the Registrar, NCLT was in no way adjudicatory trapping. Application of judicial mind towards merits has no place in discharge of a ministerial or clerical function.

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Against Rahul Gandhi For 'Disrespecting' Remarks On Women In Relation To Prajwal Revanna Videos

Case Title: ALL INDIA DALIT ACTION COMMITTEE ® AND Rahul Gandhi & Others

Case No: WP 20712/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 444

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (October 21) dismissed a public interest litigation seeking action against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for making alleged objectionable comments during a public speech, stating that "mass rape" had been committed by former Hassan MP Prajwal Revanna.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by All India Dalit Action Committee which had also sought a direction to Gandhi to tender an unconditional apology to the women for the said "unconstitutional speeches".

Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Suspended Janta Dal (S) Leader Prajwal Revanna In Rape and Sexual Assault Case

Case Title: Prajwal Revanna v. State of Karnataka and other petitions

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 6401/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 445

The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed the bail and anticipatory pleas of suspended Janta Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna who has been arrested on the allegations of rape and sexual assault.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna had reserved the order in the bail pleas, after hearing the parties.

On September 19, had reserved its order on the bail application (first case) filed by suspended Janta Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna who has been arrested on the allegations of rape and sexual assault. On September 26, the court had reserved its order on the two anticipatory bail applications filed by Revanna.

Mere Change Of Counsel Not Enough To Permit Recall Of Witness U/S 311 CrPC: Karnataka High Court Reaffirms

Case Title: M/s Steel Rocks INC & ANR AND M/S. BANGALORE ELEVATED TOLLWAY PVT. LTD & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4877 OF 2024.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 446

While hearing a matter concerning cheque bouncing, the Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that a mere change of counsel cannot be a ground to recall the witness for further cross examination under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

For context, Section 311 grants a court the power to summon material witnesses, or examine persons present. The high court further observed that a plea moved under Section 311 can't be permitted as a matter of course, as recalling of witnesses cannot be permitted at the very end of a trial.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna in its October 21 order said,

“On a coalesce of the law elucidated by the Apex Court what would unmistakably emerge is that, it is not a matter of course that an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., should be permitted. Mere change of counsel cannot be a ground to recall the witness. The application must contain details as to why the witness is required to be recalled. Recalling of witnesses should not be permitted at the fag end of the trial".

Authority Must Dispose Of Applications To Renew Registration Of Clinical Labs Within 1 Month, Failing Which Labs Can't Be Held Liable: Karnataka HC

Case Title: B Gopal Krishna & ANR AND District Commissioner, District Appropriate Authority & Others

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6934 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 447

The Karnataka High Court has set a deadline of one month for the competent authority to dispose of the application filed seeking renewal of a clinical laboratory under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 failing which registration of crime for the offence of non-registration cannot become an offence, against those clinics.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by B Gopala Krishna & Another and quashed the offence registered against them under 23, 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2), 20(3) of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act.

Karnataka High Court Declines To Quash Cheating Case Against Sculptor For Doing "Shoddy Job" Of Designing Statue For Theme Park

Case Title: Krishna Naik AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6159 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 448

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a cheating case registered against Krishna Naik, accused of unscientifically erecting a 33-foot statue of Parashurama inside a theme park in Udupi district, which had to be brought down after a few months of erection.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition and said, “Though the petitioner was entrusted with the work of sculpting the statue scientifically according to specifications and within time frame, in the theme park before the inauguration day, he has done a shoddy job, prima facie.”

'Misconceived': Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL Seeking 'Separate Flag' For The State

Case Title: BHIMAPPA GUNDAPPA GADAD AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 26739/2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 449.

The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a separate flag for the State. A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed observed, “Matters of grievance of such nature would hardly fall within the domain of the court jurisdiction, much less in the realm of public interest jurisdiction. The petition is misconceived and dismissed.”

Cheque Bounce Complaint U/S 138 NI Act Maintainable Even If Civil Suit For Recovery Is Instituted: Karnataka High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Lalji Kesha Vaid AND Dayanand R

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.331 OF 2022.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 450

The Karnataka High Court has held that a complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be maintainable, notwithstanding the civil suit filed for recovery of the money.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus white dismissing a petition filed by one Lalji Kesha Vaid. It said “The complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act would be maintainable, notwithstanding recovery proceedings initiated by institution of a civil Suit, though both spring from the same cause of action.”

Death By Negligence | Prosecution U/S 304A IPC Not Permissible If Offence U/S 92 Of Factories Act Already Initiated: Karnataka HC

Case Title: G V Prasad & ANR AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200662 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 451

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that initiating prosecution under Section 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code, against the owners/manager of a factory is impermissible when already prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, has been initiated.

A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the petitioner filed by G. V Prasad and another and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Section 304-A of IPC.

The court said, “This Court is of the considered view that prosecution under Section 304-A of IPC against the petitioners while prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, is initiated, is not permissible, as there cannot be a parallel or simultaneous prosecution in respect of the very same incident, in view of the punishment provided under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.”

Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Nixing Murder Accused's Plea For Trial Courts To Affix Initials On Each Page Of Case Diary

Case Title: Mohammed Shiyab AND National Investigating Agency

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 452

The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order which dismissed the plea of a murder accused seeking a direction to the trial courts to affix their signature or initials on every page of the case diary maintained by the investigation agencies when produced before it, to prevent any tampering and fabrication.

In doing so the court said it can only interpret the law and not enact it in the guise of interpretation, when no such provision for signing the case diary was provided in the relevant law.

Karnataka HC Quashes Criminal Case Against Pilot Under Aircraft Act After Plane Flown By Him Toppled During Take Off

Case Title: Akash Jaiswal AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9224 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 453

The Karnataka High Court has said that an offence under Section 11 of the Aircraft Act is not maintainable unless a complaint is filed with prior sanction to prosecute from the competent authority.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus and allowed the petition filed by a pilot Akash Jaiswal against and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Section 11A.

As per the prosecution Jaiswal was flying an aircraft at Jakkur Aerodrome in 2020 and at the time of take off, the flight veered to the left side and due to such veering, toppled. However, no injuries to any person nor to the petitioner were recorded.