- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Karnataka High Court
- /
- Karnataka High Court Quarterly...
Karnataka High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March, 2024 [Citations: 1-156]
Mustafa Plumber
15 April 2024 12:00 PM IST
![Karnataka High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March, 2024 [Citations: 1-156]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/04/01/750x450_531493-karnataka-high-court-quarterly-digest-2024.webp "Karnataka High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March, 2024 [Citations: 1-156]")
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 001 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156Nominal Index:Raghvendraraddi Shivaraddi Naduvinamani AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 1H B Bhagyalakshmi AND Cheluvamma. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 2Late H.H. Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 3Hemanth Raju AND Punitha H J and Another. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 4ABC AND State...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 001 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Nominal Index:
Raghvendraraddi Shivaraddi Naduvinamani AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
H B Bhagyalakshmi AND Cheluvamma. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
Late H.H. Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
Hemanth Raju AND Punitha H J and Another. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
Channabasappa Hosmani AND Parvatevva alias Kasturevva & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
Jagdeep Rao AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
M/S. V.K. Niranjan And Co Versus Commissioner Of Service Tax. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar)8
Adarsh Developers Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
H Manjunath AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
All India HDPE/PP Woven Fabric Manufacturers Association AND The Secretary Government of India, Competition Commission of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad AND Government of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
Sanjay M Peerapur & Another & Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
H T Munikumar & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
ANI Technologies Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
Gururaj Jeevan Rao And State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
Nagaraj AND The Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
G R Medical College Hospital and Research Centre AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
M/S Hatsoff Helicopter Training P Limited Versus State Of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath AND Ganesha & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
Sharadha L Dodmani AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
Shrishail AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
M/s Thakur Industries AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
Koshy Varghese AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
Mudiyappa AND Basavaraj @ Basappa & Others 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
Shrikant Bhat AND The State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
Harish K B AND Ponnamma & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
Sadatulla Syed AND National Investigation Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
Ramesh Timmanna Umarani AND The Sub-Registrar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
Nanjundappa & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 32
Vihaan Peethambar AND Manipal University. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
Dr Rajini C K AND The State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
Raktima Khanum AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
The New India Assurance Company Limited AND Sadika & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
Anjinamma & Others AND Mohammed Sajjad Sait & ANR . 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
M/s Ownpath Learning Private Limited AND State By Intelligence Officer & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
K L Shivanna AND Deputy Commissioner, Tumkuru District. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
M/s Achiever Agri India (P) Ltd & Others AND State By Sub Inspector Hebbagodi Police Station & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
Master Thejas & Another AND C R Babu. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
ABC AND Union of India. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
Chikkanna AND Karnataka State Bar Council & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
SHREE RAMACHANDRAPURA MATH AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
Aishwaryagiri Constructions PVT Ltd AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
M/s ICICI Lombard Company Ltd AND Ms Harshitha B & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
Management of M/s Tata Advanced System Limited AND The Secretary To Department of Labour & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
K T Suresh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 49
K Sajan Aiyappa AND Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Kodogu District. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 50
Manikeppa Helavar AND The State Through Mudhol P.S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 51
Anurag Bagaria Versus The Income Tax Department. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 52
ABC AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
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
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
Dr Lata Krishnaraddi Mankali AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
Hemachandra M Kuppalli AND M/s R.B.Green Field & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & ANR AND K.N. Ningegowda & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
Arunkumar R & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
Umashankara C & Others AND Registrar General & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
XXX AND The Registrar General & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association & Another AND State of Karnataka & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
Dhanayya & Others AND Chandrashekhar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
Jayapal K M AND The Management of Shakti Precision Components (India) Limited. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
C Girish Naik & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
Razorpay Software Private Limited AND Union of India. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
Sunl G & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
D N Bhagya AND D A Mallikarjuna & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
Abdul Khader & ANR AND Tasleem Jamela Agadi & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
DR SHIVAMURTHY MURUGHA SHARANARU AND STATE BY KARNATAKA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
G Hemanth Chandra AND M/s Infrathon Projects Pvt Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
A.H.Makandar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
Mohammed Farughuddin AND Ramchandra Balu Shinde & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd Suvarna News 24/7 & Others AND Divya Spandana @ Ramya. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
State Of Karnataka & Others AND National Commission For Schedule Caste. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
Mahesh AND Ishwar & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 129
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 130
M/S MARGADARSI CHITS (K) PVT. LTD AND H SRINIVAS REDDY & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
Bhuvaneshwari AND Prashanth Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 132.
Alfa S AND The Chief Secretary & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
Nawaz Pasha & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
Mohammed Jabir AND National Investigation Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
Dr Madhukar G Angur AND Directorate of Enforcement. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
Sudha Katwa AND The Registrar General & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
Abdul Basheer & Others AND Inspector General of Police (Prisons) & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
State of Karnataka & Others And REGISTERED UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION KARNATAKA & others.2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
Jayashree AND Mahaningappa & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
N M Suresh AND Sudeep S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
Amith M Jain AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
Althaf Ahamed AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
THIMMAPPA AND THE STATE BY HOLALKERE POLICE. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
Veeranna G Tigadi AND High Court of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
Dr. Sridhara S AND The Director Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
Thimmappa & Others AND Bharathi. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
Ravi Kumar & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Authority & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
Ramanjaneyulu & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
Dr Yogananda A AND The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
Pooja AND Siddanna & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
Yathish M G AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
M/S. Mvr Constructions Vs M/S. V.M.R Constructions And Others.2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
M/s Bellary Nirmithi Kendra v. M/s Capital Metal Industries, Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
M/S Durga Projects Inc Vs Sri. B.G. Babu Reddy. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Raghvendraraddi Shivaraddi Naduvinamani AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 100721 of 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
The Karnataka High Court recently obliterated rape charges levelled against a man but directed him to pay Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance to the child born out of the consensual relationship which he had with the lady, whom he allegedly lured on the promise of marriage.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition filed by one Raghvendraraddi Shivaraddi Naduvinamani and quashed the charges of rape under Section 376 IPC, but continued proceedings against him under sections 506, 417 and 420 of the Code.
It said,“In the peculiar facts of this case, as it is found that the petitioner is the biological father of the child, he cannot now show a hands off to the responsibility of the child which is born to him albeit, till the conclusion of the trial. I therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay maintenance to the child at Rs.10,000 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial.”
Case Title: H B Bhagyalakshmi AND Cheluvamma
Case No: Criminal Appeal No 2104 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
The Karnataka High Court has held that when the drawer of the cheque signs and issues a blank cheque to the complainant, if any alteration appears on the body of the cheque, such alterations need not require the consent of the drawer of the cheque.
A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah made the observation while allowing the appeal filed by a school teacher H B Bhagyalakshmi and setting aside the acquittal of Cheluvamma from offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: Late H.H. Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 1678 OF 2015.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
The Karnataka High Court has declared that land reserved for public use such as parks, cemeteries, etc., in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, loses such reservation if not acquired within five years.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that when such designation lapses, if the land owner wants to make use of the land for a different purpose than for which it was designated, then they would have to apply under Section 69(3) of the KTCP Act for consideration of new land use proposed by the owner, which would be considered based on the surrounding developments after inviting objections from the general public and would be considered in a meeting of the Authority.
Case Title: Hemanth Raju AND Punitha H J and Another
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 6841 OF 2013.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
The Karnataka High Court has held that in a motor accident if the total amount for repairs is not reimbursed by the insurer of the damaged vehicle, the claimant will have every right to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to seek an order for payment of the balance amount from the insurer of the offending vehicle.
A single judge bench of Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha partly allowed the appeal of one such claimant, a taxi owner, against the Tribunal's order rejecting his claim.
It said,“The claimant cannot claim the same amount which he received from his insurer towards damages to the vehicle again from the insurer of the offending vehicle. However, if the total amount is not reimbursed by his insurer, the claimant will have every right to seek the Tribunal to order for payment of the balance amount from the insurer of the offending vehicle.”
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: W.P.H.C NO. 43 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by a father residing in the USA, seeking a direction upon his wife to hand over their 4 year-old daughter's custody to him.
The man claimed that his wife had brought the child to India in violation of the US-Court's orders. A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda however dismissed the petition saying, “Keeping in view the welfare of minor girl, in our considered opinion, the girl being a four year old girl child, it would be in her best interest to remain in the custody of her mother.”
Case Title: Channabasappa Hosmani AND Parvatevva alias Kasturevva & Others
Case No: Writ Petition no 105363 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
The Karnataka High Court has held that legal heirs of a daughter are entitled to equal share in the family properties, even if the daughters had passed away before the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, came into force in 2005.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, dismissed the plea filed by Channabasappa Hosmani, questioning the order passed by the trial court wherein his application made under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, was declined and the trial court refused to amend the preliminary decree which granted equal share to the legal heirs of the pre-deceased daughters.
Case Title: Jagdeep Rao AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: CCC 1307/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
The Karnataka High Court on Friday saddled the Brigade School in Bengaluru's Malleshwaram area with Rs 1 lakh cost for failure to comply with its interim order requiring it to permit petitioner's daughter to attend classes. She was deprived of attending classes on account of non-submission of an undertaking from the parents, which the school wanted.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit directed the amount to be deposited with the Chief Ministers Fund, within two weeks.
Case Title: M/S. V.K. Niranjan And Co Versus Commissioner Of Service Tax
Case No.: REVIEW PETITION No.384 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
The Karnataka High Court has held that the service tax has been paid with accrued interest even before the show cause notice has reached the review petitioner.
The bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice V. Srishananda has observed that the show cause notice itself shows that there was a payment of service tax along with interest by the review petitioner. The court has reduced the penalty from 100% to 25% and directed the review petitioner to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to meet the ends of justice.
Case Title: Adarsh Developers Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case No.: Writ Petition No.1109/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
The Karnataka High Court upheld the validity of scrutiny notices issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) Addl. CIT instead of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under central charge.
The bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad has observed that if the right to call in question the jurisdiction is left open to be raised at any stage, the proceedings will remain inconclusive, and that could not have been the intention of the legislature.
Case Title: H Manjunath AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 27909 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the State Bar Council (KSBC) suspending an advocate from practising in any Courts of the country, for allegedly sexually harassing a female lawyer.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by H Manjunath and remitted the matter back to the Council to consider the objections of the petitioner that he has to file on or before January 10.
Case Title: All India HDPE/PP Woven Fabric Manufacturers Association AND The Secretary Government of India, Competition Commission of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition 287 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a Government of India notification dated 15-04-2021 which imposes quality control on polyethylene, used to manufacture different types of plastic.
A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the plea filed by All India HDPE/PP Woven Fabric Manufacturers Association and said that if the product was sought to be exported under the “Made in India” tag, then quality insistence from the threshold would ensure that the final product would meet all the necessary global standards.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case NO: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 6578/2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an ex-parte divorce decree passed by the trial court in 2021, as the trial Court had conducted the hearing including recording of the evidence when the world was in the grip of Covid-19 pandemic.
A division bench of Justice K S Mudagal and K V Aravind allowed the appeal filed by the wife and set aside the decree passed by the trial court on the petition filed by the husband seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Case Title: Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad AND Government of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No 24939 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking the disqualification of 9 ministers and 37 MLAs, who did not take oath as per the prescribed format under Schedule III of the Constitution of India.
The plea also called for their appointments to be declared unconstitutional and illegal.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the plea filed by Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad and said “Oath can be taken in the name of God or by solemn affirmation without taking any name of God. This becomes evident by a sheer look at all the formats enlisted in the Third Schedule to the Constitution of India which employs the expression “swear in the name of God” and alternatively other expressions “solemnly affirm.”
Case Title: Sanjay M Peerapur & Another & Union of India & Others.
Case No: Writ Petition No 62966 OF 2011
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
The Karnataka High Court has struck down the expression "if woman" found in Section 6 of the Indian Military Nursing Services Ordinance, 1943 as unconstitutional. By this expression, 100 percent recruitment was reserved for women in the cadre of 'nursing officers'.
A Single judge bench of Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde sitting at Dharwad partly allowed the plea filed by Sanjay M Peerapur and said “Women are justifiably considered to be a separate class under the Constitution. However, it does not mean that there can be hundred percent reservations in employment for women to the exclusion of all others when the classification is solely based on the sex without having any rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
Case Title: H T Munikumar & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.22398 OF 2023 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.23943 OF 2023 /W WRIT PETITION NO. 23318 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
The Karnataka High Court has held that upon the resignation of few members of the Board of a Society as governed under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, elections are required to be held to the posts of all the Directors including the posts of Directors who have not tendered their resignations, if the Board falls short of quorum.
A single judge bench of Justice C M Poonacha dismissed a batch of petitions challenging appointment of the Special Officer to administer the society and conduct of elections to all the posts of directors.
Case Title: ANI Technologies Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Criminal Petition No 10156 OF 2022
Citation No 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
The Karnataka High Court has quashed prosecution initiated under provisions of the Copyright Act, against ANI Technologies Private Limited which operates Olacabs, and its Chief Executive Officer, Bhavish Aggarwal.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petition and quashed the FIR registered by the Jeevan Bheemanagar Police Station under sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Case Title: Gururaj Jeevan Rao And State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No 634 of 2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking to preclude Puttige Mutt seer Sugunendra Theertharu from performing religious rituals in Udupi as he had travelled abroad.
Petitioner Gururaj Jeevan Rao claimed that the pontiff had crossed oceans and therefore, as per traditions of subject Mutt, he is not entitled to touch the idol of Lord Krishna and he is disqualified from worshipping the deity.
Case Title: Nagaraj AND The Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 7204 OF 2021 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 26829 OF 2017 WRIT PETITION NO. 11852 OF 2021 WRIT PETITION NO. 22426 OF 2022, WRIT PETITION NO. 16580 OF 2023, WRIT PETITION NO. 16912 OF 2023, WRIT PETITION NO. 19268 OF 2023, WRIT PETITION NO. 22463 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no blanket prohibition which is imposed as regards sanction of construction plan on a plot measuring less than 50 sq. metres under the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003.
Instead such sanction in respect of private landowners would have to be considered and acceded to by following due principles of law, in the interest of citizens, it added.
Case Title: G R Medical College Hospital and Research Centre AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.17254 OF 2023 (EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 22397 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a G.R. Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Mangalore, challenging the National Medical Council's (NMC) denial of renewal of permission for its 150 1st year MBBS Seats for the academic year 2022-23 and the government's decision to transfer the 150 students to different Medical Colleges in the State.
A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda dismissed the petition and said “No ground is made out for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title: M/S Hatsoff Helicopter Training P Limited Versus State Of Karnataka
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 24699 Of 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
The Karnataka High Court has held that tax exemption cannot be denied to the government's helicopter pilot trainer merely for non-furnishing goods and service tax identification numbers (GSTIN) initially.
The bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad has observed that the GSTIN of the recipient organisation was not furnished initially, is able to be furnished later, and demonstrates that its services of imparting training to the helicopter pilots were totally sponsored and borne by the Central Government or the State Government.
Case Title: Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath AND Ganesha & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal No 543 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
The Karnataka High Court has said that Grama Panchayat cannot dismiss an employee only if a criminal case is registered against him. Dismissal from service can be ordered only after holding an enquiry, it added.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the appeal filed by Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath challenginging a Single Judge's order whereby one Ganesha's dismissal from service was set aside with a direction to reinstate him in the position forthwith. The court said, “In a society like ours, job more often than not happens to be the predominant source of livelihood and therefore snatching away a job (in public employment), like the one that has happened in the case at hand, virtually amounts to taking away the means of livelihood of the employee. That offends the pith & substance of fundamental right to life & liberty constitutionally guaranteed under Article 21.”
Case Title: Sharadha L Dodmani AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 47144 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
The Karnataka High Court has said that in an intra-court appeal, the division bench of the high court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot remit a matter back to the single judge bench if it has been decided on merits. A single judge bench is not a court subordinate to the Division Bench of the high court, it added.
Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation when a service dispute already decided by him on merits was once again placed before the single bench, after the Division bench allowed the appeal against the order and restored the file to the single bench.
Case Title: Shrishail AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Appeal No 200241 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
The Karnataka High Court recently issued guidelines to be followed by trial courts and special courts prescribing certain preliminary enquiry be made with the accused when produced for the first time in a criminal case in order to ascertain if the accused is a juvenile.
A single judge bench of Justice C M Joshi said, “There is no doubt that a Magistrate or Special Court has to make certain preliminary enquiry with the accused when produced for the first time in a criminal case during the crime stage. These enquiries are not mere formalities but they have a vital importance in ascertaining an accused to be a juvenile, mentally fit and the requirements of law are fulfilled. A child, whether an offender or not, is a child and has to be treated as a child.”
Case Title: M/s Thakur Industries AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 22698 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea questioning the direction upon the petitioner to obtain a forest transit pass from the Deputy Conservator of Forest to transport iron ore minerals from the railway sliding site to the factory premises.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the plea filed by M/s Thakur Industries and upheld the requirement of Forest Way Pass.It observed, “It serves a laudable purpose viz., protecting the forests from the possible damage/loss by the Agencies that transport the mineral concerned.”
Banks Cannot Withhold Passport Or OCI Card As Security In Lieu Of Loan Closure: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Koshy Varghese AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 5628 of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
The Karnataka High Court has held that banks cannot withhold the passport of an accused even if it is surrendered to it voluntarily by the accused, who is charged for the offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Koshy Varghese and said, “The action of the Bank in retaining the British passport of the petitioner and the Overseas Citizen of India Card is held to be illegal.”
Case Title: Mudiyappa AND Basavaraj @ Basappa & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 107291 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
The Karnataka High Court has held that when an election nomination form is filed by any candidate, he/she has to disclose all criminal proceedings filed against them, irrespective of whether the candidate had been acquitted or not, whether the proceedings have been quashed or not.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition filed by one Mudiyappa who had challenged the trial court order setting aside his election to the Bevoor Gram Panchayat for failure to disclose an acquittal.
Case Title: Shrikant Bhat AND The State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 101560 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed prosecution initiated under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act against a former senior sub-registrar who was booked after an anonymous complaint was received about alleged irregularities in the registrar's office.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Shrikant Bhat and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 7(a), 7A, 12 and 13(2) of the Act.
Case Title: Harish K B AND Ponnamma & ANR
Case No: Civil Revision Petition No 1344 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to enhance a fine of Rs 1,000, imposed by a trial Court on a 72-year-old lady, in a case over the death of eight stray puppies in 2016.
A single judge bench of Justice J M Khazi dismissed the plea filed by Harish K B, an Honorary Animal Welfare Officer, who had lodged a complaint against the accused Pionnamma and sought to challenge the conviction order dated 06.08.2019.
Case Title: Sadatulla Syed AND National Investigation Agency.
Case No: Writ Petition No 15674 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
The Karnataka High Court has said that where a surety produced original sale deed of property to satisfy the trial court that he is a solvent surety, the trial court has to return the document after obtaining his bond.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil allowed the petition filed by Sadatulla Syed who stood surety for an accused. It said, “In this case after the original of the sale deed was produced, the court ordered to keep it in safe custody. In our opinion, the court should have returned the original sale deed to the surety after obtaining his bond. Once the surety wants the sale deed to be returned, the court must return it.”
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 7082 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
The Karnataka High Court while refusing to set aside an order of the trial court granting two-days custody of a minor child to his father observed, “When the father and the mother, both are alive, depriving a child of its entitlement to have the love and affection of its parents i.e. both father and the mother would not be a justice that is being done to the child.”
A division bench Justice Dr H.B.Prabhakara Sastry and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar dismissed the appeal filed by mother challenging trial court order granting custody of the toddler to her father from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on every Saturdays and Sundays.
Case Title: Ramesh Timmanna Umarani AND The Sub-Registrar
Case No: Writ Petition No 106890 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Inspector General of Registration to verify the authenticity of the Aadhar card and identity of the person who produces it for registering any document and only thereafter proceed with the registration of a document.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that in terms of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, any service provider could register with UIDAI and obtain a sanction to verify the identity on the basis of OTP generated on the phone number of the holder of the Aadhar card.
Grant Of Land To Grow Trees Cannot Be Extended To Mean Title In Granted Land: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Nanjundappa & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal No 1174 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 32
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that if the land is granted only to grow trees, it cannot be treated as the grant of land itself.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit while dismissing an appeal against a single bench order refusing to declare that the title in the land belongs to the appellant said,
“In the case of Grant, ordinarily title to the land vests in the Grantee, at times subject to certain conditions violation of which may result into result into rescinding of the Grant. However, the grant of only a right to grow trees on the land cannot be treated as the grant of land itself.”
Case Title: Vihaan Peethambar AND Manipal University.
Case No: Writ Petition No 12606 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
The Karnataka High Court has observed that Universities/Educational Institutions should process applications for change of name and gender made by transgender persons in degree certificates upon receipt of requests instead of driving all applicants to court for directions.
A single judge bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani issued the direction after it was informed there are innumerable such instances awaiting consideration before the Universities/Educational Institutions in the state. It held: It is observed that it would be appropriate for said authorities to process applications for change of name and gender upon receipt of requests keeping in mind ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in NALSA's case and this court in Christina Lobo's case, instead of driving all applicants to Court for securing directions.”
Case Title: Dr Rajini C K AND The State of Karnataka & Others.
Case No: Writ Petition No 24070 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) after holding that it illegally allotted a reserved seat in the MD Radio Diagnosis course, in favour of one Dr. Sunil Kumar H B.
A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and T G Shivashankare Gowda allowed the plea filed by Dr. Rajini C K, set aside the seat allotted to Dr Kumar and directed the Authority to allot the MD Radio Diagnosis seat in favour of the petitioner and issue necessary orders in that behalf.
Case Title: Raktima Khanum AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 26769 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
The Karnataka High Court has said that the power of Government of India to expel nationals of other countries who overstay in the nation without any document is absolute and unfettered.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by a Bangladeshi national Raktima Khanum who had questioned the issuance of exit permit to her by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, which would result in her deportation to Bangladesh. It said, Any indulgence shown to the petitioner, on any kind of sympathy, would be putting fetters on the discretion of the Government, the FRRO and the Bureau of Immigration, more so in cases where there is even a semblance of threat to national security of any kind.”
Case Title: Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 769 OF 2
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
The Karnataka High Court has said that in matters concerning illegal grant of State largess, the rule of locus standi is to be liberally construed and that would serve the public interest.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed an appeal filed by Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt challenging a single bench order wherein the court allowed the petition filed by private respondents and the grant of subject site in favour of the Mutt was set at naught with a direction for refund of allotment value to the appellant-Mutt.
Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Limited AND Sadika & Others
Case No: MFA NO. 9827 OF 2012
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
The Karnataka High Court has held that in cases where it is not proved that deceased driver of a vehicle involved in a road accident possessed valid driving licence, the Claims Tribunal will have to apply principles of 'pay and recover' by directing the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount and recover it later from the owner of the vehicle.
A single judge bench of Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda partly allowed the appeal filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited and modified the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chitradurga District.
Case Title: Anjinamma & Others AND Mohammed Sajjad Sait & ANR
Case No: R.S.A NO.808 OF 2023 C/W R.S.A No.1358 OF
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
The Karnataka High Court has held that though it is relevant to consider the bank balance of a party while considering the issue of his readiness and willingness to execute a sale agreement, it is not an absolute prerequisite to establish the same.
A Single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, "A plaintiff's financial constraints, per se, should not be wielded as a prohibitory factor if its actions and expressions manifest a true desire to meet its contractual obligations and therefore, it is not solely contingent on financial largesse but encompasses a broader spectrum of commitment and integrity.”: Totality Of Circumstances To Be Considered Not Only Bank Balance to Ascertain Readiness And Willingness Of Party To Meet His Contractual Obligation.
Case Title: M/s Ownpath Learning Private Limited AND State By Intelligence Officer & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 14764 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
The Karnataka High Court set aside an order freezing the bank accounts of a startup company after one of the directors was booked for offences punishable under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M/s. Ownpath Learning Private Limited and said “Freezing the bank accounts of the Petitioner - Company in respondent No.2 Bank, is quashed.”
Case Title: K L Shivanna AND Deputy Commissioner, Tumkuru District
Case No: Writ Appeal No 1359 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a Fair Price Depot owner challenging the order cancelling his authorisation and forfeiting the security deposit made by him after he was found guilty of malpractice in distributing food grains.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit, dismissed the appeal filed by K L Shivanna and said,“The business that is run by PDS Depots is more in the nature of public service and not profit orientation. Unscrupulous PDS Depot Holders need to be weeded out so that the public interest which the policy intends is duly served, especially when the PDS cardholders belong to lower economic strata of the society.”
Case Title: M/s Achiever Agri India (P) Ltd & Others AND State By Sub Inspector Hebbagodi Police Station & Others-
Case No: Criminal Petition No 3156 of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that First Information Reports (FIR) filed in different police stations cannot be transferred by invoking powers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and that only cases and appeals can be transferred under such provision.
A single-judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar dismissed a plea filed by M/s Achievers Agri India (P) Ltd seeking the transfer of 16 FIRs registered in different Police Stations to one of the Courts where the said crimes were pending trial.
Case Title: Master Thejas & Another AND C R Babu
Case No: Writ Petition No 37203 OF 2015
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a proposed purchaser of a joint family property cannot be impleaded as a party respondent in a suit for partition and separate possession between family members.
A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma set aside the trial court order allowing one Murugan to be impleaded in the suit between family members. It said, “I am of the opinion that defendant No.4 [Murugan] who is impleaded by virtue of impugned order was neither a necessary party nor proper party to be impleaded. No right is created under agreement for sale in respect of scheduled property, except the right to seek specific performance of contract against defendant No.1, which he has already done by filing suit.”
Case Title: ABC AND Union of India
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.16681 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
The Karnataka High Court has directed a couple seeking intercountry relative adoption to petition the receiving country i.e Germany, where the father of the adopted child resides for communication to the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) for issuance of a No Objection Certificate and Conformity Certificate to take the child out of India.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “If what is sought by the petitioners is granted it would run counter to the established procedure Therefore, the inter-country adoption should necessarily be in tune with the procedure.”
Case Title: Chikkanna AND Karnataka State Bar Council & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 26197 of 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Karnataka State Bar Council suspending an advocate from practice.
A single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna allowed the plea filed by Chikkanna and set aside the notification dated 10.07.2023. It said “As the practice of the petitioner is suspended without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and is in violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is to be obliterated and the matter remitted back to the hands of respondent No.1 to hear the petitioner and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.”
Case Title: SHREE RAMACHANDRAPURA MATH AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.18330 OF 2023 C/W WRIT PETITION No.19823 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a Government order de-notifying the nominations of four persons who were members of the Overseeing Committee for the Gokarna Mahabaleshwar Temple, as approved by the Supreme Court.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Shree Ramachandrapura Math and its members, and set aside the order dated August 12, 2023 whereby the State government sought to remove the petitioners Veda Moorthy Dattatreya and three others from the Committee. The Committee was reconstituted including the present respondents Vidhanwan Ganapathi Shivaram Hirebhat and three others.
Case Title: Aishwaryagiri Constructions PVT Ltd AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 23054 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a construction company questioning the order of the Karnataka Slum Development Board refusing to grant an extension for completing the contract entered by it with the company for the construction of dwelling houses for slum dwellers.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the plea filed by Aishwaryagiri Constructions Pvt Ltd and directed the Board to issue an appropriate work order and get the houses of poor slum dwellers completed within the decided time frame and not put the lives of those slum dwellers in jeopardy, as by now they have suffered enough.
Extra Passenger On Bike Liable For Contributory Negligence To Accident: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s ICICI Lombard Company Ltd AND Ms Harshitha B & ANR
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 5505 OF 20
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an extra passenger riding on a two-wheeler motor vehicle is liable to contributory negligence if involved in an accident.
While dealing with an appeal from an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar said that a claimant, if knowing fully well that there were four persons riding on a motorcycle meets with an accident, then the claimant contributes to negligence towards the accident.
Case Title: Management of M/s Tata Advanced System Limited AND The Secretary To Department of Labour & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 7674/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
The Karnataka High Court has said that a claim before the Industrial Tribunal by an individual workman regarding his absorption and regularisation in a company can be raised only through a Union representing the workman not by himself.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha allowed the petition filed by the Management of M/s Tata Advanced System Limited and set aside the order of reference dated 06.02.2023 issued by the Department of Labour directing the Tribunal, to adjudicate whether respondent No.2 (Rudrachari) was justified in raising the dispute regarding the regularisation/permanency of his job with the petitioner company and subsequent relief, if any.
Case Title: K T Suresh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12105 OF 2022 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 4167 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO. 13933 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 49
The Karnataka High Court has held that on expiry of lease/licence executed by a Municipal Corporation such Corporation cannot forcibly vacate the persons in occupation, but is required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, or Transfer of Property Act.
A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the Secretary, Urban Development Department to instruct all the Corporations Municipalities coming under its jurisdiction to follow due process of law and not resort to forcible possession of the premises.
Renowned Shooter Can Possess 10 Arms, 1 Lakh Ammunition: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: K Sajan Aiyappa AND Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Kodogu District.
Case No: Writ Petition No 6359 of 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 50
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Kodagu district to consider the application of a renowned shooter for grant of four more arms and 25,000 ammunition.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by K. Sajan Aiyappa and quashed the final notice dated 28.12.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, which directs the petitioner to divulge the minimum qualifying marks of his claim of him being a Renowned Shooter.
Case Title: Manikeppa Helavar AND The State Through Mudhol P.S
Case No: Criminal Petition No 201853 of 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 51
The Karnataka High Court has rejected an application moved by a rape accused seeking to recall the victim for cross-examination, a year after her cross examination was closed.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar sitting at Kalaburagi said, “The victim was already humiliated by kidnap, rape and illegal confinement and she was elaborately cross-examined in the Court. After one year, again the witness was being sought to be recalled without disclosing before the learned Special Judge as to what questions are required to be posed. Since this is a sensitive matter, humiliation going to be suffered by the victim cannot be ignored and merely because the petitioner wants to recall the victim or a witness, the Court is not bound to recall a witness.”
Case Title: Anurag Bagaria Versus The Income Tax Department
Case No.: Criminal Petition No.909 Of 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 52
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act for wilful tax evasion.
The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has observed that the assessees filed revised returns, waiving their claim for short-term capital loss and long-term capital gains, and also paid taxes, the moment the search was conducted and the assessment proceedings commenced.
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 103706 of 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
The Karnataka High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to an accused who had forwarded a picture he received as a WhatsApp message related to a half-naked woman covered with the National Flag depicting the incident that had taken place in Manipur State.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the plea and said “The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.144/2023 registered by the Siruguppa police station, Ballari district for the offence punishable under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 with 01 surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: Writ Petition No 14094 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
The Karnataka High Court has observed that taking care of the children, for a mother, is a whole time job and the husband cannot deny maintenance amount on the ground that she being qualified is not willing to work and earn money and wants to live on the maintenance that the husband pays.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a woman questioning the order of the trial court granting a monthly maintenance amount under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the tune of Rs 18,000 instead of Rs 36,000 sought by her.
Case Title: Dr Lata Krishnaraddi Mankali AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100169 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
The Karnataka High Court has held that Sections 19 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act puts an obligation on a doctor to inform the relevant authorities when she/he has knowledge of an offence under the Act. There is no obligation on this person to investigate and gather knowledge about the offence.
A single judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D Huddar said “The expression used is "knowledge" which means that some information received by such a person gives him/her knowledge about the commission of the crime. There is no obligation on this person to investigate and gather knowledge.”
Case Title: Hemachandra M Kuppalli AND M/s R.B.Green Field & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.12169 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
The Karnataka High Court has directed that when a convict under the Negotiable Instruments Act offers himself for settlement of the dispute in appeal on the basis of which conviction is set aside, Courts shall mandatorily observe that deviation from the terms of compromise will automatically result in restoration of conviction order.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “Failing which, the accused who get away with conviction on compromise like in the case at hand, take advantage of the laborious rigmarole of procedure of getting the compromise decree executed.”
Case Title: The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & ANR AND K.N. Ningegowda & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 75671 OF 2013
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) questioning the order of the Industrial Tribunal directing the regularisation of 13 workmen.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde confirmed the order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the Tribunal and directed that since the demand for regularisation was pending for close to 20 years, the petitioner Corporation shall take steps to regularise the workmen in terms of the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal.
It said: The claim is not dependent on appointment orders but is based on the actual work done for the Corporation. If the appointment orders are not issued and in the grab of contract labourers (which claim is not established for the reasons recorded supra), and the respondents are made to work since 1991-93 till 2007 and beyond, then the fault lies with the petitioner Corporation in not issuing the appointment orders.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: REV. PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.233 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
The Karnataka High Court has held that extra deductions from the salary of husband like provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, etc., cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount to be granted to the estranged wife.
A single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar dismissed the petition filed by a husband questioning the order of the family court granting maintenance of Rs.15,000 to his wife and Rs.10,000 to his daughter under section 125 CrPC. It said, “What are the compulsorily amounts to be deducted are income tax and professional tax...Considering deductions from the salary of petitioner/husband, those are provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, towards loan obtained by the petitioner/husband, LIC premium and festival advance, these are all deductions accruing to the benefit of petitioner only. These amounts cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount.”
Case Title: Arunkumar R & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 25528 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
The Karnataka High Court has held that to manage and maintain an apartment complex consisting of only residential flats, the association of owners has to be registered under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, and not under the provision of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said “Admittedly, the project referred to above is a residential housing project. There is no commercial unit in the said project. The sale deeds executed in favour of the purchasers of the flats would also indicate that the purchasers have undertaken to subject them to the provisions of the Act of 1972. There is no difficulty in holding that petitioners and members of the proposed respondent No.4 Society are entitled to have registration of an association under the Act of 1972, and there cannot be any association registered under the Act of 1959 to form a society to manage and maintain the Property comprising only residential flats.”
Case Title: Umashankara C & Others AND Registrar General & ANR
Case No: Writ Petition No 2851 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Registrar General of the Court to reconsider the representation made by 12 Court officers, seeking to cure anomaly in their pay scale with regards to Section 6(b) of the High Court of Karnataka (Officers and Officials) Revised Pay Rules, 2018.
A single judge bench of Chief Justice P S Dinesh Kumar (now retired) allowed in part the petition filed by Umashankara C and other and said, “The issue requires to be reconsidered by the 1st respondent, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court, which clearly depicts that the junior should not be permitted to draw a higher pay scale to that of the seniors in a solitary cadre.”
Case Title: XXX AND The Registrar General & Others
Case N0: Writ Petition No 25557 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
The Karnataka High Court while directing the registry to mask the name of an accused in the cause title of the case found in the records of the court has observed that “even an accused who has been discharged or acquitted honourably by a competent Court of law has a right to live with dignity.”
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said that Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with law.
Case Title: Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association & Another AND State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: WP 26489/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the notifications issued by the State Government appointing the KSEAB (Karnataka School Examination & Assessment Board) as the competent authority to conduct the Summative Assessment-2 exams for students of classes 5th, 8th, and 9th and the annual examination for class 11th, studying in government, aided and unaided schools and colleges, following the Karnataka State Board Syllabus.
The examination was to commence from March 9.
A single judge bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani said “When Government intends to bring changes to examination system affecting such large number of students, it would be desirable as well as mandatory to follow democratic procedure stipulated. And in case of failure, there need be no further justification to set such faulty measures at naught, regardless of merit policy and object behind such measures.”
Case Title: Dhanayya & Others AND Chandrashekhar
Case No: R.S.A 200252 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing it can only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits.
A single judge bench of Justice G Basavaraja allowed the appeal filed by Dhanayya (since deceased) and his legal heirs questioning the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Afzalpur, by which it dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2014 passed by the trial court.
Case Title: Jayapal K M AND The Management of Shakti Precision Components (India) Limited
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.149 OF 2022 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.52533 OF 2019
Citation No; 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
The Karnataka High Court has held that the act of a workman using abusive language not once, but on several occasions cannot be treated lightly and the imposition of punishment by way of dismissal in such a case cannot be held to be disproportionate.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha made the observation while allowing the petition filed by the Management of Shakti Precision Components (India) Limited. It set aside the order passed by Labour court directing the company to reinstate the workman Jaypal KM.
Case Title: C Girish Naik & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 7893 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the State Human Rights Commission can only recommend and not pass directions to the Government to act against policemen.
A Division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice CM Poonacha partly allowed the petition filed by C Girish Naik who works as Inspector of Police and said “The report dated 12.3.2020 issued by the fourth respondent [Karnataka State Human Rights Commission] shall not be treated as a direction but as a recommendation.”
Case Title: Razorpay Software Private Limited AND Union of India
Case No: Writ Petition No 10329 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the offences of Money laundering initiated against payment gateway company Razorpay, accused of being negligent in setting up the merchant IDs in the name of a co-accused who was involved in illegal money lending business.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by the company and quashed the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate under Sections 3, 70 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the summons issued against it by the Special court.
Case Title: Sunl G & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 16408 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 each on 35 petitioners (collectively Rs 8.75 lakh) for stalling the recruitment process initiated for the post of Veterinary Officer.
A division bench of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K while dismissing the petitions filed by Sunil G and others said “In our considered opinion, we are not able to appreciate the conduct of these petitioners in stalling the recruitment process which was called for as a matter of an emergency situation. Hence, we impose the cost of Rs.25,000 per petitioner which shall be payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.”
Clear Right To Sue Is To Be Made Out In A Suit For Declaration Of Title: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: D N Bhagya AND D A Mallikarjuna & Others
Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.60 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title fails to disclose a clear right to sue, the suit deserves to be rejected.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar made the observation while allowing the petition filed by D N Bhagya challenging the order of the trial court rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking rejection of the suit for declaration of title filed by the respondents who are legal heirs of Appajappa.
S.125 CrPC | Daughter-In-Law Cannot Seek Maintenance From Parents-In-Law: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Abdul Khader & ANR AND Tasleem Jamela Agadi & Others
Case No: REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100026 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a daughter-in-law cannot lay a claim for maintenance against her parents-in-law.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by an elderly couple and set aside the order of the trial court dated 30.11.2021, directing them to pay Rs 20,000 to the wife of their deceased son and Rs 5,000 to his children.
Case Title: DR SHIVAMURTHY MURUGHA SHARANARU AND STATE BY KARNATAKA & ANR
Case NO: CRL.P 4391/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to quash rape charges against the pontiff of Murugha Mutt of Chitradurga, Dr Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru, who is accused of sexually abusing two minor girls staying in the hostels run by the Mutt.
However, the court quashed the order of the trial court framing charges against the accused and directed it to redraw the charges after quashing certain offences levelled against the accused.
Case Title: G Hemanth Chandra AND M/s Infrathon Projects Pvt Ltd
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.247/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
The Karnataka High Court has held that a revision petition against an order passed under Section 148 (3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for the release of interim compensation, is not maintainable before the High Court.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh held “Here is a case of releasing of the amount, which is in deposit under Section 148(3) and the same does not amount to intermediate order and it is only an interlocutory order and hence, revision is not maintainable and the same can be challenged before the appropriate court by filing appropriate petition.”
Case Title: A.H.Makandar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 104356 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a former employee of Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (HESCOM) on whom the company imposed a huge recovery of Rs 86,52,163 and even 11 years after superannuation, denied him a pension and other terminal benefits.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by A.H.Makandar and quashed all the amount recovery initiated against him and directed the Company to settle and pay the pension and all the terminal benefits on his superannuation with effect from 31-05-2013 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date they became due, till the date of payment.
Case Title: Mohammed Farughuddin AND Ramchandra Balu Shinde & Others
Case No: Regular First Appeal No 100196 OF 2014
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
The Karnataka High Court has said that the principle that time is not the essence of the contract in a suit for specific performance of immovable property, cannot be applied as if it is a statute. The said principle must be applied by considering the facts and circumstances of each case, it said.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde while partly allowing an appeal filed by one Mohammed Farughuddin, challenging the trial court order rejecting the suit for specific performance, observed, ““In the last couple of decades, the value of the immovable properties is soaring high and that too in a short span of time. Indeed, such equitable consideration had strong justifications in good old times, where hardly there was any change in the property value for a considerable length of time. However, many things concerning real estate have changed beyond comprehension. Perhaps the general principle that the time is not an essence of the contract when it comes to immovable property, certainly calls for a relook in the present-day context.”
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.151/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Registrar General to file a complaint with the Vidhana Soudha police station against a police constable for allegedly playing fraud on the court as well as on the Trial Court, in obtaining bail order in a case of rape registered against him.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh allowed the petition filed by the victim in the case and cancelled the bail granted to the accused Fakirappa Hatti who had allegedly subjected the complainant to sexual acts from 2019 till February 2022 on the promise of marriage.
Case Title: Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd Suvarna News 24/7 & Others AND Divya Spandana @ Ramya
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13558 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the defamation proceedings against Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd, Suvarna News 24/7 and two others which came to be initiated based on the complaint filed by Divya Spandana.
Spandana had filed a private complaint against the petitioners and others with a prayer to punish the accused for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, issued summons to the accused by order dated 13.06.2016.
Case Title: State Of Karnataka & Others AND National Commission For Schedule Caste
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.26690 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the National Commission for Schedule Caste does not have power to adjudicate upon or entertain complaints relating to service matters, specifically those pertaining to seniority and promotion.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “It is axiomatic that the ambit of the NCSC's jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating upon or entertaining complaints relating to service matters, specifically those pertaining to seniority and promotion. Such matters, by their very nature, fall within the realm of administrative law and are subject to adjudication by specialised adjudicatory bodies such as administrative tribunals with competence in service-related disputes.”
Case Title: Mahesh AND Ishwar & Others
Case No: C.R.P. No.100106 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 129
The Karnataka High Court has held that a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff is maintainable if he was not impleaded as party respondent in the earlier suit wherein a compromise was arrived and court passed a decree without allocating any share in the property to the plaintiff.
A single judge bench of Justice CM Poonacha made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Mahesh who had sought to question the order of the trial court rejecting his application made under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking to reject the plaint filed by Iswar and others as barred by law.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.26295 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 130
The Karnataka High Court has said that there should be strong prima facie evidence to consider an application filed by the husband who is seeking divorce, to refer the wife to a Board of Psychiatrists for medical examination on the ground of her being of unsound mind.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by a husband who questioned the order of the family court which kept in abeyance his application seeking to refer the wife to a Board of Psychiatrists at NIMHANS for medical examination. It also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner (husband) to be paid to the wife.
Case Title: M/S MARGADARSI CHITS (K) PVT. LTD AND H SRINIVAS REDDY & Others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 66982 OF 2011
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is only one statutory appeal against an order passed under Section 69 of the Chit Funds Act and an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 70 of the Act is final and no appeal lies against it before the High Court.
A single judge bench of Justice M.I. Arun dismissed the petition filed by M/s Margadarsi Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd which had challenged the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Chits.
Case Title: Bhuvaneshwari AND Prashanth Kumar
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18433 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 132.
The Karnataka High Court has held that a photostat copy of an unregistered agreement to sell cannot be admitted as secondary evidence in a trial under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only because the accused claims the signature on the document is his.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed a petition filed by one Bhuvaneshwari challenging an order of the trial court 29.12.2022, dismissing his plea to permit him to mark the said document.
Case Title: Alfa S AND The Chief Secretary & Others
Case No: R.S.A.NO. 359 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) C/W R.S.A.NO. 340 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
The Karnataka High Court has held that if the relief sought in the plaint is restricted to seeking a direction to rectify school records based on caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, the plaintiff's remedy is only under common law before the competent civil Court.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum while allowing an appeal filed by Ms Alfa S and others, challenging the order of the first appellate court, dismissed the suits seeking relief of mandatory injunction by way of direction to defendants to amend caste in the school records, on the ground that the reliefs were barred under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code.
Case Title: Nawaz Pasha & Others AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5913 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 552/2021, 1008/2021, 5799/2022, 5821/2022, 5832/2022 AND 5893/2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal prosecution initiated against 375 people alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly, armed with weapons in the Padarayanapura area on 19.4.2020 when there was a Covid-19 lockdown.
They allegedly stopped BBMP personnel from doing their official duty of securing 58 COVID-19-infected persons for being shifted to quarantine centres.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petitions filed by the accused and said “The Criminal proceedings against these petitioners in the above 5 cases are liable to be quashed without going to the veracity of the offence committed by the accused, whether one offence or different offences, in different place of occurrence. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed.”
Default Bail | Oral Request For Extension Of Custody Period Permissible: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Mohammed Jabir AND National Investigation Agency
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.7388 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an oral request by an investigating agency to extend the custody period is permissible, if the accused fails to seek default bail on expiry of statutory period.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil also said that the right to get default bail under Section 167 of Criminal Procedure Code is an indefeasible right which the court cannot deny if an accused is ready to furnish bail, but this right should be exercised before the investigating agency files charge sheet or seeks extension of time to complete the investigation.
Karnataka High Court Quashes PMLA Case Against Former Chancellor Of Alliance University
Case Title: Dr Madhukar G Angur AND Directorate of Enforcement.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13205 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate against Former Chancellor of Alliance University, Dr Madhukar G Angur initiated under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty quashed the case taking note of the Apex court judgment in the case of Pavana Dibbur vs The Directorate of Enforcement, CRL.P NO.13205 OF 2023.
Case Title: Sudha Katwa AND The Registrar General & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11387 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
The Karnataka High Court has removed HK Jagadish as incharge 'Director of Prosecution and Government Litigation', holding his appointment to be illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 25A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit said the provision prescribes specific qualifications and conditions for appointment to the august office and there is no dispute that Jagadish does not possess the same.
Case Title: Abdul Basheer & Others AND Inspector General of Police (Prisons) & Others
Case No: Writ Petition 7755 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to ensure that in all the prisons where the undertrial prisoners or convicts are housed, there shall be a robust video conferencing facility so that any inmate would be in a position to interact with the defence counsel or family members.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that privacy must be maintained when the accused is speaking to the defence counsel through video conferencing and directed the government to provide headphones to the accused and the persons on the other side in the conference.
Case Title: THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND UNION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 4273 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a circular issued by the Controller and Auditor General of India (CAG) by which it prohibited salary drawing and disbursing officers from deducting the amount due to the Accountant General's Office Employees Cooperative Bank Ltd (established by the employees of the Accountant General's Office), from the salary of the employee even if they had consented for such deduction.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said “The impugned clause conflicts with the binding provision of law. Thus, the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can certainly strike down the said clause even if it is the policy decision, as such decision seeks to override the provision of law and seeks to take away certain rights conferred under the Statute. The right conferred under the Statute can be taken away only in the manner known to law and not by any executive decision taken by any authority which has no authority to meddle with the statutory rights.”
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others And REGISTERED UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION KARNATAKA & others.
Case No: WA 379/2024 c/w WA 380/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single bench order which stopped the State government from conducting board exams for students of 5, 8 and 9 and 11 standard of the schools affiliated to the State Board.
A division bench of Justice K Somashekhar and Justice Rajesh Rai K thus allowed the State's appeal and directed the government to hold the remaining Assessment for classes 5,8,9 students. Board exams for Class 11 were already completed during the litigation. The Court has asked the State to resume the process for 11th standard also.
Case Title: Jayashree AND Mahaningappa & Others
Case No: MFA 202275 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
The Karnataka High Court has held that if income tax returns are available the same should be considered as best a piece of evidence and if variations are found in the income tax returns, considered for different assessment years, it would be appropriate to consider the average income of three assessment years to arrive at the annual stable income of the claimant seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
A division bench of H.T.Narendra Prasad and Justice K V Arvind made the observation while partly allowing the appeal filed by Jayashree questioning the order of the trial court and sought enhancement of compensation granted.
Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Kannada Actor Sudeep's Defamation Complaint Against NM Suresh
Case Title: N M Suresh AND Sudeep S
Case No: Writ Petition 3641 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a defamation complaint filed by Kannada Actor Sudeep S against N M Suresh who is the office bearer of the Kannada Film Producers Association and Secretary of the Film Chamber of Commerce for allegedly making false acquisitions against Sudeep.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition filed by Suresh seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the trial court under sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
Case Title: Amith M Jain AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6425 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal prosecution initiated against one Amith M Jain, Managing director of a company who was charged under sections 3 (1), 13 (2), 19 (b) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, read with Sections 3(2)(d) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajit Shetty said, “The material on record would go to show that the petitioner is only the Managing Director of the company and in view of the Government Order dated 14.02.2002, only persons who are responsible for production of quality control of the fertiliser products can be prosecuted.”
Case Title: Althaf Ahamed AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WA 713/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that contested property rights cannot be dealt with in writ jurisdiction. The writ court can at the best take notice of the property rights of the parties which are already established rights.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed an appeal filed by Althaf Ahamed, challenging an order of the single judge bench which refused to invalidate the gift deed executed in favour of his sisters by their mother.
Case Title: THIMMAPPA AND THE STATE BY HOLALKERE POLICE
Case No: CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE NO.6 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1301 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the death penalty imposed on an accused for murdering his mother by beheading her, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and S Rachaiah partly allowed the appeal filed by accused Thimmappa challenging the conviction and death sentence imposed on him by the trial court under section 302 of the India Penal Code.
The bench said “If we take an analysis of the entire situation, we find that this is not a rarest of rare case though it is a fact that the incident was cruel and brutal. Emotion should not become an influencing factor to impose a death penalty. Degree of criminality matters much while imposing the death penalty.”
Case Title: Veeranna G Tigadi AND High Court of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14053 OF 2015
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the owner of Express Publications (Mudhurai) Ltd, which publishes the New Indian Express newspaper for publishing a report indicating the findings of an inquiring Authority report conducted against a district judicial officer, even when the Administrative Committee, of the High Court had already resolved to not accept the Report of the inquiring Authority dated 30.05.2013.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda said: “I am therefore of the view that this would be an appropriate case to impose costs of Rs.10,00,000 on respondent No.13 (the owner of the Newspaper), payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Case Title: Dr. Sridhara S AND The Director Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.4050 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Medical Superintendent of an Autonomous Medical Institution cannot be given an additional charge of Head of Department.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Dr. Sridhara S and quashed the official memorandum issued by the Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences appointing Dr. T.D. Thimmappa as an in-charge HOD as illegal and quashed the same.
Case Title: Thimmappa & Others AND Bharathi
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7517 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that it is only the husband or wife who marries for the second time during the subsistence of an earlier marriage and the life time of the earlier spouse, who can be prosecuted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj added that the second spouse or their parents can't be prosecuted under the provision.
Case Title: Ravi Kumar & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Authority & Others
Case No: Writ Petition 17967 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to consider the representation of a couple who are Indian Citizens and have adopted a child in Uganda, a country which is not a signatory to the Hague Convention 1995 and seeking to legalise the adoption in India in terms of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Adoption Regulations of CARA, 2022.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and said, “The Union of India not to restrict its magnanimity to issuance of a support letter; it should stretch for issuance of an approval or a no objection under the Regulations, for the reason that, it is a signatory to the Hague Convention. Even though the adoption has not happened under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, and in a country which is not a signatory to Hague Convention, but adoption has happened, the rights of a child of Indian citizens, who have adopted, cannot be left marooned.”
Case Title: Ramanjaneyulu & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.390 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the trial court which rejected a petition for anticipatory bail filed by an accused charged under provisions of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the ground that cognizance had already been taken of the complaint.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the plea challenging the order of the trial court dated February 9, and granted them anticipatory bail on the execution of a Bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000 each, with two sureties.
Case Title: Dr Yogananda A AND The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 21705 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on an Assistant Professor, by the Executive Council of the Visvesvaraya Technological University.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by Dr.Yogananda A and said, “The impugned penalty of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed. The respondent No.3-Disciplinary Authority is hereby directed to adhere to the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra and also take cognizance of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India and shall issue a fresh show cause notice.”
Case title: Pooja AND Siddanna & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.205205 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
The Karnataka High Court has held that an order passed by the Lok-Adalat accepting the compromise and directing the decree of the suit is not valid.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by one Pooja and quashed the compromise decree dated 27-10- 2007 passed by the Taluka Legal Authority, Sindagi (Lok Adalat).
Case Title: Yathish M G AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26117 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
The Karnataka High Court has held that the State Government possesses the power to entrust the handling of a disciplinary enquiry in respect of an employee of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board to the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rule.
Further, it held that the recommendation by the Lokayukta to the Government, while making a report under Section 12(3) of the Lokayukta Act, that the enquiry be entrusted to it, cannot be sustained.
Case Title: M/S. Mvr Constructions Vs M/S. V.M.R Constructions And Others.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 4604 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice M G Uma held that the parties not signatories to the Joint Venture Agreement, stipulating the arbitration clause, cannot be forced to arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: M/s Bellary Nirmithi Kendra v. M/s Capital Metal Industries, Case No: CRP No. 100067 of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
The High Court of Karnataka has held that Section 47 of the CPC does not apply to proceedings for enforcement of arbitral award.
The bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha held that an arbitral award can only be challenged on the grounds mentioned under Section 34 of the Act and not otherwise. It held that the award is deemed to be a decree for the purpose of the enforcement, however, this deeming fiction is limited to its enforcement only.
The Court held that Section 47 of CPC, which provides for determination of question by the executing court in relation to the validity of the decree, does not apply to execution of arbitral awards.
Case Title: M/S Durga Projects Inc Vs Sri. B.G. Babu Reddy
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.434 Of 2014 (A) C/W Criminal Appeal No.433 Of 2014 (A)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice Anil B Katti held that simultaneous proceedings can be carried on under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bench further held that a party cannot be acquitted solely on the basis of presence of an arbitration agreement.
