Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: February 12 - February 18, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 70 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 83

Nominal Index:

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) 82Smt. Vasanthi Ramdas Pai Versus Income Tax Officer. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 83

Judgments/Orders

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

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

Case No: Writ Petition No 52855 of 2019

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 70

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

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

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

Case Title: Pallavi AND Mallamma & Others

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100618 OF 2014

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 71

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Seethalaxmi AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 3674 OF 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 72

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

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

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

Case Title: Shelhan AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR

Case No: Writ Petition No 11806 OF 2020

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 73

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

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

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

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

Case No: Writ Petition No 26194 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 74

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

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

“None of the amenities that were assured and promised to lure the retired home buyers were in place. Sewage treatment plant was yet to come up. Lifts were not provided...Water supply was not complete...Therefore, it is necessary to admonish the competent authorities who are empowered to issue occupancy certificates not to sit in four corners of their air-conditioned chambers and issue occupancy certificates, to the developers, for their asking," Court said.

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

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

Case No: Writ Petition No 100505 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

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

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

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

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

Case No: Writ Petition No 100173 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 76

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

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

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

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

Case No: Writ Petition No 1049/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 77

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

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

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

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

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

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

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

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

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

Case Title: State of Karnataka AND Prathap

Case No: Criminal Appeal No 1335 OF 2017

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 79

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

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

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

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

Case No: Writ Petition No 4268 of 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 80

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

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

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

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

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

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 81

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

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

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

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

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 82

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

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

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

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

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 83

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

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