Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: March 11 - March 17, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 119 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 129

Nominal Index:

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

Judgments/Orders

Karnataka High Court Imposes Costs Of ₹25,000 Each On 35 Petitioners For Stalling Recruitment To Post Of Veterinary Officer

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.

Karnataka High Court Declines To Quash Rape, POCSO Charges Against Chitradurga Mutt Pontiff; Orders Trial Court To Redraw Other Charges

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.

NI Act | Order For Releasing Interim Compensation Is Interlocutory, Not Intermediate; Revision Petition Not Maintainable Before HC: Karnataka High Court

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.”

Blatant Violation: Karnataka HC Directs Payment Of Benefits To Retd Govt Employee Who Was Denied Pension Without Inquiry, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost

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.

Property Prices Soaring High, Need To Relook At Principle Of Time Not Being Essence Of Contract Involving Immovable Property: Karnataka HC

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.”

Karnataka High Court Cancels Bail Of Police Constable Accused Of Rape On Pretext Of Marriage, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs For Obtaining Bail By Fraud

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.

Karnataka HC Declines To Quash Defamation Proceedings Against News Channels By Actress Divya Spandana For Portraying Her As Part Of Spot-Fixing Scandal

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.

National Commission For Schedule Caste Does Not Have Power To Adjudicate Complaints Relating To Service Matters: Karnataka High Court Reiterates

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.”

Party Not Arrayed As Respondent In Compromise Decree Can File Suit For Partition If Not Allotted Any Share: Karnataka High Court

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.