Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 24 To April 30

Mohammad Bilal & others And Police Sub-Inspector Law and Order & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 159

Rudresha And The Management of M/s TVS Motor Company. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 160

Hanumanthrao And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 161

H Siddaraju & ANR Union of India & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 162

M/s National Insurance Company Ltd And Mrs Asha & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 163

B L Adishesh & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 164

Case Title: Mohammad Bilal & others And Police Sub-Inspector Law and Order & others.

Case No: W.P.H.C. NO.10 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 159

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by five alleged members of the banned organisation Popular Front of India, (PFI), and upheld the order of Special court designated to try offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which rejected their application for grant of default bail.

A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil found no merits in the habeas corpus petition filed by Mohammad Bilal and Others. The Central Government had in September 2022 banned the organisation. The petitioners were arrested on October 12, 2022 for the offences punishable under sections 121, 121A, 121B, 153A 5 and 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 13 and 18(1)(B) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, on the allegation that they were engaged in unlawful activities.

Case Title: Rudresha And The Management of M/s TVS Motor Company.

Case no: WRIT PETITION NO.52668 OF 2014 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.37496 OF 2014.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 160

The Karnataka High Court has said that in cases where employer expresses loss of confidence in the workman, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, would have to consider the said contention in light of the surrounding facts and circumstances and ascertain if such a suspicion is based on objective set of facts or on the basis of any extraneous factor.

A single judge bench of Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the petition filed M/s TVS motor company (the employer) seeking to set aside Labour court's order by which it set aside the punishment of dismissal imposed by the company and directed reinstatement of the workman. It also allowed the petition filed by workman Rudresh and set aside punishment of withholding two increments imposed by the Labour court.

Case Title: Hanumanthrao And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.R.P. No. 856 OF 2014

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 161

The Karnataka High Court recently modified the sentence of one year imprisonment imposed on a 80-year-old, former government servant who was convicted for misappropriating public funds and commuted it to one day–till the rising of the court.

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by Hanumanthrao in part and said “The judgment and order of conviction passed by the courts below convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 409 & 477A of IPC is upheld. The order of sentence passed by the courts below against the petitioner for the said offences is modified and the petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs.10,000.”

Case Title: H Siddaraju & ANR Union of India & others.

Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 5861 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 162

The Karnataka High Court has evolved a triple test theory to permit a couple to undertake the procedure of surrogacy, which otherwise was not permitted to them as the husband being 57-year-old has crossed the age eligibility criteria, under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.

A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed in part the petition filed by H Siddaraju and his wife and directed the State Surrogacy Board or prescribed authority to consider their application for grant of an eligibility certificate as is necessary in law for the petitioners to become parents by way of surrogacy, on the triple tests as indicated – genetic; physical and economical.

Case Title: M/s National Insurance Company Ltd And Mrs Asha & others

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2603 OF 2017

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 163

The Karnataka High Court has said that the onus is on the claimants to prove that there was rash and negligent driving only by the alleged offending vehicle driver causing the accident. However, in case if the respondent/Insurer are able to show that the road traffic accident has not occurred in the manner as agitated by the claimants, then, the Tribunal should not hesitate in fixing the contributory negligence, on the part of the deceased.

A single judge bench of Justice Dr H B Prabhakara Sastry partly allowed the appeal filed by M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd and modified the award passed by the Tribunal dated 27-01-2017, and reduced compensation amount awarded from Rs 22,03,000 to Rs 21,00,000, to the claimants.

Case Title: B L Adishesh & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16906 OF 2022 (CS-EL/M) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 18949 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 164

The Karnataka High Court has held that erstwhile office members of a private club cannot process an election on the ground that the Administrator so appointed by the Government, has not taken charge.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by B L Adishesh and others who are members of the Vontikoppal Club, in Mysore. It quashed the final list circulated by the erstwhile office bearers and restrained the erstwhile office bearers from conducting election to the executive committee.