Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 05 June To June 11

NOMINAL INDEX

Nasim Banu & ANR And Shabas Khan & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 202

Diocese of Chikkamagaluru And Lancy J Narona & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 203

Kreetams Pro Bono And Centre For Legal Research And Ministry of Secondary and Primary Education & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 204

Pramod R S And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 205

M S Ravi Dixit And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 206

B S Yeddyurappa And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 207

Dr. Chandrashekar T B And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 208

Pavankumar A N & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 209

Dr M David And Department of High Education & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 210

ABC v. XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 211

Abdul Rehman And The Deputy Commissioner & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 212

PG Setty Construction Technology Pvt Ltd And The Managing Director, Karnataka State Police Housing And Infrastructure Development Corporation & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 213

M/s. GE T & D India Ltd. Versus State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 214

Judgments/Orders

Proceedings For Guardianship, Custody Of Minor Lie Only Before Family Court: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Nasim Banu & ANR And Shabas Khan & Others

Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.273 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 202

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a proceeding in relation to the guardianship of a person or the custody of or access to any minor has to be filed before Family court and it cannot be filed before a district court or any subordinate civil court.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh said, “Section 8 of the Family Courts Act is very clear with regard to exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings where a Family Court has been established for any area. The very proviso of Section 8(a) is very clear that no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to that sub-section.”

Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Hear Individual Suits By Catholics To Offer Prayers In Their Own Language At Church: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Diocese of Chikkamagaluru And Lancy J Narona & Others

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.98 OF 2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 203

The Karnataka High Court has upheld an Appellate court order holding that civil courts have jurisdiction to hear a suit filed in individual capacity by few Catholics, seeking a direction to the Religious head of the church to allow them to offer prayers/mass prayers in Konkani Language.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh dismissed the second appeal preferred by Diocese of Chikkamagaluru and said, “Admittedly, the suit is filed for the relief of worshipping in the church in a particular language. It is the contention that there are 42 Parishes of Chikkamagaluru and out of which Parishes of different places are also allowed to do the prayer in different languages and the same is disputed by the appellant herein. When such being the case, the same has to be decided only in full fledged trial and not at the initial stage of considering the averments made in the plaint.”

POSH Act | Karnataka High Court Disposes PIL For Establishment Of Internal Complaints Committee In All Educational Institutions

Case Title: Kreetams Pro Bono And Centre For Legal Research And Ministry of Secondary and Primary Education & ANR

Case No: WP 5724/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 204

The Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of a PIL seeking directions to the State's Department of Primary and Secondary Education to issue circulars mandating all educations institutes to establish an internal complaint committee (ICC) in the light of Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal disposed of the petition filed by Kreetams Pro Bono and Centre for Legal Research. In doing so, it relied on Aureliano Fernandes vs State Of Goa whereby the Supreme Court issued a slew of directions to fulfil the promise that the PoSH Act holds out to working women all over the country. Further it directed the Union of India, State Governments and Union Territories to file compliance reports within 8 weeks.

Wife's Complaint U/S 498A IPC Can't Be Quashed Merely Because It's Filed After Husband Demands Divorce: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Pramod R S And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1511 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 205

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a husband seeking to quash the complaint registered by his wife under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, after he sent her a legal notice seeking amicable settlement for dissolution of marriage.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “There cannot be a declaration of law as is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the divorce notice is sent by the husband, the complaint registered by the wife thereafter loses its significance. If this contention is accepted, it would have a chilling effect on all the complaints. Therefore, this submission is noted only to be rejected, as it is fundamentally flawed.”

Hereditary Archakship Conferred Only On Paternal Line Of Succession: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M S Ravi Dixit And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: W.P.No.54745/2016 C/W W.P.No.48392/2016

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 206

The Karnataka High Court has held that in order to claim hereditary archakship, the line of succession should be on the paternal side and not on the maternal side.

A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda dismissed a petition filed by one M S Ravi Dixit and his brother M.S.Venkatesh Dixit, who sought to be appointed as Archaks, of Sri Mahabaleshwaraswamy Temple at K.R.Puram, Bangalore East Taluk.

Karnataka High Court Quashes 8 Yrs Old FIR Against Former CM Yeddyurappa In Land Denotification Case

Case Title: B S Yeddyurappa And State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1354 OF 2016

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 207

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered in the year 2015, against former Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa, on the basis of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for alleged illegal denotification of land and allotment of sites by the Bangalore Development Authority.

The court was informed that a coordinate bench of the high court had in 2015 considered the very allegations and had held that CAG report cannot be used as a foundation to build up a criminal case and cannot be made a part of investigation.

S.21 POCSO Act | Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Gynaecologist For Failure To Report Sexual Assault On Minor

Case Title: Dr. Chandrashekar T B And State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8789 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 208

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition moved by a Gynaecologist to quash a case registered against him under Section 21 of the POCSO Act for failure to report the incident of sexual assault on a minor.

Section 19 of POCSO Act mandates every person who has knowledge that sexual assault on a minor has been committed, to report it to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police. Failure to do so is punishable under Section 21 with six months imprisonment.

Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Cow Vigilante Puneeth Kerehalli Accused Of Murdering Cattle Transporter, Finds Discrepancy In Registration Of FIRs

Case Title: Pavankumar A N & ANR And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3765 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 3764 OF 2023, 3770 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 209

The Karnataka High Court last month granted bail to alleged cow vigilantes Puneeth Kumar alias Puneet Kerehalli and four others, accused of causing the death of one Idris Pasha on April 1.

In the order made available yesterday, a single judge bench of Justice MG Uma took note of the discrepancy in lodging of FIRs.

The petitioners had lodged a FIR against Idris Pasha, Syed Zaheer and others for illegal transportation of cattle. On the same day, Zaheer is said to have lodged FIR no. 53 against petitioners at 5.30 pm. Court noted that another informant lodged FIR against petitioners at 4 pm alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 324, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, but the FIR was numbered 54.

Ineligible Candidate Has No Locus: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Order Cancelling Appointment Of Zoology Professor In State University (livelaw.in)Ineligible Candidate Has No Locus: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Order Cancelling Appointment Of Zoology Professor In State University

Case Title: Dr M David And Department of High Education & others

Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.100234 OF 2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 210

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single bench order which cancelled the appointment of one Dr M. David to the post of Associate Professor, Zoology Department in the Karnataka University on the ground that he cannot claim caste status since he belongs from Andhra Pradesh.

The order was set aside by division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Umesh M Adiga citing lack of of locus standi of the original petitioner, who was declared ineligible in the selection process. Significantly, the contentions regarding caste certificate have not been addressed by the Court.

Mother Fails To Handover Child's Custody To Father Despite Judicial Order, Karnataka High Court Requires Her Employer To Hold Back Pay

Case Title: ABC v. XYZ

Case No: WPHC 30/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 211

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed the Police to contact the employer of a woman who failed to handover custody of her minor child to her husband despite a judicial order, and ask the employer to hold back her pay.

A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said the benefits payable to her be held till custody of the daughter is handed over. The bench was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the father. He was aggrieved by non-execution of Family Court order passed in March last year allowing his petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and directing the mother to hand over their 7-yrs old girl child to him.

Karnataka High Court Directs Revenue Dept To Evolve Mechanism For Tracking Progress Of Land Conversion Applications

Case Title: Abdul Rehman And The Deputy Commissioner & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 202519 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 212

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, to institute a mechanism for capturing the progress of applications which are filed under Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act for conversion.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Kalaburagi said it has come across several matters where the applications which had been filed for conversion have not been acted upon by the concerned authority resulting in unnecessary litigation.

Karnataka High Court Upholds State Corporation's Decision To Encash Bank Guarantee Furnished By Private Contractor Over "Shoddy Construction"

Case Title: PG Setty Construction Technology Pvt Ltd And The Managing Director, Karnataka State Police Housing And Infrastructure Development Corporation & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 753 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 213

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a private contractor seeking refund of bank guarantee encashed by the Karnataka State Police Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation for carrying out "shoddy construction" of police quarters.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna remarked, “The construction if it is of such poor quality, it is high time that such contractor should be penalised; penalised I mean, in a manner known to law, in terms of the contract. That is what was exactly done by the Corporation. The act of penalising the petitioner for such shoddy construction is done by encashing the Bank guarantee. No fault can be found with the act of the Corporation in encashing the Bank guarantee.”

Dept. To Reconsider The Application Under Karasamadhana Scheme: Karnataka High Court Quashes Recovery From The Banker

Case Title: M/s. GE T & D India Ltd. Versus State Of Karnataka

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 20035 Of 2019

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 214

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the recovery from the banker and directed the department to reconsider the application under the Karasamadhana Scheme.

The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav has observed that in the event that the application is rejected, it is needless to state that the petitioner cannot be placed in a position worse off, and the petitioner is entitled to the restoration of his appeal, which would be a logical course of action.