Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 27 To December 3, 2023

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 450 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 457

Nominal Index:

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Other And Mallikarjun Savanur. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 450

The Deputy Director General & FAA Central Public Information Officer & Another AND P Lavanya & Another. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 451

H V Ashok And H N Gopal and Other. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 452

Ganesh V v. State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 453

D. K. Shivakumar And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 454

Dr. C. Vishwanath Reddy & Another v. The Commissioner BBMP & Another. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 455

Manimala @Roopa AND K Satish Kumar. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 456

Harish B T And Life Insurance Corporation of India 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 457

PC Act | Proceedings By Third Parties Not Judicial Proceedings, Employer Cannot Withhold Pension On Such Grounds: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Other And Mallikarjun Savanur

Case No: Writ Appeal No. 100422 of 2023.

Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 450

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that proceedings instituted by third parties against a government employee under the Prevention of Corruption Act ("PC Act"), cannot be construed to fall within the category of judicial proceedings, permitting the employer to withhold the pension of the retired employee.

In dismissing an appeal by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited ("KPTCL") against an order of a single bench which allowed a plea by a KPTCL employee, seeking disbursal of all of his retirement benefits, a Division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil observed, “The judicial proceedings instituted by third parties under the PC Act cannot be considered to be proceedings instituted under Regulation 171. Proceedings instituted by third parties cannot be construed to fall within the category of judicial proceedings permitting the employer to withhold the pension of the employee.”

Marriage Does Not Eclipse Right To Individual Privacy, Autonomy: Karnataka High Court On Wife's RTI Seeking Husband's Aadhar Details

Case Title: The Deputy Director General & FAA Central Public Information Officer & Another AND P Lavanya & Another.

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 100406 OF 2023

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 451

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of a single bench which directed the UIDAI to issue notice of hearing to an Aadhar card holder whose wife had filed an RTI application seeking personal Aadhar information, such as his address of service in order to enforce an order of maintenance.

The single bench had directed the Assistant Director General, Central Public Information Officer, UIDAI, to hold a hearing/inquiry and decide whether the husband's Aadhar details could be divulged to his wife.

Provide Form For Candidates To Disclose Pending Criminal Cases During Nomination Process: Karnataka High Court To State Election Commission

Case Title: H V Ashok And H N Gopal and Other

Case No: Writ Appeal No. 1249 of 2023

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 452

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Election Commission and other Agencies associated with the election process to implement directions given by the Apex Court pertaining to providing a form in which the contesting candidates are to declare their involvement in pending criminal cases, if any.

The petitioner's election had been annulled by the Election Tribunal on the ground that he had failed to disclose pending criminal cases against him, and such annulment was upheld by a single bench of the High Court.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Child Marriage Case, Holds Criminal Proceedings Against Accused-Husband Not In Interest Of Survivor And Child

Case Title: Ganesh V v. State of Karnataka,

Case No: W.P. No. 13600/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 453

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal case initiated against a man (petitioner) for offences punishable u/s 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, taking note of the survivor's plea that she and her child depended on him and the prosecution would not be in the interest of justice.

The survivor had appeared before the court and pleaded that the petitioner was the sole breadwinner of the family. She claimed that if the criminal proceedings were allowed to be continued and the petitioner incarcerated, she and her child would be put to more agony and misery rather than securing the ends of justice.

Disproportionate Assets Case: High Court Permits DK Shivakumar To Withdraw Challenge After Karnataka Govt Withdraws Consent For CBI Probe

Case Title: D. K. Shivakumar And State of Karnataka & Others.

Case No: WA 646 of 2023.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 454

Subsequent to the Karnataka government withdrawing consent accorded to the CBI, the High Court today permitted Deputy CM DK Shivakumar to withdraw his petition and appeal challenging the consent to prosecute him given to CBI in the disproportionate assets case.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice PB Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said in the absence of any challenge to the GO, it cannot comment upon the government's decision to withdraw the consent. Both CBI and counsel appearing for an intervenor had argued that the GO was motivated to protect the interests of the Congress leader.

Using Residential Premises To Provide Free Lodging Services To Cancer Patients, Parents Not Hospital Activity: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr. C. Vishwanath Reddy & Another v. The Commissioner BBMP & Another,

Case No: Writ Petition No. 21639/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 455

Justice Suraj Govindaraj of the Karnataka High Court recently quashed a notice issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to a non-profit organisation providing supportive care, including free lodging services, to children undergoing cancer treatment and their parents.

The notice, which was issued to non-profit organisation "Access Life Assistance Foundation" on the basis of a complaint received from certain neighbours, stated that it was using residential premises as cancer hospital and the same was impermissible without necessary trade license or otherwise.

s138 NI Act | Complainant Had No Right Over Property, Misused Cheques Issued To Grandfather: Karnataka High Court Upholds Accused's Acquittal

Case Title: Manimala @Roopa AND K Satish Kumar

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 610 OF 2011

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 456

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal upon noting that the appellant/complainant under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act did not possess any right over the property which had been purchased by the accused using the cheques which were dishonoured.

The Court also found that the appellant had misused the cheques which had been issued by the accused in her grandfather's (H.V.Venkatappa Reddy) name. In upholding the acquittal of the accused, a single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah observed that the property in question was a joint family property and that no right had accrued to the appellant over the property through a partition decree or otherwise.

Karnataka High Court Directs LIC To Consider Compassionate Employment Plea By Son Of Wrongfully Terminated Employee, Relaxes Age Limit

Case Title: Harish B T And Life Insurance Corporation of India

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 31445 OF 2015

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 457

The Karnataka High Court has held that the right of legal heirs of a terminated employee to claim compassionate employment would only arise when such termination was decreed to be illegal by a court of law.

In allowing a plea by the legal heirs of a former Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) employee who had been illegally terminated, a single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda directed the Corporation to consider their claim for compassionate employment upon relaxing the age limit for the same.

It held: Since the employee died while he was agitating his claim for reinstatement and this dispute raised by the deceased employee was alive till 2012, it is obvious that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground would come into operation only when this litigation with regard to wrongful termination was finally decided. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected by the LIC on the ground that it was belated. LIC cannot utilize this litigation that they had pursued, to non-suit the petitioner. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and the respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner."