Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 24 - July 30

Nominal Index

T Sudhakar Pai and Others And M/s Manipal Academy of Higher Education & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 275

Kantharaju And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 276

State of Karnataka & Others And Savantrewwa. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 277

Adity Deepak Kumar And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 278

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation And Nigel Roderick Lloyd Harradine. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 279

Naveen Kumar R @ Naveen & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 280

Venkatesh & ANR And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 281

Dr Ashok V And The State By Hon’ble Lokayukta of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 282

Special Agricultural Produce Market Committee For Fruits, Flowers and Vegetables And Special Land Acquisition Officer—1 & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 283

N Rajeev AND C Deepa. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 284

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPT & Others And RANJITH K P & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 285

C M Chandra Shekhar And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 286

Mohammed Amjad Pasha And Naseema Banu & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 287

M/S. Vodafone Idea Limited Versus Deputy Director Of Income Tax. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 288

Judgements/Orders

Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines On Civil Imprisonment For Wilful Disobedience Of Judicial Orders

Case Title: T Sudhakar Pai and Others And M/s Manipal Academy of Higher Education & Others

Case No: COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.404 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 275

The Karnataka High Court recently issued a set of guidelines to be followed by the trial courts while ordering civil imprisonment to an accused for wilful disobedience of court orders under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, “The underlying philosophy of the provision is curative and to enforce the compliance of the Court order rather than to punish the wrongdoer. At the same time, it is equally important that any party to the litigation should not carry the impression that one who violates the interim order is entitled to a long rope. The provision also has a very important role to play in upholding the rule of law, the majesty of the Court, and ensuring the credibility of the Court order.”

Second Wife Can't Maintain Complaint Against Husband And In-Laws U/S 498A IPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Kantharaju And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1372 OF 2019

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 276

The Karnataka High Court has said that a complaint under Section 498-A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code, filed by the second wife against the husband and her in-laws is not maintainable.

A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah allowed the petition filed by one Kantharaju and set aside the conviction order passed by the trial court and the revision court convicting him for section 498-A on the complaint filed by his second wife.

Karnataka High Court Reverses Order Granting Freedom Fighters' Pension To 89-Yrs Old Widow

Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others And Savantrewwa

Case No. WA No 100210/2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 277

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order of a Single bench which directed State authorities to grant freedom fighters’ pension together with all arrears to an 89-year-old widow.

A division bench of Justice R Devdas and Justice Rajesh Rai K sitting at Dharwad allowed the State's appeal observing, “In the year 2014 the guidelines issued by the Central Government in respect of the disbursement of 'Central Government Sanman Pension Scheme' which was followed by the State Government also, passed an order that ‘No pension shall be sanctioned in the name of freedom fighter after his/her death even his/her matter was under examination’. Hence, in our considered opinion, the first appellant (State Government) rightly rejected the claim of the respondent for grant of freedom fighters' pension.”

'Systematic Discrimination': Karnataka High Court Pulls Up College For Charging Tuition Fees From Student Admitted Under Supernumerary Quota

Case Title: Adity Deepak Kumar And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.11724 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 278

"The implementation of supernumerary quota in educational institutions aims to foster inclusivity and provide equal opportunities to underrepresented groups. However, a disturbing trend has emerged where some educational institutions engage in wrongful conduct by charging fees to students admitted through the supernumerary quota,” the Karnataka High Court observed recently.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was dealing with a case whereby an Engineering college in Mysore had adjusted the scholarship amount awarded to a student admitted under the supernumerary quota, towards her tuition fees.

Karnataka High Court Says London Court's Order Directing KSRTC To Compensate British Couple For Accident Not On Merits, Not Executable

Case Title: Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation And Nigel Roderick Lloyd Harradine

Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.453/2017

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 279

The Karnataka High Court has allowed an application filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), and held that a decree issued by a court in the United Kingdom (UK), directing compensation be paid to a British couple who suffered injuries when they met with an accident in 2002, while travelling in a car which was hit by a KSRTC bus, is not executable in law as the same is not on merits.

The decree holders had filed a case in Ashford Country Court and obtained the judgment and decree in their favour. The court in UK had vide its order dated 22-02-2007, directed KSRTC to pay the claimants- Nigel Roderick Lloyd Harradine and his wife Carol- a sum of £31431.33.

Data Theft Becoming A Menace Of Digital Age, Must Be Nipped In The Bud: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Naveen Kumar R @ Naveen & ANR And State of Karnataka.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3173 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 280

Data thieving has become a menace in these digital days and will have to be nipped, the Karnataka High Court observed recently.

The remarks were made by single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while refusing to quash the proceedings initiated against two persons accused of having stolen client data from their previous employer and misusing it by joining a rival company. The petitioners have been charged under sections 408, 504, 506 of the IPC and under Sections 66 and 66C of the Information Technology Act.

Change In Law By Apex Court Decision Doesn't Upset Prior Judgments Of Competent Court, Erroneous Decisions Can Operate As Res Judicata: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Venkatesh & ANR And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.11112 OF 2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 281

The Karnataka High Court has said that a divergent view taken by the Supreme Court on an issue is not binding on judgments passed prior to it by the competent courts and therefore, the principle of res judicata will apply between the same parties on the same issue.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case at the most can be treated as a change in law but that would not upset the earlier judgments.”

The petitioners Venkatesh and Ramesh had approached the Court seeking a direction to the authorities to forthwith restore peaceful vacant possession of the schedule property which was earlier granted to the original grantee Krishna (Father of the petitioners) under Rule 43(G) of the Mysuru Land Revenue Rules.

S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act | Private Complaint Against Public Servant Should Also Be Accompanied By Prior Sanction: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr Ashok V And The State By Hon’ble Lokayukta of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.531 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 282

The Karnataka High Court has held that private complaints filed without prior approval (sanction) from competent authorities under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against public servants should not be entertained by the Magistrate/Sessions Judge.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “This Court has come across several cases where private complaints are preferred by the complainants where, they do not approach the Investigating Agency like the Karnataka Lokayukta, but choose an alternate route of knocking at the doors of the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge. At that stage, what the Magistrate/Sessions Judge would do, is refer the matter under Section 156 (3) for investigation. Once the matter is referred for investigation, the Police / Lokayukta would have no choice but to register a crime. What happens in this process is the protective filter for vexatious, frivolous or malicious prosecution against the public servants created by the Parliament by the amendment in the year 2018 bringing in Section 17A to the Act is rendered illusory.”

Differences Between State And Its Entities Ought To Be Resolved On A Separate Platform, Not In Courts: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Special Agricultural Produce Market Committee For Fruits, Flowers and Vegetables And Special Land Acquisition Officer—1 & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20905 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 283

The Karnataka High Court has referred the petition moved by Special Agricultural Produce Market Committee, raising a dispute regarding the quantum of compensation to be paid for acquisition of its land for construction of a metro line, to a committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State.

A Single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav remarked, “Differences between State and its entities ought to be resolved in a separate platform and cannot land up for adjudication before the Courts which even otherwise are overburdened. The State and its entities are to contribute to lowering matters that end up before Courts for adjudication in a meaningful manner.”

Divorce Cases Should Be Decided By Family Courts Within One Year: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: N Rajeev AND C Deepa

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14769 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 284

The Karnataka High Court has said courts (trial courts) should make all efforts to try and dispose off matrimonial cases, which involve prayer for the dissolution/nullity of marriage, within an outer limit of one year.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said “Matrimonial causes should be tried & disposed off on a war footing, at least as a concession to the shortness of human life.” Pointing out the importance of early disposal the bench said “So that in the event of granting such a decree, the parties may restructure their lives.”

BH-Series Vehicle: Karnataka High Court Upholds Single Bench Decision Against Exclusion Of Private Sector Employees

Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPT & Others And RANJITH K P & others

Case No: WA 191/2023 C/W 196/2023

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 285

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal preferred by the State Government against a Single bench decision directing the Transport Commissioner to register the vehicles of two private sector company employees under BH-series, whose offices are in more than four states.

A Division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal passed the order. A detailed copy of the order is still to be made available.

The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in August 2021 introduced "Bharath Series (BH-Series)" registration mark for new vehicles; the marking will not require an assignment of a new registration mark when the owner of the vehicle shifts from one State to another.

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Interfere With Magistrate Court Order Charging HC's Ex-Deputy Registrar As Co-Accused In Misappropriation Case

Case Title: C M Chandra Shekhar And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 204 OF 2014

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 286

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a former Deputy Registrar of the High Court challenging a Magistrate court's order allowing an application filed under Section 319 CrPC and making him a co-accused in a misappropriation of funds case.

The application was moved by primary accused Jayaram Nayak, who was working as a Section Officer in High Court's Accounts Branch.

The allegation against them was regarding withdrawal of Rs. 20 lakh without orders from the Finance Committee and without any entry in the cheque encashment register of Accounts Branch. The complaint was lodged with the prior permission from the Registrar General and the Chief Justice.

'Holy Quran Says Duty Of Husband To Look After Wife & Children, Especially When They Are In Disablement': Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mohammed Amjad Pasha And Naseema Banu & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 8505 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 287

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a Muslim man challenging an order granting maintenance in favour of his wife and children.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit rejected the petition filed by one Mohammed Amjad Pasha who claimed that he does not have sufficient means to pay a collective maintenance of Rs 25,000 to his wife and minor children. The bench said, “Holy Quran and Hadith say that it is the duty of a husband to look after his wife & children especially when they are in disablement. No material is produced to show that the Respondent-wife is gainfully employed or that she has any source of income. Even otherwise the principal duty lies on the shoulders of petitioner.”

Vodafone Idea Not Liable To Deduct TDS On Inter-Connectivity Usage & Bandwidth Charges: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S. Vodafone Idea Limited Versus Deputy Director Of Income Tax

Case No.: ITA NO. 160 OF 2015

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 288

The Karnataka High Court has held that the assessee, Vodafone Idea, is not liable to deduct TDS on interconnectivity usage and bandwidth charges.

The bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar has observed that since the assessee was entitled to the benefits under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), it was not liable to deduct tax at source.