Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 13 To November 19, 2023

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 430 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 436

Nominal Index:

Ganesh Achar AND United India Insurance Co LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 430

T Savitha & ANR AND B P Muniraju & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 431

Hanumantharayappa AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 432

Karan Singh S Rajpurohit And The City Municipal Council Hosapete & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 433

Lakshmamma AND D R Sudeep and Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 434

Akkamahadevi & Others And Neelambika & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 435

Ranagaswamy B T And Union of India and Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 436

Judgments/Orders

Section 166 of the MV Act | Claimant Must Present Genuine Proof | Acceptance of Guilt By Driver Is A Secondary Matter To The Tribunal

Case Title: Ganesh Achar AND United India Insurance Co LTD.

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8145 OF 2012 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2731 OF 2012.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 430

The Karnataka High Court has held that when an application is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is for the claimant to prove their case by adducing independent evidence. Mere acceptance of guilt by the owner/driver of the offending vehicle can never be a ground for the tribunal to come to a conclusion, it held.

A single judge bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti thus dismissed the appeal filed by a claimant seeking enhancement of compensation and allowed the appeal filed by United India Insurance to set aside the order of the tribunal granting compensation to the claimant.

Trial Court Can Frame Legal Queries under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC Before Making Final Judgment In The Form Of A Decree

Case Title: T Savitha & ANR AND B P Muniraju & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23015 OF 2023

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 431

The Karnataka High Court has said that under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, the trial court can at any time before passing a decree, frame an additional issue on such terms as it deems fit as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties.

A single judge bench of Justice S G Pandit allowed the petition filed by T Savitha and another questioning the order of the trial court which dismissed their application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 to frame additional issue as to whether the suit for partial partition is maintainable.

Death By Rash & Negligent Driving: Karnataka High Court Sends Youth To 6 Months Imprisonment, Expresses Concern At Increasing Accidents

Case Title: Hanumantharayappa AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 784 OF 2015

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 432

The Karnataka High Court has confirmed the sentence of six months imprisonment imposed on a youth under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing death of a pedestrian by rash and negligent driving.

A single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed the revision petition filed by Hanumantharayappa who at the time of offence was 21-years-old.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgments in the case of GURU BASAVARAJ @ BENNE SETTAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2012(8) SCC 734 and STATE OF PUNJAB vs SAURABH BAKSHI reported in 2015 (5) SCC 182, the bench observed:

Father Who Lost Son In Drain Accident 10 Years Ago Gets 5 Lakh Compensation After Karnataka High Court Slams Municipality

Case Title: Karan Singh S Rajpurohit And The City Municipal Council Hosapete & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 103849 OF 2023

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 433

The Karnataka High Court recently admonished the Hospete Municipal Council for delaying the compensation to a father for the death of his 6-year old son ten years ago after falling into a drain.

The Court pulled up the Council for not acting on the previous Court orders toconsider the representation of the father for compensation and chastised its "contumacious conduct" which forced the hapless man to approach the Court on three occasions over ten years.

Karnataka High Court Convicts 10 Persons For Barging Into Harijan Colony & Assaulting Dalits

Case Title: Lakshmamma AND D R Sudeep and Others

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.876 OF 2011

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 434

The Karnataka High Court has convicted and sentenced 10 people who in 2008 had barged into a Harijan Colony in Tumkur district abused them and assaulted the Dalits residing their by referring to their caste names and assaulted them with clubs, stones and caused bleeding injuries.

A single judge bench of Justice J M Khazi set aside the acquittal order and convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of SC and ST (POA) Act.

Hindu Succession | Daughters Can't Be Deemed To Have Abandoned Claim In House Property Because They Forfeited Other Shares : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Akkamahadevi & Others And Neelambika & Others

Case No: Regular First Appeal no. 100221 of 2016 c/w Regular First Appeal No. 100197 of 2016.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 435

The Karnataka High Court has held that daughters abandoning their share only in agricultural properties belonging to a joint family, which is partitioned among the sons of the propositus, cannot be deemed to have abandoned their shares in other joint family properties and they can seek partition of those properties.

A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Ramchandra D Huddar dismissed the appeals arising out a partition suit.

Writ Court Cannot Undertake Deeper Examination Of Defence Transfer Policy : Karnataka High Court Rejects IAF Officer's Plea

Case Title: Ranagaswamy B T And Union of India and Others

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1140 OF 2023

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 436

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Indian Air Force Personnel questioning his transfer posting order dated 29.12.2022.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the appeal filed by Rangaswamy B T who had challenged the order of the single judge bench which had rejected his petition questioning the posting order.

The appellant argued that the impugned order has brought about an unjust result and a lot of hardship will be occasioned to his client if the same is not set at naught. The appeallant had sought an extension of tenure for two years as the criminal case faced by him was yet to be disposed of.