Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: March 18 - March 24, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 130 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 141

Nominal Index:

ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 130

M/S MARGADARSI CHITS (K) PVT. LTD AND H SRINIVAS REDDY & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 131

Bhuvaneshwari AND Prashanth Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 132.

Alfa S AND The Chief Secretary & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 133

Nawaz Pasha & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 134

Mohammed Jabir AND National Investigation Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 135

Dr Madhukar G Angur AND Directorate of Enforcement. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 136

Sudha Katwa AND The Registrar General & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 137

Abdul Basheer & Others AND Inspector General of Police (Prisons) & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 138

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 139

State of Karnataka & Others And REGISTERED UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION KARNATAKA & others.2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 140

Jayashree AND Mahaningappa & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 141

Judgments/Orders

Matrimonial Dispute | Strong Prima Facie Evidence Needed To Refer Wife To Board Of Psychiatrist For Medical Examination: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ABC AND XYZ

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.26295 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 130

The Karnataka High Court has said that there should be strong prima facie evidence to consider an application filed by the husband who is seeking divorce, to refer the wife to a Board of Psychiatrists for medical examination on the ground of her being of unsound mind.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by a husband who questioned the order of the family court which kept in abeyance his application seeking to refer the wife to a Board of Psychiatrists at NIMHANS for medical examination. It also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner (husband) to be paid to the wife.

Chit Funds Act | Appellate Authority's Order U/S 70 Is Final, High Court Can't Sit In Appeal: Karnataka HC

Case Title: M/S MARGADARSI CHITS (K) PVT. LTD AND H SRINIVAS REDDY & Others

Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 66982 OF 2011

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 131

The Karnataka High Court has held that there is only one statutory appeal against an order passed under Section 69 of the Chit Funds Act and an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 70 of the Act is final and no appeal lies against it before the High Court.

A single judge bench of Justice M.I. Arun dismissed the petition filed by M/s Margadarsi Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd which had challenged the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Chits.

Photostat Copy Of Unregistered Sale Agreement Can't Be Admitted As Secondary Evidence In Trial Only On Basis Of Accused's Admission: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Bhuvaneshwari AND Prashanth Kumar

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18433 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 132.

The Karnataka High Court has held that a photostat copy of an unregistered agreement to sell cannot be admitted as secondary evidence in a trial under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, only because the accused claims the signature on the document is his.

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed a petition filed by one Bhuvaneshwari challenging an order of the trial court 29.12.2022, dismissing his plea to permit him to mark the said document.

Suit For Direction To Rectify School Records Based On Caste Certificate Maintainable Before Civil Court: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Alfa S AND The Chief Secretary & Others

Case No: R.S.A.NO. 359 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) C/W R.S.A.NO. 340 OF 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 133

The Karnataka High Court has held that if the relief sought in the plaint is restricted to seeking a direction to rectify school records based on caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, the plaintiff's remedy is only under common law before the competent civil Court.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum while allowing an appeal filed by Ms Alfa S and others, challenging the order of the first appellate court, dismissed the suits seeking relief of mandatory injunction by way of direction to defendants to amend caste in the school records, on the ground that the reliefs were barred under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code.

[Padarayanapura Riots] Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against 375 People Alleged To Have Obstructed Civic Officials During COVID-19 Lockdown

Case Title: Nawaz Pasha & Others AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5913 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 552/2021, 1008/2021, 5799/2022, 5821/2022, 5832/2022 AND 5893/2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 134

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal prosecution initiated against 375 people alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly, armed with weapons in the Padarayanapura area on 19.4.2020 when there was a Covid-19 lockdown.

They allegedly stopped BBMP personnel from doing their official duty of securing 58 COVID-19-infected persons for being shifted to quarantine centres.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petitions filed by the accused and said “The Criminal proceedings against these petitioners in the above 5 cases are liable to be quashed without going to the veracity of the offence committed by the accused, whether one offence or different offences, in different place of occurrence. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed.”

Default Bail | Oral Request For Extension Of Custody Period Permissible: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mohammed Jabir AND National Investigation Agency

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.7388 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 135

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an oral request by an investigating agency to extend the custody period is permissible, if the accused fails to seek default bail on expiry of statutory period.

A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil also said that the right to get default bail under Section 167 of Criminal Procedure Code is an indefeasible right which the court cannot deny if an accused is ready to furnish bail, but this right should be exercised before the investigating agency files charge sheet or seeks extension of time to complete the investigation.

Karnataka High Court Quashes PMLA Case Against Former Chancellor Of Alliance University

Case Title: Dr Madhukar G Angur AND Directorate of Enforcement.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13205 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 136

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate against Former Chancellor of Alliance University, Dr Madhukar G Angur initiated under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty quashed the case taking note of the Apex court judgment in the case of Pavana Dibbur vs The Directorate of Enforcement, CRL.P NO.13205 OF 2023.

Director Of Prosecution Has To Perform Substantive Functions, 'In-Charge' Arrangement Not Encouraged: Karnataka HC Removes HK Jagadish From Post

Case Title: Sudha Katwa AND The Registrar General & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11387 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 137

The Karnataka High Court has removed HK Jagadish as incharge 'Director of Prosecution and Government Litigation', holding his appointment to be illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 25A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit said the provision prescribes specific qualifications and conditions for appointment to the august office and there is no dispute that Jagadish does not possess the same.

Provide Headphones To Prisoners During VC With Family, Defence Counsel To Prevent Breach Of Privacy: Karnataka High Court To State

Case Title: Abdul Basheer & Others AND Inspector General of Police (Prisons) & Others

Case No: Writ Petition 7755 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 138

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to ensure that in all the prisons where the undertrial prisoners or convicts are housed, there shall be a robust video conferencing facility so that any inmate would be in a position to interact with the defence counsel or family members.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that privacy must be maintained when the accused is speaking to the defence counsel through video conferencing and directed the government to provide headphones to the accused and the persons on the other side in the conference.

Executive Decisions Have No Authority To Meddle With Statutory Rights Which Can Only Be Curtailed In A Legal Manner: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND UNION OF INDIA & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 4273 OF 2020

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 139

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a circular issued by the Controller and Auditor General of India (CAG) by which it prohibited salary drawing and disbursing officers from deducting the amount due to the Accountant General's Office Employees Cooperative Bank Ltd (established by the employees of the Accountant General's Office), from the salary of the employee even if they had consented for such deduction.

A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said “The impugned clause conflicts with the binding provision of law. Thus, the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can certainly strike down the said clause even if it is the policy decision, as such decision seeks to override the provision of law and seeks to take away certain rights conferred under the Statute. The right conferred under the Statute can be taken away only in the manner known to law and not by any executive decision taken by any authority which has no authority to meddle with the statutory rights.”

Breaking | Karnataka High Court Paves Way For State To Conduct Board Exams For Classes 5, 8, 9 And 11

Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others And REGISTERED UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION KARNATAKA & others.

Case No: WA 379/2024 c/w WA 380/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 140

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single bench order which stopped the State government from conducting board exams for students of 5, 8 and 9 and 11 standard of the schools affiliated to the State Board.

A division bench of Justice K Somashekhar and Justice Rajesh Rai K thus allowed the State's appeal and directed the government to hold the remaining Assessment for classes 5,8,9 students. Board exams for Class 11 were already completed during the litigation. The Court has asked the State to resume the process for 11th standard also.

Average Income Is To Be Considered If Variations Found In Income Tax Returns Filed By Claimant: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Jayashree AND Mahaningappa & Others

Case No: MFA 202275 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 141

The Karnataka High Court has held that if income tax returns are available the same should be considered as best a piece of evidence and if variations are found in the income tax returns, considered for different assessment years, it would be appropriate to consider the average income of three assessment years to arrive at the annual stable income of the claimant seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

A division bench of H.T.Narendra Prasad and Justice K V Arvind made the observation while partly allowing the appeal filed by Jayashree questioning the order of the trial court and sought enhancement of compensation granted.