Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 29 - May 05, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 202 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 209

Nominal Index:

SRIVIDYA C G AND SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 202

Jayashankar AND The Assistant Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 203

Sultan Mohiyuddin & Others AND Habeebunissa & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 204

Somashekar AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 205

Dr Ravikumar N.K AND The State Of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 206

David D'souza AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 207.

Padpara Patti, Syed Basha Aysb and Anr. vs The Labour Department Government of Karnataka Office at Labour Officer and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 208

The Management Of Nwkrtc, Gadag Division Vs Manjunath. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 209

Judgments/Orders

Special Courts Established Under Companies Act, 2013 Can't Retrospectively Try Offences Committed Under 1956 Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: SRIVIDYA C G AND SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 4380 OF 2018 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 3624 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 3625 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 3632 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 3642 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 3829 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 3943 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 4381 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 4671 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 6074 OF 2018 (GM-RES), WRIT PETITION NO. 11889 OF 2018 (GM-RES

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 202

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal prosecution initiated in 2015 by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against the accused involved in the merger initiated by Kingfisher Airlines Limited (KFAL) to acquire Deccan Aviation Limited (DAL) by providing fraudulent documents to its shareholders, stakeholders thereby violating various provisions of the Companies Act and the Income Tax Act.

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Srividya C G and others who were charged along with fugitive Vijay Mallya (Not before the court in this proceedings) and quashed the case registered under Sections 36 read with Sections 448 and 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Section 68 read with Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Fraud U/S 23(1) Senior Citizens Act Limited To Breach Of Condition Of Upkeep Of Transferor, Can't Be Enlarged To Fraud In Civil Law: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Jayashankar AND The Assistant Commissioner & Others

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.339 OF 2023.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 203

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that the concept of fraud or coercion incorporated in the Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, to be the ground to declare the gift deed as void is limited to the breach of condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs to the senior citizen-transferor.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit set aside a part of the order passed by the tribunal whereby it had allowed the complaint filed by K. V. Nanjappa setting aside the gift deed executed by him in favour of his son Jayashankar.

Shariat Law Doesn't Override Stamp Act; Transfer Of Property By Way Of Settlement Deed Permissible Among Mohammedans: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sultan Mohiyuddin & Others AND Habeebunissa & Others

Case No: RFA NO.626 OF 2013

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 204

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, does not override Section 2(q) and Article 48 of the Karnataka Stamp Act 1957, which deal with the contract of “settlement” thus, the transfer of property by way of “settlement” is very much permissible even among Mohammedans.

A single-judge bench of Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde allowed an appeal filed by Sultan Mohiyuddin and others and set aside the order of the trial court which had allowed the suit for partition and separate possession filed by Habeebunnissa and others and held that the transfer of property through settlement deed as was done by the father of the appellant is impermissible among the Mohammadans.

[S.224 IPC] Separate Trial Permissible If Accused Escapes From Lawful Custody While Arrested In Another Crime: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Somashekar AND State of Karnataka

Case NO: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.126/2017

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 205

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by an accused who was convicted by the trial court for running away from the lawful custody of the police under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh dismissed the petition filed by Somashekar who was convicted by the trial court on 09.06.2014 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000, the order was upheld by the appellate court.

Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Doctor Allegedly Involved In Illegal Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Scam

Case Title: Dr Ravikumar N.K AND The State Of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3154 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 206

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings initiated against a doctor who runs a private hospital and is alleged of huge scam of illegal termination of pregnancy in the hospital belonging to him.

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition filed by Dr. Ravikumar N.K who had approached the court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated for the offences punishable under Sections 312, 313, 315, 316 IPC read with Section 5(b), 5(1)(2) & (3) of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

Husband Telling Deceased To 'Hang Himself' For Allegedly Having Illicit Affair With Wife Doesn't Amount To Abetment Of Suicide: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: David D'souza AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4851 OF 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 207.

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an abetment to suicide charge levelled against a husband accused of hurling abuses at a Father (Priest of a church) who allegedly had an affair with his wife.

A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one David D'souza and quashed the proceedings registered against him under Sections 306, 506, 504 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench on going through the records said: “The sole accused, husband of the lady with whom the deceased Father had certain relationship and had blunt out his anger and had uttered words 'go and hang yourself' cannot mean that it would become the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC for it to become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC - abetment to suicide.

Company Must Be Necessary Party For Its Offenses Under Minimum Wages Act, Directors Can't Be Sued Separately For Vicariously Liability: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Padpara Patti Syed Basha Aysb and Anr. vs The Labour Department Government of Karnataka Office at Labour Officer and Anr.

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 14973 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 208

The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty held that a company must be accused as a necessary party for its offences under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Persons acting on its behalf, including directors, cannot be criminally prosecuted if the company itself is not named as an accused party.

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/id-act-right-to-claim-interest-pre-existing-right-explicitly-provided-contract-employment-service-conditions-karnataka-high-court-256942

Case Title: The Management Of Nwkrtc, Gadag Division Vs Manjunath

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 107562 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 209

The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held that the right to claim interest could be considered a pre-existing right or benefit only if explicitly determined in the contract of employment or in the resolutions governing service conditions. However, it held that neither the contract of employment nor the service conditions of the Workman outlined the payment of interest on delayed service benefits.

Furthermore, the bench held that an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the Labour Court would require a prior adjudication or recognition by an employer of the claim of the Workman to be paid wages at the rate which they claim.