Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 23 To September 29, 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 411 to Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 418

Nominal Index:

Dr Kalyan C Kankanala AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 411

Arptia J AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 412

Siddaramaiah AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 413

Keshavamurthy AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 414

Suresha & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 415

Vishal Raghu & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 416

BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) AND Shivananda S Patil

2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 417

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING AND ORS vs. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS CONTRACT WORKERS ASSOCIATION. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 418

Judgments/Orders

Taking Steps Like 'Screen Readers' To Make Website Disabled Friendly: Trademark Controller General's Office To Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr Kalyan C Kankanala AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.21978 OF 2021

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 411

The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks told the Karnataka High Court recently that it is taking steps to ensure that its websites are made accessible to Persons with Disabilities (PwD), in line with prevailing Guidelines issued by the Union of India.

Taking note of the submission, the high court disposed of a plea seeking that websites of the patent, designs and trademarks authority is made accessible to persons with disabilities.

Karnataka High Court Directs KSLU To Grant Full Marks Obtained By Law Students In Revaluation, Enable Them To Pass Examination

Case Title: Arptia J AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 21704/2024, WP 21452/2024, WP 25149/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 412

The Karnataka High Court on Monday allowed a batch of petitions filed by law students and directed Karnataka State Law University, to grant them full marks which they had obtained in revaluation of their marksheets, which would help them pass in the examination.

A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petitions filed by Arpita J and others and said “Though several contentions are being urged by both sides in respect of their claims in the light of the disputed facts that if the marks obtained by the petitioner in the revaluation which is the entire full marks are taken into account the petitioner would successfully pass and complete the said examination. Thus without going into the merit or demerits of the rival contention, as regards the validity, legality or correctness of the Regulation 1.3.6 of the impugned notification. I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petitions directing the respondents to grant full marks obtained by petitioners in revaluation, within two weeks.”

Karnataka High Court Upholds Governor's Sanction Against CM Siddaramaiah In MUDA Case, Says Matter Requires Investigation

Case title: Siddaramaiah AND State of Karnataka & Others.

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.22356 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 413

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (September 24) dismissed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's plea against the Governor's decision granting sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for investigation/prosecution against the Chief Minister in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the complainants were justified in registering the complaint or seeking approval from the Governor. The bench further said that it is the duty of complainant to seek approval under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act and the Governor can take independent decision.

"The facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require investigation, in the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all the acts is not anybody outside but the family of the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed," said Justice Nagaprasanna.

Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Accused In Renukaswamy's Murder Case Allegedly Involving Actor Darshan

Case Title: Keshavamurthy AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9353 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 414

The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to one of the accused allegedly involved in the Renukaswamy murder case, in which Kannada actor Darshan Thoogdeep Srinivas is also an accused.

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty granted bail to Keshavamurthy on him executing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties of like sum.

The petitioner is accused no 16 in the case, it is alleged that the accused had tried to destroy the evidence after the murder was committed and he had voluntarily surrendered in the place of the actual assailants by receiving a certain amount.

Sloganeering 'Bharat Mata Ki Jai' Promotes Harmony, Not Discord: Karnataka High Court While Quashing FIR U/S 153A IPC

Case Title: Suresha & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5694 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 415

"Sloganeering Bharath Matha Ki Jai would only lead to harmony and never a discord", said the Karnataka High Court while allowing a plea by five men for quashing an FIR lodged against them for allegedly promoting enmity between different groups and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

The petitioners had claimed that on June 9 after they were coming back from celebrating the oath ceremony of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, they were attacked by 25 persons. The petitioners' alleged that they were questioned by the group as to how the former could raise "slogans of Bharath Matha Ki Jai"; one of those 25 persons allegedly stabbed two of the petitioners. The petitioners' said that the same night they lodged a complaint and an FIR was registered.

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against State Bar Council Chairman, Vice-Chairman For Alleged Misappropriation Of Official Funds

Case Title: Vishal Raghu & Others AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P 3666/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 416

The Karnataka High Court has rejected the plea filed by Chairman of the State Bar Council Vishal Raghu, Vice Chairman Vinay Mangalekar and another, for quashing a FIR lodged against them for allegedly misappropriating official funds to the tune of several lakhs.

The trio is booked under Sections 37,34,120B,403,406,409,420,465,468,471,477A of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint by a Member of the Council, Senior Advocate Basavaraj S.

S.223 BNSS | Notice To Accused Can't Be Issued Before Recording Sworn Statement Of Complainant & Witness: Karnataka HC Lays Down Procedure

Case Title: BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) AND Shivananda S Patil

Case No: CRL.P 7526/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 417

Clarifying the procedure to be followed by magisterial courts on issuance of notice on complaints under Section 223 BNSS, the Karnataka High Court Friday underlined that the opportunity of hearing to be provided to the accused in the provision is not an empty formality, without which cognizance cannot be taken.

Section 223 BNSS pertains to examination of complaints and states that a magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. It adds that the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses as well as by the Magistrate. The first proviso states that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.

Before Finalizing A Contract, Contractual Labourers Must Be Given An Opportunity Of Being Heard As Per Principles Of Natural Justice, Karnataka High Court

Case Title: HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING AND ORS vs. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS CONTRACT WORKERS ASSOCIATION

Case No:WRIT APPEAL NO.1122 OF 2021

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 418

The Bengaluru Bench of Karnataka High Court has directed Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, (appellant in the writ appeal) to revise the “Comprehensive Contract” in a manner accepted by law and to communicate it to the HAL Contract Workers' Association (respondents in the writ appeal).

HAL was instructed to issue a preliminary notification to consider objections from people who might be affected because of the Contract, review those objections, and then make a final decision.

A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and G Basavaraja held that the order of the Single Judge was reasonable. However, modifying the order, the Bench directed that an authorized representative of the contract workers or the respondent Union must be notified and given a chance to speak before finalizing the Revised Comprehensive Contract.