Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: April 2022 [Citations 98 - 144]

P.C.Padmamba v Channaveeramma R, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 98

Rehan Khan v. Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 99

A B Devaraju and Others v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 100

NANJAPPA v. STATE BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 101

Faheem Ahmed V Union Of India 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 102

Xxxxxxxx V The Registrar General  2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 103

M. Surendra Rao v M. Raveendra Rao and others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 104

Shanti Dhama College v The Principal Secretary 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 105

PRABHAMANI v. HEMALATHA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 106

CTI Future Corporation versus Ducgiang Chemical and Detergent Powder Joint Stock Company  2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 107

Sayyad Mohammad @ Nasim V State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 108

Wing Commander G B Athri (Retired) v Union Of India 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 109

Iqbal Ahmed v C.B.I. SCB 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 110

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 111

Renuka W/O Anand @ Anantsa Bakale v Ramanand S/O Ramkrishnasa Basawa And Others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 112

M/S. A. SEATING & Others v. M/S. NANDINI MODULARS 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 113

J P I Dass School Of Nursing V State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 114

BABU S v. STATE BY KENGERI POLICE STATION 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 115

D V VENKATESHAPPA v. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 116

Master Pavan S v. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 117

Letzkit Foundation v. The State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 118

Kumaresh K and Others v Union Of India and Other  2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 119

SOHO PUB AND GRILL And STATE OF KARNATAKA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 120

Zuhab Hameed Shakeel Manna @ Zohib Manna v. The National Investigation Agency 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 121

Rajkumar And The State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 122

WE CARE CHARITABLE TRUST v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 123

Lakshmikanta and Other v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 124

Ms Padmavathi Subramaniyan v The Ministry Of Civil Aviation 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 125

Dr. UMESH P.G v. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 126

VASANTH ADITHYA. J v. STATE BY KARNATAKA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 127

Mohamed Ikbal v. Secretary to the Government of India 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 128

Karnataka State Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 129

K Srinivas V The Karnataka State Election Commission 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 130

Shanthi Nikethan High Court v other v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 131

P Balaji Babu v. State Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 132

Srikanth L Ghotnekar and Other v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 133

THE MEMBER SECRETARY OF A P P CUM AGP RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE v. THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 134

JANARDHANA PUJARI S And Karnataka State Law University, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 135

Murali Krishna Brahmandam v. Chief Electoral Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 136

SALEEM KHAN v STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 137

Comanduru Parthasarathy v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 138

Sampada and others v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 139

Suresh v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 140

South India Biblical Seminary versus Indraprastha Shelters Pvt Ltd and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 141

Suo-Motu v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 5781/2021 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 142

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SHANKAR URF SHANKRAPPA S/O RAMPPA HUBBALLI, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 143

HUBBALLI DHARWAD ADVERTISERS ASSOCIATION and others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 144

Judgments/Orders/Reports

1. Authority Under Registration Act Not Civil Court, Can't Issue Summons Or Examine Witnesses: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: P.C.Padmamba v Channaveeramma R Case No: R.S.A. No.5/2017

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 98

The Karnataka High Court has said that the power conferred on the registering officer under the Registration Act is fundamentally to enable him to satisfy himself about the identity of the person who has presented the document and enquire with him as to whether he has executed the document so presented by him and this power cannot be enlarged by examining the witnesses, scribe etc.

2. Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea To Award Bharat Ratna Award To Late Seer Shivakumara Swami

Case Title: Rehan Khan v. Hon'ble Prime Minister of India Case No: WP 139/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 99

The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation filed by one Rehan Khan, seeking a direction be issued to the Prime Minister of India through its Principal Secretary to consider the representation made by him for conferring Bharat Ratna award on late Dr Sri Sri Shivakumara Swami.

3. 'Impact On Environment Has To Be Kept In Mind': Karnataka High Court Directs State To Consider Representation Against Dumping Site Near River

Case Title: A B Devaraju and Others v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 6386/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 100

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Mandya District to consider the representation to be given by petitioners seeking to shift the location of the site proposed for setting up a solid waste management unit. The proposed site is purportedly close to a river. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar said, "We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with the observations that the petitioners may raise their grievance by way of fresh representation within a period of ten days from today before respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, DC Office, Mandya district, who may look into the matter and if need be, take an expert opinion, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order along with the representation is placed before him."

4. Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines To Curb Practice Of 'Fraud On Courts' For Securing Bail

Case Title: NANJAPPA v. STATE BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1653/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 101

Observing that "Unscrupulous litigants should not be allowed to pollute the stream of justice," the Karnataka High Court has issued directions to the Registry and District courts across the state to evolve mechanisms using modern technology to curb the practice of fraud on the court. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh issued the following guidelines while rejecting the application filed by accused Nanjappa, who had filed multiple proceedings before various courts seeking anticipatory bail.

5. Karnataka High Court Refuses To Hear Plea Challenging Power Of Local Registrar Under Citizenship Rules To Declare 'Doubtful Citizen'

Case Title: Faheem Ahmed V Union Of India Case No: Writ Petition No.1030 Of 2020

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 102

The Karnataka High court has dismissed a petition seeking to declare as ultra vires the power of the local Registrar to verify and scrutinise the data so as to test the citizenship of an individual and consequently to declare him a doubtful citizen under the Citizenship (Registration of Citizen and issue of National Identity Cards) Rules 2003 as ultra vires.

6. Right To Be Forgotten: Karnataka High Court Directs Indian Kanoon To Mask Aggrieved Party's Name From Judgment Record

Case Title: Xxxxxxxx V The Registrar General

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 103

The Karnataka High Court has directed Indian Kanoon to mask the name of a woman, who has been granted mutual divorce and has subsequently remarried, if the judgment in question has to remain in the company's database.

6. Trial Court Must Decide Objections To Marking Of Documents Then & There Itself Instead Of Reserving It For Later Stage :Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M. Surendra Rao v M. Raveendra Rao and others Case No: WRIT PETITION No.4290 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 104

The Karnataka High Court has said it is the duty of the trial court which records the evidence to then and there itself (immediately) hear on the objections and decide regarding the marking of the document and its admissibility. It cannot reserve the right of the parties to rake up the point at a later stage and get it marked as an exhibit and include it as evidence.

7. Authorities Accountable For Time Within Which Power Is Exercised': Karnataka HC Calls For Expeditious Disposal Of College Affiliation Applications

Case Title: Shanti Dhama College v The Principal Secretary Case No: Writ Petition No.3503/2022 (Edn-Res)

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 105

The Karnataka High Court has observed that applications made by colleges seeking affiliation/ recognition etc. for a specified academic year must be decided with "clock work precision" and final order granting or refusal of affiliation should be issued well before the commencement of that academic year. A single judge bench of Justice P. Krishna Bhat observed, "The filing of application seeking affiliation entails payment of considerably high fees. If decisions on such applications are not taken within a timeframe, they become irrelevant or infructuous due to efflux of time and thereby applicants suffer irreparable hardship."

8. Votes Not Invalid Merely Because They Were Cast On Ballot Papers From Another Constituency : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: PRABHAMANI v. HEMALATHA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.23811 OF 2021(LB-ELE)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 106

In a peculiar case, the Karnataka High Court recently allowed counting of ballot papers that belonged to another constituency after finding that there was "irrefutable evidence" to show that they were utilised for election in the constituency to which the parties before the Court belonged. The dispute pertained to elections to Karle Grama Panchayat. The Petitioner had obtained 232 votes and the Respondent had obtained 231 votes. This was on the basis of four votes that were initially rejected as not genuine, for being cast on ballot papers from another constituency.

9. Execution Of Foreign Arbitral Award, Singapore Being Reciprocating Country , Enforceable: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: CTI Future Corporation versus Ducgiang Chemical and Detergent Powder Joint Stock Company

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 107

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that an international commercial arbitral award rendered between parties that have no connection with India can be enforced by a Court in India if the property against which the award is sought to be enforced lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

10. NDPS Act | Chargesheet Without FSL Report Not Defective, No Ground For Default Bail U/S 167(2) CrPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sayyad Mohammad @ Nasim V State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.5934 Of 2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 108

The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused charged under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act does not get a right to default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC, merely because the charge sheet/ final report filed by the Police after investigation is without FSL report.

11. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Removal Of Alleged Anomalies In Centre's 'OROP Policy'

Case Title: Wing Commander G B Athri (Retired) v Union Of India Case No: Writ Petition No.4237 Of 2021

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 109

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed seeking directions to the Union Government to implement the recommendation of one-man judicial committee resolving anomalies in the implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) to all the pension drawing persons as on July 1, 2014.

12. Police Officer Not Obligated To Register FIR On Information About Offence "Likely To Take Place": Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Iqbal Ahmed v C.B.I. SCB Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.538 of 2014,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 110

The Karnataka High Court has said it is not necessary to register FIR whenever a police officer receives information over the phone or in some other way about an offence which is likely to take place. It clarified that the mandate under Section 154 for registration of FIR comes into picture when cognizable offence "has been committed". Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "It is not necessary to register FIR whenever a police officer receives information over the phone or in some other way about an offence which is likely to take place. Rather it is the duty of the police officer to take immediate measures to prevent the crime from happening, or if committed in his presence, to take action according to section 41 of Cr.P.C, FIR may be registered later on."

13: Karnataka High Court Puts In Abeyance Order Withholding Salary Of Principal Health Secretary For Failure To Install MRI Machines In DIMHANS

Case Title: Karnataka State Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 18741/1996

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 111

The Karnataka High Court has till April 21, put in abeyance its order directing not to disburse the salary of the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare (Medical Education) for failing to install M.R.I. Scanning Machine at the Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (DIMHANS). A division bench led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi had in November 2021, directed the State Government to upgrade DIMHANS, by March 1, 2022, to a higher psychiatry centre and to install and make operational the MRI Machine in the hospital.

14. Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines For Ascertaining Genuineness Of Parties Before Recording Compromise

Case Title: Renuka W/O Anand @ Anantsa Bakale v Ramanand S/O Ramkrishnasa Basawa And Others Case No: Writ Petition No. 103766 Of 2018,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 112

The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by courts and Lok Adalat for ascertaining the genuineness of the parties, before allowing a compromise decree, filed before it. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the directions in a petition filed by a party, claiming that its interest in the suit property was compromised by way of a compromise entered into by a person before the Lok Adalat claiming to be its power of attorney holder, without its knowledge.

15. If Ground Of Delay In Filing S.138 NI Act Complaint Is Raised For First Time In Appeal, Case May Be Remanded Back For Consideration U/S 142(b): Karnataka HC

Case Title: M/S. A. SEATING & Others v. M/S. NANDINI MODULARS Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1242/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 113

The Karnataka High Court has said that if a party, opposing the proceedings instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, fails to raise the ground of delay in filing the complaint before the court of first instance, the Court in Appeal is empowered to remand the matter back for fresh consideration on the issue of condonation of delay under Section 142(b) of the Act.

16. High Court Orders Karnataka Govt, State Nursing Council To Decide Pleas For Starting General Nursing & Midwifery Courses In 8 Weeks

Case Title: J P I Dass School Of Nursing V State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.4980 Of 2022

Citation : 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 114

The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government and the Karnataka State Nursing Council to consider and take final decision on the proposal forwarded by 25 nursing schools seeking to start fresh courses in General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) for the academic year 2021-22.

17. Customer Found In Brothel At Time Of Raid Can't Be Hauled Into Criminal Proceedings: Karnataka High Court Reiterates

Case Title: BABU S v. STATE BY KENGERI POLICE STATION Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2119 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 115

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a customer found in a brothel at the time when it is raided cannot be prosecuted. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagarpasanna allowed the petition filed by one Babu S and quashed the proceedings pending against him under sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and section 370 (Trafficking of person) of the IPC.

18. State Forfeiting Private Property Without Giving Compensation Or TDR Certificates Violates Art. 300A Of Constitution: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: D V VENKATESHAPPA v. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE. Case No: W.P.NO.1402/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 116

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government and Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to grant Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Certificates to a group of petitioners who surrendered their land to the corporation few years ago and still haven't received the TDR in-lieu of compensation.

19. Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Juvenile Incarcerated For 2.5 Yrs; Maximum Punishment If Found Guilty Would Be 3 Yrs

Case Title: Master Pavan S v. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No.195/2021

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 117

Observing that whereas the maximum punishment in respect of the alleged offence for which the accused, who was 17 years old at the time, is booked is of 3 years and he has already spent about 2½ years in custody, the Karnataka High Court passed an order granting bail.

The petitioner who was aged about 17 years, along with other accused persons, who are 21 in number, are said to have committed murder of two persons. Hence, the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. The Petitioner herein was booked under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 120-B, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2) of PDPP Act.

20.  Notified Draft Rules For Inquiry & Counselling In Cases Of Surrender Of Children By Parents: State Tells Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Letzkit Foundation v. The State of Karnataka Case No: WP 10092/ 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 118

The Karnataka government on Wednesday informed the High Court that it has published the draft rules which provide for the procedure for inquiry and counselling to be followed by Child Welfare Committees, in cases of surrender of a child by parents/ guardians to the Committee.

21. Karnataka High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Proviso (v) To S.14(1) SARFAESI Act

Case Title: Kumaresh K and Others v Union Of India and Other  Case No: WP 5990/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 119

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the Constitutional validity of proviso (v) Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

Section 14 provides procedure in which Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate may assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.

Proviso (v) to sub-section (1) thereof states that any application by the secured creditor under Section 14 shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured creditor, declaring that consequent upon such default in repayment of the financial assistance the account of the borrower has been classified as a non-performing asset.

22. Smoking In Public Places Is Prohibited: Karnataka High Court Directs Restaurant To Earmark Hookah Smoking Area, Obtain License

Case Title: SOHO PUB AND GRILL And STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: WRIT PETITION No.6971 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 120

The Karnataka High Court has directed a restaurant, Soho Pub & Grill, to earmark a separate area in its premises, after obtaining a licence, for allowing its patrons to smoke hookah. "Smoking of hookah should not cause inconvenience to other customers since smoking has been prohibited in public places, an exclusive area with separate enclosure is required to be reserved for hookah bar," Justice SG Pandit observed.

23. S.43D UAPA: Karnataka High Court Denies Default Bail To Man Allegedly Having Links With ISIS, Upholds Extension Of Judicial Custody To 180 Days

Case Title: Zuhab Hameed Shakeel Manna @ Zohib Manna v. The National Investigation Agency Case No: Writ Petition No.5913 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 121

The Karnataka High Court recently rejected a petition seeking default bail filed by an accused alleged to be having links with banned terrorist organizations. The applicant allegedly entered into criminal conspiracy to radicalize and motivate gullible Muslim youths to join Islamic State in Iraq and Syria ('ISIS'). A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while rejecting the plea filed by Zuhab Hameed Shakeel Manna @ Zohib Manna said, "I do not find any error or reason rendered by the Investigating Officer as put forth by the SPP to be contrary to Section 43D(2) of the Act."

24. S.370 IPC Can't Be Invoked On "Presumption" That Accused Indulged Himself In Human Trafficking: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Rajkumar And The State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.6118 Of 2021

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 122

The Karnataka High Court has said that Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked merely on the presumption that an accused indulged himself in human trafficking. A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while quashing criminal proceedings initiated against one Rajkumar said, "What can be gathered from the complaint and the chargesheet that is filed by the police is that, it is presumed that the petitioner had indulged himself in human trafficking and therefore, Section 370 of the IPC was invoked against the petitioner."

25. Power To Decide Applications For School Upgradation Is A "Public Power" Vested With State For Effectuating A Public Purpose: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: WE CARE CHARITABLE TRUST v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1682/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 123

The Karnataka High Court has said that applications filed before authorities seeking approval for upgradation of the schools should be decided in a time bound manner as the applications are filed for specific academic year and if the decision making authorities take too long a time for disposing of the applications, the academic year itself would have been over rendering the applications irrelevant or infructuous.

26. Nominated Members Of Municipality Have No Right To Vote In Municipal Council's Meeting: Karnataka High Court Upholds Article 243R(2)(a)

Case Title: Lakshmikanta and Other v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 4457/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 124

The Karnataka High Court while upholding the constitutional validity of Article 243R (2)(a) of the Constitution has reiterated that nominated members to the Municipal Council shall not have right to vote in the meeting of the Council.

A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, while dismissing a petition filed by six nominated councillors of the Malur Town Municipal Council said, "The elected members of the Council are chosen by popular vote and carry with them, the mandate of the people, whereas, nominated members of the Council are appointed as Councillors. The elected members and nominated members cannot be said to be belonging to the same class and there is no pleading that differentiation between elected and nominated members is either unreasonable or is arbitrary or that it does not rest on any rational basis. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, challenge to the validity of Article 243R (2) (a) that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, fails."

27. Air India Is Now A Private Company": Karnataka High Court Refuses To Exercise Writ Jurisdiction U/Art 226 On Employees' Plea

Case Title: Ms Padmavathi Subramaniyan v The Ministry Of Civil Aviation Case No: Writ Petition No.21448 Of 2021

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 125

The Karnataka High Court has said that since Air India Limited is now a private Company owned by M/s.Talace Pvt. Ltd., the grievance of the employees can be redressed only before the competent authority which can deal with the question and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A single judge bench of Justice R Devdas made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by petitioner Padmavathi Subramaniyan and two other employees of Air India Limited. The petitioner had approached the court with a grievance in matter of seniority.

28. No Violation Of Fundamental Rights: Karnataka HC Upholds Centre's Decision De-Recognising 'Vaidya Vidwaan' Certificates Awarded Between 1975-2010

Case Title: Dr. UMESH P.G v. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE Case No: W.A.No.148/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 126

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the notification dated June 25, 2010 issued by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare by which it de-recognize all the "Vaidya Vidwan" certificates awarded by the Andhra Ayurvedic Parishad from 1975 till 2010 as invalid.

29. Law Intern Allegedly Assaulted At Law Firm: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR

Case Title: VASANTH ADITHYA. J v. STATE BY KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3167/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 127

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash a case registered by the police against an Advocate under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act, 2000, on a complaint filed by a Law Intern.

30. Housing For BPL/ EWS Families: Karnataka High Court Asks Centre, State To Ensure Proper Implementation Of Govt Schemes

Case Title: Mohamed Ikbal v. Secretary to the Government of India. Case No: WP 5821/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 128

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Central and State Governments to ensure proper implementation of schemes launched for providing housing to eligible siteless/houseless urban and rural BPL/EWS families belonging to various categories of weaker sections of the society.

31. After Nudge From High Court, Karnataka Govt Installs MRI Scanning Machine At DIMHANS

Case Title: Karnataka State Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 18741/1996

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 129

The Karnataka Government on Thursday informed the High Court that an M.R.I scanning machine has been installed and made operational at the Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (DIMHANS). A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna took on record the compliance affidavit filed by the government stating that installation of the MRI Scanning machine is complete and trial runs are in progress and even the Medical Superintendent has been appointed.

32. S.16C Karnataka Municipalities Act | Lodging Accounts Of Electoral Expenditure Ensures Transparency & Accountability Of Candidates: High Court

Case Title: K Srinivas V The Karnataka State Election Commission Case No: Writ Petition No.3415 Of 2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 130

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by four persons challenging the order passed by the Karnataka State Election Commission disqualifying them from continuing as the elected members of the Municipality, on failure to lodge a true and correct account of electoral expenditure with the Returning Officer, within prescribed time.

33. Display School Name In SSLC Certificate Issued To Students: Karnataka High Court To State

Case Title: Shanthi Nikethan High Court v other v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 6532/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 131

The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government and other respondents to show the names of the schools, whose recognition was withdrawn in the middle of academic year, in S.S.L.C. marks card of the students.

34. 'Must Do Justice By Promoting Honesty': Karnataka HC Directs SBI To Refund Forfeited Amount Over Failure To Disclose Encumbrance On Auction Property

Case Title: P Balaji Babu v. State Bank of India Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.46450 OF 2014

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 132

The Karnataka High Court has directed State Bank Of India to refund the amount forfeited by it from a prospective purchaser of a property being sold under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) as it did not disclose that title of the subject property was not with the original borrower of the loan.

35. Conduct Does Not Inspire Confidence': Karnataka High Court Refuse Anticipatory Bail To Ex-Member Of Legislative Council In Extortion Case

Case Title: Srikanth L Ghotnekar and Other v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition no 2912/2022,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 133

The Karnataka High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a Former Member of Legislative Council and another person in an alleged case of extortion, registered against them by a civil contractor earlier this year. A single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav while refusing anticipatory bail to Srikanth L. Ghotnekar and Anil Chawhan said, "It must be noted that though an offence under Section 506 IPC and 363 IPC are bailable, the allegation of extortion is serious."

36. Certified Copies Of Answer Scripts Written By Applicant Can Be Provided Under RTI Act During Ongoing Criminal Investigation: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: THE MEMBER SECRETARY OF A P P CUM AGP RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE v. THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.57977 OF 2016,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 134

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the state government challenging an order of the State Information Commission which directed the authority to provide certified copies of answer scripts written by the applicant for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, in the year 2013.

37. Karnataka High Court Directs Law University To Consider Student's Representation Who Could Not Complete LLB Course In Stipulated 10 YrsTime

Case Title: JANARDHANA PUJARI S And Karnataka State Law University Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.8775/2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 135

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Law University to consider sympathetically and decided on a representation to be made by a law student who could not complete his Five Year B.A LLB course within the stipulated period of 10 years from the admission to the course.

38. Misconceived': Karnataka High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Direction To Not Conduct 2023 Assembly Elections In State

Case Title: Murali Krishna Brahmandam v. Chief Electoral Officer Case No: WP 8443/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 136

Observing that the petition is misconceived, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by one Murali Krishna Brahmandam seeking directions to the State and Chief Election Commissioner to not conduct the 2023 Assembly election in the state, but to directly elect people's representatives from all political parties as petitioner will elaborate.

39. Merely Attending 'Jihadi' Meetings Of An Organization Which Is Not Banned By Govt Prima Facie Not 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: SALEEM KHAN v STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 130/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 137

The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to one Saleem Khan, an alleged member of the Al-Hind Group which is allegedly reported to be involved in terrorist activities.

A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice S. Rachaiah said, "Mere attending meetings and becoming Member of Al-Hind Group, which is not a banned organization as contemplated under the Schedule of UA(P) Act and attending jihadi meetings, purchasing training materials and organizing shelters for co-members is not an offence as contemplated under the provisions of section 2(k) or section 2(m) of UA(P) Act."

40. Liberty Of Accused Lost If Secured On Body Warrant, That Period Must Be Counted For Seeking Default Bail U/S 167(2) CrPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Comanduru Parthasarathy v. State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2802 OF 2022,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 138

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that even when the accused is secured on body warrant, the liberty of the said accused is lost and that period would come to the aid of the accused for seeking default or statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Comanduru Parthasarathy and set aside the order of the trial court, refusing default bail to the accused.

41. Prescription Of Qualification For Recruitment Outside Domain Of Judicial Review Unless Affected By Manifest Arbitrariness: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sampada and others v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 8202/2022,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 139

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed questioning government notification by which it amended the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 and excluded subjects namely Psychology and Journalism at the graduate level as the minimum qualification for recruitment to the post of graduate primary teacher.

42. No Adverse Inference U/S 114 Indian Evidence Act If Prosecution Fails To Prove Presence Of Accused At Murder Scene: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Suresh v. State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 981/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 140

The Karnataka High Court has said that if the prosecution fails to prove the presence of the accused at the place of occurence of offence, it is not appropriate to draw adverse inference as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and Court cannot invoke Section 106 of the Act to ask the accused to disclose reasons for the offence.

43. Arbitration Involving Third Parties And Leading To Other Proceedings - Not Arbitrable : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: South India Biblical Seminary versus Indraprastha Shelters Pvt Ltd and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 141

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that reference of a dispute to arbitration cannot be allowed if it would lead to splitting up of the cause of action and cause determination on matters which were not contemplated for arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad held that there cannot be a complete adjudication of the claimant's rights unless the third parties were also heard, therefore, the matter was demonstrably non-arbitrable.

44. 'Bound To Cause Hindrance': Karnataka High Court Rejects Trade Unions' Plea For Holding Procession On International Labour Day

Case Title: Suo-Motu v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 5781/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 142

The Karnataka High Court refused permission to a batch of trade unions seeking to hold a peaceful procession in the capital on International Labour Day, i.e. on May 1.

A vacation bench of Justice R Devdas and Justice K S Hemalekha said, "This court is of considered opinion that there is a clear direction passed in order dated 3-3-2022 that the state government authorities will ensure that no protest/procession are held in the entire city of Bengaluru, except freedom park."

45. POCSO Act Not In Derogation Of Any Other Law, Has Overriding Effect In Case Of Inconsistency: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SHANKAR URF SHANKRAPPA S/O RAMPPA HUBBALLI Case No: CRL.A. NO.100242/2018,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 143

The Karnataka High Court recently increased the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to ten years, imposed on an accused convicted for raping a minor girl and charged under sections of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

46. Municipal Corporations Can Levy Advertisement Fee/ Tax Under KMC Act, No Conflict With Levy Of GST: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: HUBBALLI DHARWAD ADVERTISERS ASSOCIATION and others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Others Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 104172 OF 2021,

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 144

The Karnataka High Court has declared that there is no conflict between the power to levy GST under GST Act and power of Municipal Corporation to levy advertisement fee or advertisement tax under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.