Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: July, 2022 [Citations 238 -295]

Nominal Index:

DADA S/O BALU ROOGE v. APPASAHEB S/O KIRAN KESTE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 238

Sudarshan Ramesh v. Union Of India. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 239

THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES v. DR. DIGAMBARAPPA, & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 240

Case Title: Sadik Khan @Sadik v State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 241

PRABHUNAIKA K.T v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 242

CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION v K.L.JAYAPRAKASH, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 243

Irfan Pasha v. National Investigation Agency, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 244

Commissioner of Central Tax Vs ABB Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 245

Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 246

SHABANNA TAJ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 247

Thippeswamy @ Kunta v. State by Challakere Police, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 248

T G VEERAPRASAD & Others v. PRAKASH GANDHI & Others, 2022 LiveLaw 249

DR.S.P.RAGHUNATH v. THE UNION OF INDIA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 250

VENKATESH SETTY & Others v. SAOURAV GANGULY & Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 251

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. versus Mr. Donald Dayanand Donald, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 252

M/s Bellatrix Consultancy Services Versus The Commissioner of Central Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 253

Masters Management Consultants (India) Private Ltd. versus Nitesh Estates Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 254

T.SADANANDA PAI v. SUJATHA S PAI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 255

SYED SHABAJ v. SMT. PREMA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 256

SHIVASWAMY & Others v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 257

Philips India Limited v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 258

Shivu @ Shiv Kumar v. State of Karnataka & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 259

MISS. PRIYANKA PRADEEP GAVADE v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 260

NIRANJAN HEGDE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 261

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY HARIHAR POLYFIBERS, EMPLOYEES UNION & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 262

KARAN MENON v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 263

P.N.CHANDRASHEKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 264

Dhananjay v. Jumma Masjid Malalipete. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 265

AMBADI MADHAV v. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 266

Parveez Pasha v. The State by Tilak Park Police Tumkur. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 267

J SRINIVAS & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 268

Jeetendar Singh v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 269

Y Harish and Anr. versus Y Satish and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 270

M/s. Noorani Properties (P) Ltd. versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 271

Mrs M Dhanalakshmi @ Lakshmi Rajan & Anr. v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 272

SANGEETA W/O BAPU LAMANI & Others v. BAPU S/O SOMAPPA LAMANI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 273

SHOBHA & Others v. KAREWWA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 274

Himanshu Gupta And V Narayana Reddy. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 275

NAZRULLA KHAN @ NAZRULLA And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 276

N R RAVI v. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. SEM INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 277

Lysosomal Storage Disorders Support Society v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 278

ZAKIR HUSSAIN v STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 279

Dharmrao S/o Sharanappa Shabdi & Others v Syed Arifa Parveen W/o Mushtaq Ahmed. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 280

M/s. D.P.J. Bidar-Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project Pvt Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 281

Godolphine India Private Limited versus UM Projects LLP. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 282

B M MUNIRAJU v. THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 283

Ramesh Naik.L v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 284

CHERANDA NAND SUBBAIAH v. THE UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 285

Gopal v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 286

M/S Bestpay Solutions Private Limited versus M/S Razorpay Software Private Limited. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 287

K.R.KUMAR NAIK v. THE STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 288

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT And BASAVARAJ. YARADEMMI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 289

K Durga Prasad Shetty v. Dr Shashikala and Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 290

M/s Geosmin Studio Sustainable Solutions LLP versus M/s Ethnus Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 291

M/S. Flipkart Internet Private Limited versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 292

BANK OF INDIA v THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 293

Dyavappa v Bangalore University & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 294

Dr Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Education Trust v. Banu Begum & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 295

Judgments/Orders/Reports

1. Execution Court Can Issue Delivery Warrant For Decreed Suit Property Even If Possession Not Sought In Suit For Specific Performance:Karnataka High Court

Case Title: DADA S/O BALU ROOGE v. APPASAHEB S/O KIRAN KESTE

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102158 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 238

The Karnataka High Court has held that even if the plaintiff has not sought a relief of possession in a suit for specific performance, but had only sought the prayer for execution of the sale deed, the Execution Court can issue a delivery warrant directing the Judgment debtor to handover possession of the property, upon decree holder performing all obligations as stated in decree.

2. Bitcoin Scam: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash LOC Against Brother Of Accused Sirkrishna

Case Tile: Sudarshan Ramesh v. Union Of India

Case No: WP 1730/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 239

The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by Sudarshan Ramesh, brother of bitcoin scam accused Sirkrishna, questioning the action of Central authorities in restraining him from leaving India and travelling to the Netherlands.

3. Ad Hoc Appointments Can Be Made On Rotational Basis,Seniority Not A Criteria: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES v. DR. DIGAMBARAPPA, & others

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.100263 OF 2022 C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.100264 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 240

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Single Judge bench which held that appointments to the post of Director of University of Agricultural Sciences, on ad-hoc basis, shall be done on seniority basis.

4. Life Is Important To All, Persons Committing Brutal Murder Of One Cannot Now Seek Bail To Save Their Father's Life: Karnataka HighCourt

Case Title: Sadik Khan @Sadik v State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition 4834/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 241

"When petitioners have committed brutal murder of one person they cannot seek bail to save life of another person i.e. their father," the Karnataka High Court observed while denying bail to two murder accused.

5. Doctrine Of Sameness' Not Attracted When Victims Differ: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Multiple POCSO FIRs Against School Teacher

Case Title: PRABHUNAIKA K.T v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2015 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 242

The Karnataka High Court has observed that the 'Doctrine of Sameness' is not applicable if cases against the accused registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, are filed at different periods of time by different complainants.

6. S.116 Evidence Act | Tenant Who Accepts Induction Into Premises By A Landlord Can't Dispute Landlord's Title: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION v K.L.JAYAPRAKASH

Case No: M.S.A. No.28/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 243

The Karnataka High Court has said that in a tenancy dispute, when the tenant does not dispute his induction into the said property by the plaintiff (landlord) under a lease agreement, the question of doubting the title of plaintiff would not arise

7. UAPA | Individuals Not Members Of Any Terrorist Organization Can Also Be Prosecuted For 'Terrorist Act': Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Irfan Pasha v. National Investigation Agency

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 673/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 244

The Karnataka High Court has said that it is not necessary that a person being prosecuted for "terrorist act" defined under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, should be a member of a terrorist organization.

8. No Suppression Of Facts, Show Cause Notice Based On Balance Sheet: KarnatakaHigh Court

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Tax Vs ABB Limited

Case No: Central Excise Appeal No.16/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 245

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice Anant Ramanath Hedge has held that the assessee is not liable for the suppression of facts as the show cause notice was issued on the basis of the disclosures made in the balance sheet.

9. Xiaomi India's Challenge To Seizure Of Assets Before High Court 'Premature';Competent Authority Under FEMA Must Decide: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v. Union of India

Case No: WP 9182/2022

Citation no: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 246

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the Competent Authority appointed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act,1999 (FEMA) to issue a notice of hearing to M/s Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd and hear the parties concerned and pass appropriate orders in regards to the challenge raised by the company on the order passed by the Enforcement Directorate, seizing Rs.5551.27 crores.

10. [Rape] Consent Can't Be Assumed Even If Woman Is Of Bad Character/ Vulnerable:Karnataka HC Cancels Anticipatory Bail Of Accused Police Constable

Case Title: SHABANNA TAJ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4320/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 247

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the anticipatory bail granted to a police constable accused of sexually assaulting a women over a period of three years under the false promise of marriage.

11. 'Chance Fingerprints' Tallying With Theft Accused Not Reliable When Spot & Manner Of Lifting Fingerprint Not Disclosed: Karnataka HC Orders Acquittal

Case Title: Thippeswamy @ Kunta v. State by Challakere Police

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.911 OF 2012

Citation; 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 248

The Karnataka High Court has said in a case of circumstantial evidence, it is not safe to rely upon the mere report of the Fingerprint expert that the 'Chance Fingerprint' given to him for examination was corresponding to the fingerprint of the accused and proceeding to convict the accused, unless the spot and the manner in which such fingerprint was lifted is disclosed in the Court.

12. Recording Of Evidence Through VC Not Right Of Any Party, Discretion With Court To Grant Leave: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: T G VEERAPRASAD & Others v. PRAKASH GANDHI & Others

Case no: WRIT PETITION NO.8283 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw 249

The Karnataka High Court has said that in civil suits, where complex issues are involved, the Court should be cautious in allowing a party to lead evidence through video conferencing mode and that mere delay, expense or inconvenience cannot be a ground to allow a litigant to have an alternate mode of leading ocular evidence.

13. Sri Ram Janma Bhumi Trust Not 'State' U/Art 12: Karnataka High Court Declines Plea By 71-Yr-Old Seeking Appointment As Chief Engineer

Case Title: DR.S.P.RAGHUNATH v. THE UNION OF INDIA

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8644/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 250

The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a 71-year-old retired Engineer in Chief of Central Government seeking a direction to appoint him as the Chief Engineer at Sri Rama Janma Bhumi Theertha Kshethra on honorarium basis.

14. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Comparing IPL Auction With Human Trafficking

Case Title: VENKATESH SETTY & Others v. SAOURAV GANGULY & Others

Case No: WP 3489/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 251

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation filed questioning the auction held every year for selecting players for the Indian Premier League (IPL) teams and claimed that it amounted to "human trafficking".

15. Stamp Duty On Arbitral Award To Be Paid As Per The Rate Applicable When The Award Was Signed : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. versus Mr. Donald Dayanand Donald.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 252

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the date for the purpose of quantifying the stamp duty payable on an arbitral award under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is the date on which the award was signed.

16. Limitation Period Is Not Applicable On Refund Of Service Tax Wrongly Paid:Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Bellatrix Consultancy Services Versus The Commissioner of Central Tax

Case No: C.E.A No. 49 Of 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 253

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice Anant Ramanath Hedge has held that the limitation period is not applicable to a refund of service tax wrongly paid.

17. Section 8 Of A&C Act Can't Be Invoked Based On A Non-Binding Arbitration Agreement: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Masters Management Consultants (India) Private Ltd. versus Nitesh Estates Limited

Citation No: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 254

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that since the agreement between the parties provided for a 'non-binding' arbitration, there was absolutely no intention of the parties to enter into an arbitration agreement and that the said agreement could not be termed as an arbitration agreement.

18. Hindu Marriage Act | Able-Bodied Husband Having Earning Capacity Can't Seek Permanent Alimony From Wife:Karnataka High Court

Case Title: T.SADANANDA PAI v. SUJATHA S PAI

Case No: M.F.A. NO.1797 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 255

The Karnataka High Court has held that an able bodied man having the capacity to earn cannot seek for permanent alimony on divorce from his wife.

19. 'Sexual Acts Committed With Minor After Marriage': Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To POCSO Accused

Case Title: SYED SHABAJ v. SMT. PREMA & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3422/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 256

The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to an accused arrested under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Child Marriage Act while noting that the accused had subjected the minor girl to sexual act "after" they had got married, following elopement.

20. Criminal Trespass Complaint Can't Be Made If Property Is Not In Possession Of Complainant: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: SHIVASWAMY & Others v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2776 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 257

The Karnataka High Court has held that a complaint of criminal trespass cannot be made if the property on which the accused is alleged to have trespassed is not in the possession of the complainant.

21. Decision Of Adjudicating Authority Can't Be Doubted Merely Because It Is Govt Limb, Reliable Evidence Indicating Bias Is Must: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Philips India Limited v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: W.A. NO. 557 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 258

The Karnataka High Court has held that there has to be reliable evidence to indicate that the authority adjudicating objections is biased and the decision cannot be questioned merely because the officer is a limb of the Government.

22. False Promise Of Marriage Must Have Direct Nexus To Woman's Decision To Engage In Sexual Act To Attract Offence Of Rape: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Shivu @ Shiv Kumar v. State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: Criminal Petition No 3596/2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 259

The Karnataka High Court has observed that false promise of marriage must be of immediate relevance or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act, to attract an offence of rape.

23. Dysfunctional Limbs Render 100% Functional Disability: Karnataka High Court Orders ₹21.86 Lakh Compensation For Minor Victim In Motor Accident

Case Title: MISS. PRIYANKA PRADEEP GAVADE v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

Case NO: MFA NO. 25028 OF 2010

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 260

The Karnataka High Court has said if the medical evidence indicates that a minor child cannot straighten one of the lower limbs and one of the upper limbs has lost its power for use, it is as good as the human body becoming useless, so far as the person's ability to work and earn livelihood is concerned. Thus, the minor claimant has become functionally 100% disabled even when the medical expert has stated she has suffered 50 percent disability.

24. Wife Living Separately Commits Suicide In Parental House: Karnataka High Refuses To Quash Dowry Death Case Against Husband Citing Disputed Facts

Case title: NIRANJAN HEGDE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5657 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 261

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a husband seeking to quash a case of dowry death registered against him under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC, after his wife, living separately since over two years, committed suicide in her parental house.

25. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Grasim's Plea Against Increase In Employees' Retirement Age To 60 Yrs

Case Title: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY HARIHAR POLYFIBERS, EMPLOYEES UNION & Others

Case NO: WRIT APPEAL NO. 100250 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 262

The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Management of M/S Grasim Industries, challenging a single judge bench order which upheld the modification of Certified Standing Order passed by the Labour Commissioner, that enhanced the retirement age of employees in private sector from 58 to 60 years.

26. Court Barred U/S 468(2)(c) CrPC From Taking Cognizance If Charge Sheet For Offence With 3 Yrs Punishment Not Filed In 3 Yrs Of Incident: Karnataka HC

Case Title: KARAN MENON v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9334 OF 2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 263

The Karnataka High Court has said that Section 468(2)(c) of CrPC specifies that no court shall take cognizance of the offences punishable with imprisonment for a period of three years after the expiry of three years from the date of alleged incident.

27. FIR For Cognizable Offences Must Be Registered Before Conducting Investigation/ Raid: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Dance Bar

Case Title: P.N.CHANDRASHEKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7589/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 264

The Karnataka High Court has said that registration of a First Information Report (FIR) invoking cognizable offences after conducting the raid on a dance bar is not permissible in law.

28. Malali Mosque Dispute: Karnataka High Court Rejects Challenge To Civil Court's Decision To Decide Maintainability Before Ordering Masjid Survey

Case Title: Dhananjay v. Jumma Masjid Malalipete

Case No: WP 11528/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 265

The Karnataka High Court on Friday rejected a petition filed questioning the decision of the Additional City Civil court in Mangalore to first decide on the aspect of maintainability of the suit for permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the Malali Jumma Masjid authorities from dismantling the old tiled-structure of masjid said to be resembling a temple, before deciding on the application for appointment of a court commissioner to survey the masjid.

29. S.21 RTI Act | Public Information Officer Can't Be Penalised For Delay In Furnishing Info If Genuine & Bonafide Reasons Given: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: AMBADI MADHAV v. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8288/2013

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 266

The Karnataka HIgh Court has quashed an order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission directing a Deputy Conservator of Forests (deputed as the Public Information officer) to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for delay in furnishing information sought under the Right to Information Act (RTI).

30. Prosecution Can't Omit To Examine Investigating Officer Where Circumstances Warrant: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Parveez Pasha v. The State by Tilak Park Police Tumkur

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.155 OF 2012

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 267

The Karnataka High Court has said that in those cases where circumstances warrant to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, it is necessary to examine the Investigating officer.

31. Karnataka High Court Prohibits BBMP From Constructing Swimming Pool, Gym In 30 Yrs Old Public Park

Case Title: J SRINIVAS & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others

Case No: W.P.NO.45466 OF 2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 268

The Karnataka High Court has restrained the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) from constructing a swimming pool and gymnasium inside a 30 years old public park (Mariappanapalaya Park), situated in city's Rajajinagar area.

32. Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Youth Accused Of Sharing Military Base Photos With Pakistan ISI

Case Title: Jeetendar Singh v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 1691/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 269

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the bail petition filed by a 24-year-old, accused of sharing photographs of important places like Naval Base Army area with Pakistan ISI.

33. Once The Right To Refer The Dispute To Arbitration Is Waived By A Party, It Cannot Be Reclaimed: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Y Harish and Anr. versus Y Satish and Ors.

Dated: 01.07.2022 (Karnataka High Court)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 270

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that if a party has disputed the arbitrability of a dispute raised by the opposite party, in its reply to the notice invoking the arbitration clause, it is deemed to have waived its right to seek the reference of the dispute to arbitration. The Court added that if a right is once waived by a party, it cannot be allowed to be reclaimed and hence, the party cannot be permitted to contend that the suit instituted by the opposite party before the Commercial Court was barred by law.

34. Developer Put In Possession Of The Property Under The Development Agreement, Assessee Not Liable To Pay Wealth Tax: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s. Noorani Properties (P) Ltd. versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Anr.

Dated: 30.06.2022 (Karnataka High Court)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 271

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order passed by the ITAT holding that the assessee was liable to pay Wealth Tax with respect to a property, despite transferring possession of the said property to a developer under a Joint Development Agreement.

35. S.420 IPC Not Attracted In Absence Of Specific Allegation That Dishonest/ Fraudulent Intention Existed Since Inception: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mrs M Dhanalakshmi @ Lakshmi Rajan & Anr. v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No 2386/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 272

The Karnataka High Court has said that in order to constitute the offence of Cheating punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), there must be specific allegation that from inception, there must be a dishonest intention on the part of the accused to cheat the complainant.

36. S.125 CrPC | Courts Should Not Raise Objections Regarding Residential Proof Of Child/ Wife, Must Accept Duly Sworn Affidavits: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: SANGEETA W/O BAPU LAMANI & Others v. BAPU S/O SOMAPPA LAMANI

Case No: REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100043 OF 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 273

The Karnataka High Court has held that family courts shall accept the affidavit by aggrieved parties (wife and children) indicating their place of residence away from matrimonial home and not raise issue of jurisdiction while hearing an application seeking maintenance from the husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

37. Application For Substitution Of Legal Heirs Upon Plaintiff's Death Can't Be Rejected Without Examining Whether 'Right To Sue' Survives: Karnataka HC

Case Title: SHOBHA & Others v. KAREWWA & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 146130 OF 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 274

The Karnataka High Court has said that a trial court cannot reject an application made by legal representatives seeking to come on record following the death of the sole plaintiff to a suit, without considering whether the 'right to sue' survives on the legal representatives.

38. S.143A NI Act | Interim Compensation Cannot Be Granted Without Giving An Opportunity Of Hearing To Accused: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Himanshu Gupta And V Narayana Reddy

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 3555 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 275

The Karnataka High Court has said under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court can direct payment of interim compensation even without the complainant making an application praying for the same, but not without following principles of natural justice.

39. Dowry Death | Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Conviction U/S 304B IPC Citing Discrepancies In Multiple Dying Declarations

Case Title: NAZRULLA KHAN @ NAZRULLA And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2045 OF 2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 276

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction handed down to a husband under section 304-B (Dowry Death) of the Indian Penal Code, noting that there were discrepancies in the two dying declarations of the deceased wife, recorded before the police.

40. Official Liquidator Taking Over Third Party Property Under Liquidating Company's Possession Must Pay Rent As Costs Of Winding Proceedings: Karnataka HC

Case Title: N R RAVI v. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. SEM INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED.

Case No: COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 277

The Karnataka High Court has held that upon the Official Liquidator taking possession of the premises belonging to a third party, which was in possession of the Company in liquidation, the Official Liquidator would be required to make payment of the rentals to such third party land owner as costs of winding proceedings, the landlord being entitled to the rentals immediately as per the terms of the lease deed.

41. Karnataka High Court Directs Centre, State To Ensure Implementation Of National Rare Diseases Policy

Case Title: Lysosomal Storage Disorders Support Society v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: W.P 19061 of 2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 278

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Central Government and State Government to ensure implementation of policies framed for treatment of the patients suffering from rare diseases.

42. NDPS Act | Failure To File FSL Report Within 15 Days Of Recovery Not Ground For Grant Of Bail: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ZAKIR HUSSAIN v STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2612 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 279

The Karnataka High Court while rejecting a bail application by an accused charged under provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS) has reiterated that merely because the chemical analysis report of the contraband seized is not received within 15 days, it is not a ground to release the accused on bail.

43. S.50 Evidence Act |Non-Production Of School Docs To Establish Relationship No Ground To Disbelieve Person With Special Knowledge Of Relation: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Dharmrao S/o Sharanappa Shabdi & Others v Syed Arifa Parveen W/o Mushtaq Ahmed

Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.200204/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 280

The Karnataka High Court has said that mere non-production of a school leaving certificate does not take away the evidentiary value of witnesses examined for establishing relationship of a plaintiff to the deceased person in a suit for declaration of ownership to a property.

44. Karnataka High Court Quashes CBIC Circular Imposing GST On Annuity Payments Awarded By Highway Authorities To concessionaires

Case Title: M/s. D.P.J. Bidar-Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project Pvt Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 281

Case No: W.P. No. 7233/2022

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect and Customs (CBIC) clarifying that GST is not exempt on the annuity (deferred payments) paid for the construction of roads and allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.

45. Constitution Of Arbitral Tribunal Does Not Restrict Application For Interim Relief If "Entertained" By The Court : Karnataka High Court Reiterates The Law

Case Title: Godolphine India Private Limited versus UM Projects LLP

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 282

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the restriction contained under Section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) would not apply once an application under Section 9(1) for interim measures has been "entertained" by the Court before the appointment of the arbitrator.

46. Person Convicted For Minor Offences Under NI Act Entitled To "Lenient" Consideration Of Parole Application: KarnatakaHigh Court

Case Title: B M MUNIRAJU v. THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.7387/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 283

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Jail Superintendent of the Central Prison at Bengaluru to consider a parole application filed by an accused convicted under the Negotiable Instruments Act seeking to arrange 50% of the disputed amount for depositing with the Supreme Court Registry in connection with an appeal against conviction pending before it.

47. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Protection For Justice HP Sandesh Who Spoke Of "Transfer Threat"

Case Title: Ramesh Naik.L v. State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 14266/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 284

The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking protection for Justice HP Sandesh, who recently made sensational revelations regarding "transfer threats" for slamming investigations carried out by the Anti-Corruption Bureau in a case allegedly involving Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (Urban).

48. Karnataka Govt Has Not Given Permission For Radio-Collaring Of Tigers: High Court Closes PIL

Case Title: CHERANDA NAND SUBBAIAH v. THE UNION OF INDIA & Others

Case No: WP 34294/2009

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 285

The Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of a petition filed in the year 2009 questioning the action of radio collaring of tigers in the Nagarhole National Park.

49. Courts Should Not Seek To Run Governments In The Guise Of Judicial Review: Karnataka High Court

Title: Gopal v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 286

"It is primarily the task of the Government to govern and in the guise of judicial review, Courts should not seek to run the governments," the Karnataka High Court has observed.

A division bench comprising of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice P Krishna Bhat added that when a measure taken by the Government is for implementing a Mega Infrastructural Project pursuant to a policy framed embedded with the opinion of experts, Court should refrain from acting like a "super-accountant and interference with the same should be extremely rare where it is inevitable."

50. Arbitration Clause Can Be Invoked Against Disputes Under Another Agreement, If Both Agreements Form One Composite Transaction: KarnatakaHigh Court

Case Title: M/S Bestpay Solutions Private Limited versus M/S Razorpay Software Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 287

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a party can invoke the Arbitration Clause contained in an agreement with respect to the disputes arising with a third party under another agreement, if both the agreements refer to each other and form one composite transaction.

51. ACB Blissfully Ignored 'ABC' Of Procedure: KarnatakaHigh Court Quashes Corruption FIR

Case Title: K.R.KUMAR NAIK v. THE STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 7911 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 288

The Karnataka High Court has held that in a case where a public servant is charged with offences punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on allegation of amassing wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income, every ingredient that is required to be assessed in the source report must be present.

52. Doctrine Of Laches | In Welfare State, Govt As A Litigant Is Subject To Same Norms As A Commoner: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT And BASAVARAJ. YARADEMMI & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102109 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 289

The Karnataka High Court has observed that in a Welfare State, the Government as a litigant is ordinarily governed by the same norms that govern the commoners.

53. Nature Of Property Being Ancestral Or Self-Acquired Can Only Be Decided After Trial: Karnataka High Court Permits Amendment Of Plaint

Case Title: K Durga Prasad Shetty v. Dr Shashikala and Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 22744/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 290

The Karnataka High Court has said only in a trial can it be held whether a property is ancestral property or self acquired properties and therefore amendment of the plaint at the pre-trial stage to include such properties, is permissible.

54. Mentioning Referral Of The Matter To Arbitral Institution Is Sufficient; Party Not Required To Name Arbitrator: KarnatakaHigh Court

Case Title: M/s Geosmin Studio Sustainable Solutions LLP versus M/s Ethnus Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 291

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a notice issued by a party, stating that the matter would be referred to the Council of Architecture, is sufficient for the purpose of invocation of the Arbitration Clause, since the Council of Architecture is an arbitral institution within the meaning of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

55. Karnataka High Court Directs Income Tax Department To Issue A 'Nil Tax Deduction At Source' Certificate To Flipkart ForReimbursements Made To Walmart

Case Title: M/S. Flipkart Internet Private Limited versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 292

The Karnataka High Courthas directed the Income Tax Department to issue a 'Nil Tax Deduction at Source' Certificate to Flipkart under Section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with respect to the reimbursements made by it to Walmart Inc.

56. Claim Of Secured Creditor Under SARFAESI Act Not Affected By Attachment Under Karnataka Protection Of Deposits Act: High Court

Case Title: BANK OF INDIA v THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO.12038 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 293

The Karnataka High Court has held that the attachment of a secured asset under the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Deposit in Financial Establishment Act, 2004, would have no priority over the claim of the Bank (Secured Creditor), to recover dues made under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

57. Backlog Of Unfilled Women Seats In Reserved Category May Be Filled By Male Candidates Of Same Category: High Court Directs BangaloreUniversity

Case Title: Dyavappa v Bangalore University & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 6426/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 294

The Karnataka High Court has said that the state government order, providing that in case eligible women applicants under a reserved category post are not available, such posts could be filled up by eligible male candidates of the same category is applicable to recruitment notifications issued under the General Recruitment Rules or recruitment as regards backlog vacancies under the Special Recruitment Rules.

58. S.81(5) Motor Vehicle Act | Permit Renewed After Condoning Delay Is Deemed To Be Effective From Date Of Actual Expiry: KarnatakaHigh Court

Case Title: Dr Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Education Trust v. Banu Begum & Others

Case NO: MFA 202022/2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 295

The Karnataka High Court has said an insurance company cannot disown its responsibility to indemnify the liability of the insurer (vehicle owner) on the ground that on the date of accident, the fitness certificate and the permit of the vehicle were not in force.