Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: October 2022 [Citations 386 - 435]

V. SRINIVAS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 386

ASSOCIATE LUMBERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 387

GHODAWAT PACKERS LLP v. UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 388

K S MAHADEVAN v. CYPRIAN MENEZES. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 389

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. GANGANNA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 390

SAMIULLA B v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 391

DR. NAGESH v. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 392

SANJANA FERNANDES @ RAVEERA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 393

VENKATESHWARA DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 394

ABC v. STATE BY T.N.PURA POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 395

M/S EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 396

MUKKARAM JAN v. SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 397

EDURKALA ISHWARA BHAT v. RAGHAVESHWARA BHARATHI SWAMIJI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 398

SHIVAKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 399

H.N. NAGARAJ v. SURESH LAL HIRA LAL. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 400

NARAYANA. B v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 401

B. L. SHANKARAPPA v. FEDERATION OF KARNATAKA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (FKCCI) & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 402

J C MADHUSWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 403

UJJAPPA NINGAPPA KAMDOD & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 404

State of Karnataka by Amruthahalli Police Station v. Swetha. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 405

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD v. SUSILA W/O. SHAMRAO PATIL. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 406

Swathi v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 407

DR. SHAHUL HAMEED VALAVOOR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE, BANTWAL. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 408

NAGARAJ v. ISHWAR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 409

KANDULA RAGHAVA RAO & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 410

VALERIAL SEQUERIA & others v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY N H 169. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 411

BENGALURU URBAN ZILLA AMATEUR KABBADI ASSOCIATION ® v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 412

Gangappa v. Lingareddy. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 413

M/S CANARA BANK v. M SHANTHA KUMARI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 414

MIRLE VARADARAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 415

SUNIL KUMAR KOUSHIK & ANR v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 416

M/S ib TRACK SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 417

SHREE BEERESHWARA (CHANNAKESHWARA) SWAMY DEVARU TEMPLE & others v. G. N. SATHYA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 418

HARSHA D v. STATE BY HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 419

MRS. DANIELA LIRA NANY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 420

A BANU PRAKASH v. THIMMA SETTY & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 421

NARAYANA GOWDA J S & ANR v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 422

MRS. JAYA ELIZABETH MATHEW & ANR v. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN FOR THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 423

M. GOPAL v. GANGA REDDY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 424

DR. SWATHI K.S & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 425

HRISHIKESH DEVDIKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 426

OM PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 427

C.V.RAGHAVENDRA & ANR v. STATE BY MALUR POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 428

Y.N. SREENIVASA & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 429

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 430

H K SUMA v. M SANTHOSH. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 431

Farddin v. State and another. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 432

Judgments/Orders

1: Karnataka High Court Quashes Govt Notification For OBC, Women Reservation In BBMP Elections, Polls To Convene By Dec 31

Case Title: V. SRINIVAS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.17191/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 386

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a notification issued by the state government whereby it notified ward wise reservation for 243 wards of BBMP out of which, 81 wards were reserved for backward classes and 120 wards are reserved for women randomly.

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar directed the State government to redo the exercise of providing reservation (posts) to women for BBMP councillor elections, by allocating seats in the descending order with respect to the wards having a greater percentage of women population.

2: Bank Can Initiate Criminal Action If Account Declared Fraud, Even After Invoking SARFAESI Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ASSOCIATE LUMBERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7325 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 387

The Karnataka High Court has said that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) can investigate the complaint registered by a bank against a company and its directors, alleging offences of cheating, criminal conspiracy, even after initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and possession of the recovery certificate.

"This Court again in plethora of cases has clearly held that when the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is invoked by the Bank, unless such an action is declared to be a fraud, they cannot maintain two proceedings – one before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the other setting the criminal law in motion. If the account is declared to be a fraud and the account holders to be wilful defaulters, then it would become open to initiate such proceedings in terms of the Master Circular," said the court.

3: Karnataka High Court Upholds Levy Of Excise Duty & Calamity Contingent Duty On Tobacco & Its Products

Case Title: GHODAWAT PACKERS LLP v. UNION OF INDIA

Case No: W.P. NO.145107/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 388

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the decision of the Central Government to impose Excise duty and National Calamity Contingent duty, separately on tobacco and tobacco products.

A Single judge bench of Justice M.I.Arun dismissed a batch of petitions filed questioning the imposition of Excise Duty and National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) on the tobacco products being manufactured and sold.

4: Litigant Can't Sue His Advocate For Cheating/ Fraud Merely On Losing Case: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: K S MAHADEVAN v. CYPRIAN MENEZES

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 54069 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 389

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a complaint filed against an advocate by his client under Sections 406 (Punishment for criminal breach of trust) and 420 (Cheating) IPC, on the allegation that he did not obtain favourable orders from the Supreme Court in his case.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by K S Mahadevan and said, "An advocate can only appear and make his best efforts in the matter. No advocate can either state or hold out that he would obtain favourable orders nor could a client believe that an Advocate will definitely obtain favourable orders just because he has made payment of the fees to the Advocate."

5: State Can't Take Contradictory Stands In Disciplinary Proceedings & Before Court: Karnataka HC Directs KSRTC To Devise SOP

Case Title: THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. GANGANNA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24370 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 390

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Managing Director of State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) to institute a proper Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure that no contradictory stand is taken by any of the disciplinary authorities and/or the authorities who file written statements in the Motor Accident claim proceedings.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "if any such event occurs, necessary disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against such persons by following the applicable rules." It added, "Instructions to be also issued that a statement to be made in any written statement filed in a Motor Vehicle Accident claim petition, if any disciplinary proceedings are initiated or not."

6: Employee Cannot Initiate Criminal Proceedings After Termination To Arm Twist Employer: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: SAMIULLA B v. State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9520 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 391

The Karnataka High Court has said that an employee, who is terminated from the organisation, cannot initiate criminal proceedings against the organisation for the alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Samiulla B and quashed the case pending against him before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Sti Mutturaj G.S., the employee had filed an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506, 149 of the IPC against the petitioner and others.

7: Disciplinary Proceedings Against Doctors A Serious Matter, May Drive Delinquent Medico To 'Defensive Medicine':Karnataka High Court

Case Title: DR. NAGESH v. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.60243 OF 2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 392

The Karnataka High Court has said the Karnataka Medical Council (KMC) or complainants including the hospitals cannot use provisions of law pertaining to the doctors' professional misconduct as a machinery for recovery of money from them in the guise of disciplinary proceedings.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "The provisions of law, Chapter VII of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 read with Section 15 of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, cannot be used either by the complainant or by the disciplinary authority i.e., KMC as the machinery for recovery of the money, in the guise of disciplinary proceedings."

8. Wellness Therapist Or Tinder Date? Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings Against Woman Accused Of Online Cheating

Case Title: SANJANA FERNANDES @ RAVEERA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8929 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 393

The Karnataka High Court has said the government should come up with some regulatory measures to check the growth of therapists, who offer their services online including via social media.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "It is in public domain that there are huge mushrooming of so called therapies and therapists on social media i.e., Instagram, Twitter or Facebook as the case would be, wherein therapists pose themselves to be in the field of any therapy. It is also in public domain that they are all pseudo-therapists who are "instagram influencers".

9. Karnataka HC Imposes Cost On Two Dental Colleges Litigating For Non-Admitted Candidates, Deprecates 'Speculative' Litigations

Case Title: VENKATESHWARA DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.12902 OF 2022 (EDN-MED ADM) C/W WRIT PETITION No.12946 OF 2022 (EDN-MED ADM)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 394

The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh each on two dental colleges for having wasted the court's time by filing "speculative" petitions seeking relief on behalf of few students who did not get admission to BDS courses, for the year 2021-2022.

10. DNA Test Report Favouring Accused In Rape Case Not Gospel Truth, Cross-Examination Of Doctor Necessary: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ABC v. STATE BY T.N.PURA POLICE STATION

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6789 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 395

The Karnataka High Court has said that the DNA analysis report, which favours the accused in a rape case, is not a clinching evidence that would result in termination of proceedings against him.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while dismissing the accused's petition against the criminal proceedings, said: "If a positive result of the DNA comes about against the accused, it would constitute a clinching evidence against him for further proceeding. If the result is negative i.e., favouring the accused, then the weight of other materials and evidence on record will still have to be considered for corroboration. Therefore, it does not form such clinching evidence that would result in termination of proceedings against the accused, the petitioner in the case at hand."

11. Sanction U/S 33M Drugs & Cosmetics Act Required Only For Ayurvedic Drugs, Not Allopathic: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6919 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 396

The Karnataka High Court has clarified that sanction to prosecute as mandated under Section 33M of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 is applicable only in case of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs and it is not applicable where prosecution relates to Allopathic drugs.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while allowing the petition filed by Emcure Pharmaceuticals and its two Directors for quashing the complaint registered against them by the Drug Inspector under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

12. SEBI Can't Prosecute Company For Delay After Payment of Dividends: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MUKKARAM JAN v. SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 397

The Karnataka High Court has said that the Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI") has no power to initiate any action against a company or its directors which has defaulted in payment of dividend within 30 days as specified under Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956, after payment of dividend.

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed a criminal petition filed by Cranes Software Int. and its directors and said, "A combined reading of Section 55(A) and Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956 clearly indicates that the SEBI is vested with power to safeguard the interests of the shareholders in the matter of non payment of dividends and the moment the dividends are paid, the SEBI has no power to initiate any action against the company or its directors who have defaulted in payment of dividend within 30 days as specified under Section 207 of the Act."

13. Temples Managed By Math Cannot Be Regulated Under Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments Act: High Court

Case Title: EDURKALA ISHWARA BHAT v. RAGHAVESHWARA BHARATHI SWAMIJI

Case No: W.P. NO.25124 OF 2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 398

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act 1997 does not apply to a Math or a Temple attached to or managed by a Math and thus, no directions can be issued to the state government to exercise its executive power to regulate them.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty observed, "The 1997 Act does not apply to the provisions of the Maths. There is a conscious omission on the part of the Legislature in keeping the Maths out of the purview of the Act, which is also evident from the statement of objects and reasons of Karnataka Act No.27 of 2011 namely the Amendment Act."

14. 'Mischievous And Preposterous': Karnataka HC Lambasts Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences For Registering FIR Against Panel Counsel

Case Title: SHIVAKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7422 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 399

The Karnataka High Court has rapped the administration of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) for indulging in acts of registering cases against the advocates who represent it before the court, when the decision delivered is not in its favour.

"The University or the Registrar who has now sought to explain out the circumstances, is admonished and is directed to exercise caution while registering such reckless complaints in hottest haste. Any such iteration of the kind of haste, as seen in the case at hand, would be viewed seriously," said the court.

15. S.138 NI Act | Proprietor & Proprietary Concern Need Not Be Arrayed Separately As Accused: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: H.N. NAGARAJ v. SURESH LAL HIRA LAL

Case NO: CRL.P.NO.8257/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 400

The Karnataka High Court has held that a proprietary concern is not a separate entity and as such, ought not to be arrayed as a separate accused in a case registered under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, "In a proceeding under Section 138 of N.I.Act, the arraying of a proprietor as an accused or a proprietary concern represented by the proprietor would be sufficient compliance with the requirements under Section 138 of N.I.Act, the proprietor and the proprietary concern are not required to be separately arrayed as a party accused."

16. Authenticate Surety's Identity With Aadhaar, Maintain A Register Of Sureties: Karnataka High Court Issues Directions To Curb Fake Sureties

Case Title: NARAYANA. B v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 8524 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 401

The Karnataka High Court has issued a slew of directions to be followed by authorities whenever any surety is furnished for release of an accused on bail.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj while hearing a petition filed by the 65-year-old Narayana. B - who died during the pendency of the case. The case related to an instance of fake surety. The bench noted that several reports that have been filed before the court indicate that this is not a stray occurrence. It added that this kind of situation has arisen on several occasions and in some cases, investigation and prosecution has also taken place.

17.Federation Of Karnataka Chambers Of Commerce & Industry Is Not 'State' Under Article 12: High Court

Case Title: B. L. SHANKARAPPA v. FEDERATION OF KARNATAKA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (FKCCI) & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.7123 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 402

The Karnataka High Court has held that Federation of Karnataka Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FKCCI) is a private entity and not an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution and thus, a writ petition is not maintainable against it.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while dismissing a petition filed by B. L. Shankarappa said, "An association of persons incorporated or not, may undertake activities very much in public interest, say for example, it may profess to protect the sovereignty & integrity of nation; laudable it is, undoubtedly; however thereby, it does not become a 'State Agency' for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution."

18. [Undue Influence At Elections] Mere Endorsement On Police Requisition Not Sufficient To Prosecute Karnataka Law Minister JC Madhuswamy: High Court

Case Title: J C MADHUSWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6535/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 403

The Karnataka High Court has held that for initiating proceedings for non-cognizable offences under Sections 171-F and 171-C of IPC, the Magistrate must grant permission after due application of mind. A mere endorsement on the requisition made by the Police is not sufficient.

Holding thus, single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav set aside the proceedings initiated against State's Law Minister JC Madhuswamy and restored the matter to the stage of the informant having appeared before the police authorities.

19. Karnataka HC Directs Restoration Of De-Reserved Grazing Lands Not Utilized For Allotted Purpose, Compliance Of Land Revenue Rules In Future

Case Title: UJJAPPA NINGAPPA KAMDOD & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Case No: W.P.No.11546/2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 404

The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to ascertain as to whether the grazing lands (mention in writ petition) which have been de-reserved have been utilised or allotted for the purpose for which they were de-reserved or whether any developmental activities have taken place in the said land.

It directed that if it is found that the said lands are not utilised or allotted for the purpose for which they were de-reserved, necessary action must be taken to restore the said lands as Gomal lands and thereafter take necessary steps to change the revenue entries of the said lands accordingly.

20. Karnataka High Court Upholds Woman's Acquittal Accused Of Abetting Partner's Suicide By Cheating On Him

Case Title: State of Karnataka by Amruthahalli Police Station v. Swetha

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1665 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 405

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State government challening an order passed by the trial court acquitting a woman accused of abetting the suicide of a man who was in a relationship with her.

A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar dismissed the appeal filed against the order acquitting the accused/respondent for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

21. Broken Tree Branch Kills Bike Rider: Karnataka High Court Allows Legal Heirs' Claim U/S 163A Motor Vehicle Act

Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD v. SUSILA W/O. SHAMRAO PATIL

Case No: M.F.A. No.22468/2011

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 406

The Karnataka High Court recently allowed the claim filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act by legal heirs of a deceased bike rider, who was killed after a big tree branch fell on his head while riding the bike.

The insurance company, in appeal against the award passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, contended that the accident occurred because of fall of branch of eucalyptus tree and the same cannot be treated as a motorcycle accident and hence the company is not liable to pay the compensation.

22. 'Superficial Injury': Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Drama Artist 14. Accused Of Throwing Acid On Co-Artist To Eliminate Competition

Case Title: Swathi v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition no 8209/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 407

The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a woman who allegedly, with a view to take revenge and spoil another woman co-artist's chances in getting roles in dramas, threw acid on her face.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petition filed by Swathi and directed the Committal Court to release her on bail in case registered by Nandini Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 326A, 448 read with Section 34 of IPC, on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000, with two sureties for the like sum.

23.'Marriage Dissolved, Chargesheet U/S 498A Without Any Substance': Karnataka HC Quashes Proceedings

Case Title: DR. SHAHUL HAMEED VALAVOOR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE, BANTWAL.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7036 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 408

The Karnataka High Court while quashing a case registered by a woman against her ex-husband and in-laws under section 498-A (dowry harassment) said the charge sheet filed on the basis of omnibus and general allegations is without any substance.

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Dr. Shahul Hameed Valavoor and others and quashed the prosecution registered under sections 498 A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

24. Complainant's Presence Not Necessary While Recording Plea Of Accused: Karnataka High Court Restores Complaint U/S 138 NI Act

Case Title: NAGARAJ v. ISHWAR

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200033/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 409

The Karnataka High Court has said that an acquittal order cannot be passed by the trial court under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for non-appearance of the complainant while recording plea of accused.

A single judge bench of Justice P N Desai sitting at Kalaburagi allowed the petition filed by Nagaraj and restored the prosecution before Additional Civil Judge. The bench said, "For non-appearance of the complainant on each and every date of hearing, an order of acquittal cannot be passed in every case. The Court has to see the stage of the case and the previous appearance of the accused and complainant and how many years the complaint is pending and what is the nature of the case before passing any such dismissal order. Simply to dispose of the cases or get rid of the case, the complaint cannot be dismissed when there is no necessity of the presence of the complainant."

25. Bitters Sale On Amazon: Karnataka High Court Quashes Excise Proceedings Against Company Directors

Case Title: KANDULA RAGHAVA RAO & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6595 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 410

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against an intermediary for the products that are sold through its online platform.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna has allowed the petition filed by Kandula Raghava Rao and Noorulamin Mohd. Saheb Patel, both directors of Amazon Seller Service Private Limited, and quashed the proceedings pending against them under Sections 8, 13(1)(a), 15, 32, 34 and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

26. [National Highways Act] Second Award Not Permitted, State's Illegal Action Has To Be Nipped In The Bud If Affecting Parties' Rights: Karnataka HC

Case Title: VALERIAL SEQUERIA & others v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY N H 169.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.10525 OF 2021(LA-RES) A/W WRIT PETITION NO.10780 OF 2021, WRIT PETITION NO.13547 OF 2021 c/w WRIT PETITION NO.8458 OF 2021.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 411

The Karnataka High Court has said that National Highways Act does not provide for issuing a second award with respect to the land acquired pursuant to Notifications under Section 3-A and 3-D of the Act.

A single judge bench of Justice E S Indiresh allowed a batch of petitions and set aside the second award by the competent authority dated 22nd January, 2021 and Order dated 27th January, 2021, which granted a lower compensation to the petitioners in lieu of their land.

27. Karnataka Societies Registration Act Does Not Permit Two Societies With Same Name: High Court

Case Title: BENGALURU URBAN ZILLA AMATEUR KABBADI ASSOCIATION ® v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.17533 OF 2021 (GM-KSR) C/W WRIT PETITION No.22023 OF 2021 (GM-KSR)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 412

The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 7 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, once a Society is registered with a particular name, registration of a second Society with the same name is impermissible.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna thus declared the registration of Bengaluru Urban District Amateur Kabbadi Association as illegal and quashed it.

28. S.54 TPA | Unregistered Sale Deed Cannot Defy Title By Delivery Of Possession Of Immovable Property Valued Below ₹100: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Gangappa v. Lingareddy

Case No: RSA NO.200352/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 413

The Karnataka High Court has said that if there is alienation of immovable property, whose value is less than Rs.100 and possession is given, then a transfer under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, takes place.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum sitting at Kalaburagi held the same while dismissing an appeal filed by one Gangappa, questioning the concurrent findings of the Courts below, wherein the suit filed by him seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed.

29. Bank Employees' Gratuity Can't Be Adjusted Against Their Outstanding Loan: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S CANARA BANK v. M SHANTHA KUMARI

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11463 OF 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 414

The Karnataka High Court has held that the gratuity amount payable to a bank employee cannot be adjusted by the bank with his outstanding loan amount. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj thus dismissed a petition filed by the Canara Bank questioning the order of Appellate Authority which set aside the order of the Controlling Authority permitting adjustment of gratuity towards loans of the employee.

30. Prosecution Under Karnataka Control Of Organised Crime Act Can't Be Sustained When Proceedings For Predicate Offences Quashed: High Court

Case Title: MIRLE VARADARAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 410 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 415

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that when criminal proceedings for predicate offences are quashed, the prosecution initiated under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 cannot be sustained. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj thus allowed the petition filed by one Mirle Varadaraju and quashed the proceedings under KCOCA, following the quashment of the two FIR's which were the basis for initiating the prosecution under the Act.

31. Contraband In Shipment Vehicle: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Logistic Company Employees In NDPS Case

Case Title: SUNIL KUMAR KOUSHIK & ANR v. State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201054/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 416

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the proceedings pending under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, against two officials of a logistics company on holding that they were unaware that the driver of the transport vehicle is carrying contraband.

A single judge bench of Justice P N Desai sitting at Kalaburagi allowed the petition filed by the Manager and MD of Nitco Logistic Pvt Ltd. The bench said, "The charge sheet materials, allegations against these petitioners, the statement of the driver, the contents of the panchnama and Sections referred above, it is evident that these petitioners cannot be prosecuted as they have nothing to do with the said alleged offences. Therefore, continuing the proceedings against them is nothing but abuse of process of law and Court."

32. Containers Getting Cleared Without Scanning By Customs Can Have Catastrophic Effect On Nation's Security: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S ib TRACK SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.8125 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 417

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a case against ib Track Solutions Pvt Ltd and its director Sudhendra Dhakanikote in a case accusing them of tampering with the RFID e-seals by switching off the tamper notifications which are generally sent to the Customs.

"Such containers passing muster without getting scanned through the customs can result in a catastrophic effect to the security of the nation. Security could be economic, defence or even narcotic. What passes through the container if not detected can definitely pose a serious threat to any of these to the nation," said the court.

33. Mere Presentation Of Plaint Not Sufficient To Initiate Proceedings U/S 92 CPC, Leave of Court Must: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: SHREE BEERESHWARA (CHANNAKESHWARA) SWAMY DEVARU TEMPLE & others v. G. N. SATHYA & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.9267 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 418

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that leave of the court is a precondition for institution of a suit under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against a public trust.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum made the observation while allowing the petition filed by Shree Beereshwara (Channakeshwara) Swamy Devaru Temple and others, and set aside the trial court order appointing Tashildar as the receiver to manage the financial affairs, assets of the Trust.

The bench said, "A scheme suit under Section 92 of CPC, cannot be entertained unless leave is granted. Mere presentation of a plaint filed under Section 92 of CPC does not amount to initiation of proceedings. Therefore, in terms of Section 26 of CPC, it is only when a leave is granted, it can be treated as a duly instituted suit and it is only then, it is to be deemed that machinery is set in motion and proceedings are deemed to have been either instituted or initiated."

34. [S.50 PMLA] Application For Recording Statement Of Accused Can Only Be Made Before Sessions/ Special Court,Not Magistrate: Karnataka HC

Case Title: HARSHA D v. STATE BY HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19042 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 419

The Karnataka High Court has said that in light of the statutory framework of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, applications for recording statements of an accused/ suspect can only be made before the Special Court designated to try cases under the Act.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "PMLA mandates that anything emanating from the PMLA shall be considered only by the Special Court."The bench made the observation while allowing the petition filed by one Harsha D, an accused in the PSI recruitment scam, challenging the order of the Magistrate which allowed the application filed by Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Section 50(3) of the Act seeking permission to record written statement of five accused including the petitioner who were in its custody.

35. Custody Disputes Involve "Human Issues", Can't Devise Straight-Jacket Formula For Resolution: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MRS. DANIELA LIRA NANY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION HABEAS CORPUS NO. 77 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 420

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that disputes involving custody of minor children are complex, involving "human issues" and thus, there can be no straight-jacket formula to resolve the same. A division bench of Justices B Veerappa and KS Hemalekha said that such cases have to be decided on their own facts and circumstances, and no hard and fast rule can be laid down.

36. [Principle Of Pay & Recover] Statutory Right Of Third Party To Be Compensated U/S 149 MV Act Even If Vehicle Owner Contests Claim: Karnataka HC

Case Title: A BANU PRAKASH v. THIMMA SETTY & Others

Case No: M.F.A.No.4945/2014

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 421

The Karnataka High Court has said the 'Principle of Pay and Recover' under Section 149 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory right available to third party (claimants) and it cannot depend on whether the owner of offending vehicle contests the claim petition or not, or may or may no prefer an appeal against the Tribunal order.

A single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar said, "When the claimants/the victims of the motor accident are third parties, then rights of the third party is statutorily protected as per sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the M.V.Act. Therefore, this right of the third party cannot be fluctuated or oscillated according to the conduct of the owner or any other parties."

37. 'PayCM' Campaign: Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nelamangala Congress Leaders

Case Title: NARAYANA GOWDA J S & ANR v. State of Karnataka.

Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9809 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 422

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered last month against Narayana Gowda J S, who is president of the Indian Youth Congress in Nelamangala assembly constituency and Ramakrishna V, who is head of the party's legal cell there, for allegedly instructing others to pasting posters relating to the PayCM campaign all over the town.

Justice M Nagaprasanna in the order said, "The allegations made against the petitioners would not attract any of the offences either under Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act or under the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act."

38. Insurance Company Can Repudiate Mediclaim If Insured Fails To Disclose Pre-Existing Illness: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MRS. JAYA ELIZABETH MATHEW & ANR v. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN FOR THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.14346 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 423

The Karnataka High Court has said that a mediclaim policy is an insurance contract of utmost good faith, wherein divulging pre-existing illness is a duty of the insured, having not done so repudiation of the claim by insurance company cannot be found fault.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by a couple against the order of Insurance Ombudsman declining to accept the insurance claim of the petitioners. The petitioners had sought quashing of a letter of repudiation issued by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and a direction to release of an amount of Rs.28,43,684 being the Insurance claim of the petitioners.

39. Shareholder Can't Itself Initiate Proceedings Before Magistrate For Fraud U/S 447 Of Companies Act, 2013: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M. GOPAL v. GANGA REDDY

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3550 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 424

The Karnataka High Court has held that a shareholder, minority or otherwise, cannot initiate proceedings before the Magistrate by himself or herself for an alleged offence of fraud under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "Sub-Section (6) of Section 212 of the Act specifically deals with the offences covered under Section 447 of the Act and makes it clear that no court shall take cognizance unless a complaint is made by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) or the officer of the Central Government authorised by a general or special order in writing in this behalf by that Government."

40. NEET PG | Quota For In-Service Candidates Reduced In Casual Manner: Karnataka High Court Quashes Govt Notification

Case Title: DR. SWATHI K.S & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & others

Case No: W.P. No.2O512 OF 2O22 (EDN-RES) C/W W.P. NO.2O2O1 OF 2O22 (EDN-RES) W.P.NO.2O847 OF 2O22 (EDN-RES) W.P.NO.2O91O OF 2O22 (EDN-RES)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 425

The Karnataka High Court has quashed and set aside the government notification dated 06.10.2022, by which seats earmarked for in-service candidates for PG-NEET Examination 2022, was reduced from 30 percent to 15 percent.

A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while allowing a batch of petitions said, "The quota for in-service candidates has been reduced without assigning any cogent reasons and the decision appears to have been taken in a casual and cavalier manner. The relevant facts while reduction of quota from 30% to 15% have not been considered by the State Government while reducing the quota. The impugned notification dated 06.10.2022 suffers from the vice of non application of mind and is arbitrary."

41. No Default Bail U/S 167 CrPC If Chargesheet Filed Before Arrest: Karnataka HC Rejects Accused Plea In Gauri Lankesh Murder Case

Case Title: HRISHIKESH DEVDIKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 2997 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 426

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Hrishikesh Devdikar, an accused in the journalist Gauri Lankesh murder case, seeking default bail under section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said that the accused would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 167(2) CrPC if the charge sheet was filed before his arrest (since he was absconding).

42. Google Reviews Have No Legal Evidentiary Value, Can't Be Used To Argue That Accused Is Habitual Offender: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: OM PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8879/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 427

The Karnataka High Court recently rejected an argument that 'Google Reviews' against the accused show that he is a habitual offender, by holding that Google Reviews have no legal evidentiary value.

A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar thus granted anticipatory bail to 71 years old Om Pratap Singh, apprehending arrest in a case registered for Cheating and impersonation in business. He is booked under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008.

43. iPhone-12 Theft From Godown: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To E-Commerce Company Employees

Case Title: C.V.RAGHAVENDRA & ANR v. STATE BY MALUR POLICE STATION

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8693/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 428

The Karnataka High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to the Manager and Assistant Manager of the Flipcart in a case accusing them of stealing 21 Iphones from its godown in Malur. Justice Rajendra Badamikar ordered the petitioners be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.381/2022 of Malur Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 381 of IPC, on each of them executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000, with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court.

44. Private Party Affected By Registered Gift Deed Based On False Docs Can Institute Case For Cheating & Forgery, No Embargo U/S 195 CrPC: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Y.N. SREENIVASA & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15451 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 429

The Karnataka High Court has held that an affected private individual would not be barred from initiating proceedings under Section 419, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against an accused who submits fabricated documents before a Sub-Registrar, for registering a gift deed.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj clarified that the embargo under Section 195 CrPC read with Section 177 IPC would not be attracted to (affected) private individuals. The Court negated the argument of Petitioner-accused that since the document was registered on the basis of alleged false information, only an offence under Section 177 of IPC is attracted (proceedings for which can be instituted only by a public servant in terms of Section 195 CrPC).

45. Legal Metrology Act | Accused Confessing & Compounding Offence Doesn't Impede Co-Accused Challenging Prosecution: Karnataka HC

Case Title: ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5119 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 430

The Karnataka High Court has said that even if one of the accused charged under provisions of the Legal Metrology Act admits the offence and pays fee to compound it, the same does not disentitle co-accused from approaching the High Court to seek quashing of the proceedings.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj reasoned that confession on part of the accused does not bind the co-accused. The development comes in the case instituted against Asian Paints Limited and its Dealer under section 36 of the Legal Metrology Act for storing sealants, which were alleged to not have proper description in terms of Rule 12(2)(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rules, 2011.

46. Hardship If Any And Not Convenience Of Parties Relevant Criterion For Deciding Transfer Petitions U/S24 CPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: H K SUMA v. M SANTHOSH

Case No: CIVIL PETITION NO. 367 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 431

The Karnataka High Court has said that courts should consider the hardships that would be caused to the parties and not look at the convenience of the parties, while deciding an application made under Section 24 of CPC seeking to transfer proceedings pending from one court to another.

A single judge bench of Justice E.S.Indiresh dismissed a petition filed by a wife seeking to transfer the proceedings pending on the file of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to the competent Family Court at Doddaballapura.

47. "Can't Seek Bail Under The Guise Of Personal Law": Karnataka HC Denies Relief To Man Accused Of Raping Minor Muslim Girl

Case Title: Farddin v. State and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 432

The Karnataka High Court recently denied bail to a man who allegedly raped a 16-year-old Muslim girl as it noted that even if the girl had consented to a physical relationship, her consent becomes irrelevant as she is a minor.

The bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar observed thus as it rejected the argument put forth by the counsel for the accused that the age of puberty was required to be taken note of as the parties are Mohammedans.

48. Road Accidents Involving Injury To Animals Do Not Attract 'Rash Driving' Offences U/S 279 IPC, S.134 & 187 MV Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: PRATHAP KUMAR.G v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 433

The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code which pertains to rash driving would not be attracted in cases of accident involving a pet dog/ animals.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj further held that such accidents would also not attract liability under Sections 134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act which pertain to 'Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person' and 'Punishment for offences relating to accident' respectively.

49. Order 41 Rule 33 CPC: Karnataka High Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation Payable To Injured In Appeal By Insurance Company

Case Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. ALWIN LOBO

Case No: M.F.A.NO.8449/2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 434

The Karnataka High Court has said that in an appeal against compensation filed by an Insurance Company in a Motor Accident case, the appellate court can invoke Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC to enhance compensation, if injustice is caused to the victim or deceased due to compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC deals with the power of the Court of Appeal to pass an appropriate order in a case regardless of the fact that the appeal is only with respect to a part of the decree or that the appeal is filed only by some of the parties. In other words, the Appellate Court can pass an order as it deems it fit regardless of the scope of the appeal.

50. Protest Against SC's Ayodhya-Babri Masjid Decision Promotes Religious Enmity: Karnataka High Court In Alleged PFI Activist's Case

Case Title: SAFWAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.513 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 435

The Karnataka High Court has observed that protesting against Supreme Court's decision in Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case delivered in the year 2019, is nothing but promoting enmity between two groups on the ground of religion.

However, the court allowed the petition filed by an alleged member of the Campus Front of India (which is also a part of the PFI), and quashed the criminal proceedings against him as the prosecution failed to obtain prior sanction from the state government for taking cognizance of offence under Section 153(A) .