Karnataka High Court Quarterly Digest: July To September, 2022 [Citations 238 - 385]

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

 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

NINGARAJU N v. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S INDIA HOLIDAY (PVT) LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 296

Suo-Motu v. The State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 297

AMIT GARG v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 298

DIVYA RAJESH HAGARAGI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 299

IMRAN SIDDIQUI v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 300

George Varghese v Superintendent of Police. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 301

J MANJUNATH v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 302

M/S. MADHI TRADING CO & Others v THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 303

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA v RAVISHIVAPPA PADASALAGI @ SAVADI & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 304

Vijay Nishant & others And State of Karnataka & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 305

Ateeq Ahmed & others And National Investigating Agency. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 306

KHIRASA S/O. KRISHNA KATHARE & Others V. SHANTA ALIAS GEETA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 307

LATHA RAJANIKANTH v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 308

NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY v UNION OF INDIA & Others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 309

V.KRISHNAREDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 310

THAHSEEN BEGUM @ TASI v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 311

MALNAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY v KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 312

CHIDANANDA URS B.G v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 313

STEEL HYPERMART INDIA PVT. LTD. & Others v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 314

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v GANGAPPA S/O. CHINNAPPA SAUNSHI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 315

V. SHASHIDHAR & others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 316

CHIRAG R. MEHTA v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 317

M/S NITESH RESIDENCY HOTELS PVT.LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 318

PERIYASWAMY M v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 319

Dr Shashidhar Subbanna v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 320

HYDERABAD KARNATAKA NURSING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION v. THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 321

PADMANABHA T G v. M/S RADICAL WORKS PVT. LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 322

MS. NOWHERA SHAIK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 323

ADARSHA SUGAMA SANGEETHA ACADEMY v. VRINDA S. RAO & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 324

K.C.Ramu @ Ramanna v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 325

HUSAINSAB v. MODINABI @ FAKRUBI. 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 326

G VARADARAJU v. UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 327

B T Raju And State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 328

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 329

K.P.N. SHENOY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 330

CHANDRASHEKAR R v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 331

MS. H. GAYATHRI v UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 332

NIHARIKA D RAO v. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 333

PUSHPA B. GAVADI v THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 334

RAMA @ BANDE RAMA v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 335

LAKSHMIBAI v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 336

INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 337

MANISH KUMAR SINGH @ MANISH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 338

GAS TURBINE RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT DEFENSE UNIT THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER v. NAZIMA SALIQ & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 339

ROSHAN KUMAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 340

MURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 341

HARSHAVARDHANA RAO K v. UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 342

THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD V TAHASEENTAJ W/O SHAMIULLA @ GULLAB, & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 343

MAHANTESH KOUJALAGI v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 344

The State of Karnataka v. S.B. Shivashankar. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 345

S.C. MAHESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 346

M.PRAKASH v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 347

ESHWAR R & others v KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 348

POULAMI BASU v. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 349

M Chiranjeevi v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 350

HARISH A.S. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 351

S.R. Ravi v. Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 352

DANDELI BACHAO ANDOLAN SAMITHI v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 353

Abraham T.J v B.S. Yediyurappa & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 354

AJ v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 355

M.MANJULA v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 356

DR. (SMT.) ANITHA PATIL And STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 357

SAYYED SOHEL TORVI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

AMRUTHESH N.P v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

VIJAYKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

SANDEEP REDDY v State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

KRISHNAPPA v ASHWATHAMMA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 362

SOMASHEKAR SHANKARAPPA HURUKADLI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw 363

M/S NAMBOOR JEWELLERS v. STATE BY LASHKAR POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 364

Jaganmayi Builders and Developers Private Limited & Ors. versus Sumanth Reddy & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 365

MUDIT SAXENA v UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 366

B.V. BYRE GOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 367

R D RAMADAS v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 368

SRI VASAVI EDUCATION SOCIETY v KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 369

PRAMOD H. MUTALIK v. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 370

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v SHANKARAMMA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 371

SHIVARAJA @ KULLA SHIVARAJA v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 372

M/s. Subex Limited versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 373

D Reddeppa v. The State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 374

SRK ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and ors and connected matters. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 375

KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY v. KEERTHANA Y.H & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 376

MOHAN CHANDRA P v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 377

Shadakshari C.L & others v Santhosha C.A & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 378

AP v. WIPRO LIMITED REPRESENTED. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 379

Siddappa v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 380

Devandrappa v. Huligemma. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 381

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD v SAYEEDA KHANAM W/O. LATE AZAM KHAN. 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 382

N.S.VIJAYANTH BABU v. ADVOCATES' ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU(AAB). 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 383

PRIYAMSHU KUMAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 384

K. UMESH SHETTY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 385

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.

59. Karnataka High Court Orders ₹5 Lakhs Compensation To Man Wrongly Arrested, Says Arresting Officer Must Ascertain Identity

Case Title: NINGARAJU N v. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S INDIA HOLIDAY (PVT) LTD.

Case No: COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2022 C/W COMPANY PETITION NO.26 OF 2008.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 296

The Karnataka High Court has held that whenever any warrant is issued, whether bailable or non-bailable, the arresting officer is required to ascertain the identity and be satisfied that the person proposed to be arrested is the same person as against whom the warrant has been issued.

60. Karnataka High Court Directs State To Ensure Compliance Of Order Restricting Protests, Processions To Bengaluru's Freedom Park, Closes PIL

Case Title: Suo-Motu v. The State Of Karnataka

Case No: WP 5781/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 297

The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the State government to ensure compliance of the Licensing and Regulation of Protests, Demonstrations and Protest Marches (Bengaluru City) Order, 2021 issued under the Karnataka Police Act, permitting procession, dharna and protest only at Freedom Park in Bengaluru.

61. Criminal Law Can't Be Used For 'Recovery Of Money' Unless Offence Of Cheating/ Criminal Breach Of Trust Is Established: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: AMIT GARG v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4856 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 298

The Karnataka High Court has said that the criminal law cannot be set into motion for recovery of money paid under a contract, unless the offence of cheating or even criminal breach of trust is established.

62. PIL Not Maintainable In Service Matters: High Court Dismisses Challenge To Appointment Of Special Officer To State Nursing Education Regulation Authority

Case Title: DIVYA RAJESH HAGARAGI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WP 12388/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 299

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Divya Rajesh Hagaragi who is a prime accused in the Police Sub-Inspector Recruitment Scam, questioning the appointment of Dr. N. Ramakrishna Reddy as a Special Officer to the Karnataka Nursing and Paramedical Sciences Education (Regulation) Authority.

63. Inordinate Delay In Lodging "Extortion" Complaint Gives Rise To Doubts As To Its Veracity: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: IMRAN SIDDIQUI v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.10023 OF 2022 C/W WRIT PETITION No.10029 OF 2022.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 300

The Karnataka High Court has said that unexplained delay in registering a complaint of extortion under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, gives rise to embellishment to a particular complaint.

64. Sanction U/S 137 Customs Act Not Required For Prosecution On Charges Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: George Varghese v Superintendent of Police

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1193 OF 2012

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 301

The Karnataka High Court has held that sanction under Section 137 of the Customs Act, to prosecute an officer of the Customs Department, charged under the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, is not required.

65. Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Former Bengaluru Urban Dy Commissioner In Corruption Case

Case Title: J MANJUNATH v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRL.P 6578/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 302

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail petition filed by IAS Officer J Manjunath, who has been arrested by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) in a bribery case.

66. Fundamental Right To Trade Under Article 19 Not Unrestricted: High Court Upholds Ban On Firecracker Business In Congested Areas Of Bengaluru

Case Title: M/S. MADHI TRADING CO & Others v THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.46677 OF 2013

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 303

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the orders passed by the Director General of Police back in 2013 by which petitioners running the business in crackers & fireworks items were prohibited from carrying on their businesses in the congested areas of Bangalore city, mentioned in the order.

67. Constitutional Functionaries Can't Be Summoned As Witnesses On Mere Asking': Karnataka High Court Quashes Subpoena Qua Ex-Chief Of ECI

Case Title: ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA v RAVISHIVAPPA PADASALAGI @ SAVADI & Others

Case No: OSA No.100001 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 304

The Karnataka High Court has "set at naught" a single bench order summoning Ex-Chief Election Commissioner of India, Sunil Arora, as a witness in an Election Petition calling in question the election of BJP candidate Mahesh Kumatalli from Athani Assembly Constituency in 2019.

68. Karnataka HC Directs State Wildlife Board To Reconsider Proposal To Declare Hesaraghatta Grassland As "Reserve"

Case Title: Vijay Nishant & others And State of Karnataka & others

Case No: W.P No 6374 of 2021 C/W W.P No. 11738 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 305

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Board for Wildlife to reconsider the proposal submitted by Chief Conservator of Forests for declaring Hesaraghatta Grassland as Conservation Reserve.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petitions filed by Vijay Nishant and others and quashed the order dated 19.01.2021 of the Board rejecting the proposal.

69. Bengaluru Riots | Attacking Police With Petrol Bottles Amounts To 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Ateeq Ahmed & others And National Investigating Agency

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.814/2022 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.788/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 306

The Karnataka High Court has said that use of petrol bottles while attacking police personnel and police stations by accused persons during the Bengaluru Riots of 2020 would prima-facie constitute 'Terrorist Act' under Section 15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

70. Suit For Partition & Separate Possession Can't Be Rejected At Threshold On Ground Of Limitation: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: KHIRASA S/O. KRISHNA KATHARE & Others V. SHANTA ALIAS GEETA & Others

Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100095/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 307

The Karnataka High Court has said that a suit for a primary relief of partition and separate possession cannot be rejected at the threshold citing Section 27 of the Limitation Act 1963.

71. Karnataka High Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Actor Rajanikanth's Wife, Sustains Forgery Complaint

Case Title: LATHA RAJANIKANTH v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.10145 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 308

In partial relief to superstar Rajanikanth's wife Latha Rajanikanth, the Karnataka High Court has quashed charges of cheating, giving false statement and using evidence known to be false, levelled against her in a private complaint filed by a Chennai-based advertising company.

72. Karnataka High Court Permits NIA To Verify Documents Submitted By 12 Alleged Foreigners With UIDAI To Fraudulently Obtain Aadhar Cards

Case Title: NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY v UNION OF INDIA & Others

Case No: WP 2360/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 309

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) to give access to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to the documents submitted by 12 alleged Bangladeshi nationals to obtain the Aadhaar Cards, so as to verify their genuineness.

73. Individual Performing 'Public Duty' Comes Under Purview Of Prevention Of Corruption Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: V.KRISHNAREDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.685 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 310

The Karnataka High Court has said that the General Manager of Nandini Milk Products, which is a unit of KMF, a cooperative society, would become a 'public servant' within the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, for the ACB to register a crime.

74. Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash POCSO Case Against School Teacher Who 'Removed Student's Pants' As Punishment

Case Title: THAHSEEN BEGUM @ TASI v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12097 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 311

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a case of sexual harassment registered against a school teacher under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act for allegedly beating a 5-year-old student and removing her pants, revealing the body of the child as a measure of punishment.

75. Whether Govt Aided Educational Institutions Run By Societies Are Subject To RTI Act? Karnataka HC Asks State Information Commission To Decide

Case Title: MALNAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY v KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION

Case No: W.P.NO.5805/2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 312

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Information Commission to decide whether societies and educational institutions (aided) run by the societies are subject to Right to Information Act, 2005.

76. Karnataka High Court Abolishes Anti-Corruption Bureau; Transfers Cases To Lok Ayukta

Case Title: CHIDANANDA URS B.G v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WP 19386/2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 313

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday set aside the government notification issued in the year 2016, constituting the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) in the state and vesting with it the powers of the Karnataka Lokayukta Police to investigate corruption cases against public servants.

77. ACB Was Constituted To Shield Corrupt Politicians, Officers From Lokayukta: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: CHIDANANDA URS B.G v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WP 19386/2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 313

The Karnataka High Court in its order abolishing the Anti Corruption Bureau, has observed that the very Constitution of ACB by the Government is to shield the Corrupt politicians, Ministers, and the officers from the watchful eyes of the Lokayukta and that Government is weakening the institution of Lokayukta to protect these persons from prosecution, inter alia under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.

78. Loan Fraud | Bank Can't Initiate Criminal Proceedings When Borrower's Declaration As 'Wilful Defaulter' Is Stayed By Court: Karnataka HC

Case Title: STEEL HYPERMART INDIA PVT. LTD. & Others v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.919 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 314

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered by CBI's Banking Securities Fraud Branch against Steel Hypermart India and its founder for alleged bank fraud of over Rs. 200 crore.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the company's declaration as a 'wilful defaulter' was stayed by the Court and the matter is pending before the Review Committee of the Indian Bank.

79. Married Daughters Entitled To Motor Accident Compensation For Parent's Death; Can't Discriminate Between Sons & Daughters : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v GANGAPPA S/O. CHINNAPPA SAUNSHI

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102868 OF 2014

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 315

The Karnataka High Court has said that even married daughters are entitled for compensation on all the heads from the insurance company on the death of their parent in an accident.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh, sitting at Dharwad made the observation while dismissing the appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd challenging the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal dated May 9, 2014.

80. Sedition Not Made Out In Absence Of Incitement Of Disaffection Towards Govt: Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against Police Association Leader

Case Title: V. SHASHIDHAR & others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6376/2019 (GM-RES) A/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4811/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 316

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the case of sedition registered against a dismissed police constable who formed a Police Association namely Akhila Karnataka Police Maha Sangha (Welfare Body) in the year 2016 and was accused of spearheading a movement to instigate the lower rung of the Police force to act against the present elected Government

81. S.207 CrPC | Denial Of Chargesheet Material To Accused Results In Unfair Trial: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: CHIRAG R. MEHTA v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5712 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 317

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a petitioner/accused would become entitled to all copies of the charge sheet material, denial of which would undoubtedly be contrary to the principle of fairness and result in an unfair trial.

82. Writ Court Cannot Examine Transactions Between Bank & Borrower As They Are Essentially Contractual In Nature: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S NITESH RESIDENCY HOTELS PVT.LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & Others

Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO.2004 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 318

The Karnataka High Court has said that writ courts neither have means nor the expertise to re-evaluate the "prudential decisions" of the Banks that are made in the ordinary course of their commercial transactions with accumulated wisdom in the trade.

83. POCSO Act Casts Burden Of Proof Upon Accused, Application U/S 311 CrPC To Summon Material Witnesses Should Ordinarily Be Allowed: Karnataka HC

Case Title: PERIYASWAMY M v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6288 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 319

In connection with a trial under the POCSO Act, the Karnataka High Court has said that an application made by the accused under Section 311 of the CrPC for summoning of material witnesses should be ordinarily permitted unless the Court comes to a conclusion that it is a ruse to drag the proceedings or permitting it, would become an abuse of the process of the law.

84. Husband Asking Wife To Pursue Further Education, Expressing Views About Having A Child Not 'Cruelty': Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr Shashidhar Subbanna v. State of Karnataka

Case no: Criminal Revision petition no 1612/2016 C/W Criminal revision petition 1613/2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 320

The Karnataka High Court has observed that a husband suggesting to his wife or asking her to pursue her education further, cannot be considered as cruelty.

85. Karnataka High Court Nod To Inspection Of Nursing Colleges By Legislative Panel

Case Title: HYDERABAD KARNATAKA NURSING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION v. THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9438 OF 2022 C/w. WRIT PETITION No. 9441 OF 2022 & WRIT PETITION No.9456 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 321

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitution of a Special House Committee which has been empowered to visit all the Nursing Colleges and Allied Health Sciences Institutions in the State and carry out inspections to ascertain whether they are functioning as per the directions of Indian Nursing Council and whether they have the necessary infrastructure and other facilities.

86. Negotiable Instruments Act| Delay In Disposal Of Case Not Ground To Grant Interim Compensation U/S 143A: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: PADMANABHA T G v. M/S RADICAL WORKS PVT. LTD

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.524/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 322

The Karnataka High Court has said that delay in disposal of case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be a ground to grant interim compensation under Section 143A of the Act.

87. Cooks Recruited Under Karnataka Govt's 'Mid-Day Meal Scheme' Don't Fall Within Purview Of Minimum Wages Act: High Court

Case Title: MS. NOWHERA SHAIK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6926 OF 2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 323

The Karnataka High Court has said that head cooks and cooks employed on contract basis under the 'Bisi Oota Mid-day Meal scheme', being run by the state government do not qualify for wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

88. Civil Courts Must Ascertain Religious/ Charitable Nature Of 'Trust' Before Exercising Jurisdiction U/S 92 CPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ADARSHA SUGAMA SANGEETHA ACADEMY v. VRINDA S. RAO & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.33264 OF 2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 324

The Karnataka High Court has said that for exercising jurisdiction under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the civil court is to first draw a factual finding from the material placed on record whether the Trust is a public charitable or a religious Trust and also whether the persons approaching the Court have any interest in the Trust.

89. Karnataka High Court Reverses Order Discharging Wife For Bigamy, First Husband's Murder; Says Trial Necessary To Appreciate Evidence

Case Title: K.C.Ramu @ Ramanna v. State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.206 OF 2018 C/w. CRIMINAL PETITION No.711 OF 2018 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.7026 OF 2019.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 325

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Sessions Court discharging a woman accused of bigamy and hatching a conspiracy with her second husband to murder her first husband.

90. S.65 Mohammedan Law | First Cousin Brother On Mother's Side Not Entitled To Share In Deceased Uncle's Property: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: HUSAINSAB v. MODINABI @ FAKRUBI

Case No: R.F.A.No.1979/2005

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 326

The Karnataka High Court has held that a first cousin brother on the mother's side is not entitled to a share in the property of the deceased uncle, under the category of residuaries, as per Section 65 of the Mohammedan Law.

91. Karnataka High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of S.394 CrPC For Abatement Of Appeals On Death Of Accused

Case Title: G VARADARAJU v. UNION OF INDIA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.13145 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 327

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition assailing the constitutional validity of section 394(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides for abatement of criminal appeals on the death of accused.

92. Corruption Rampant In Govt Offices, No File Moves Without 'Bribe': Karnataka High Court

Case Title: B T Raju And State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition 5614 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 328

The Karnataka High Court has observed that nowadays, in Government offices, corruption has become rampant and no file is moved without a 'bribe'.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan made the observation while refusing bail to BT Raju, working as Assistant Engineer with the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The Anti-Corruption Bureau had arrested him for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 5 lakh.

93. Monkey Menace: Karnataka High Court Directs Local Bodies To Properly Implement State's SOP For Capture & Relocation

Case Title: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WP 14143/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 329

The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Urban Local Bodies in the city to properly implement the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) framed by the government to tackle 'monkey menace' and to deal with the issue of their capture and relocation.

94. S.3(1)(p) SC/ST Act Can't Be Used As A Tool For 'Arm Twisting' After Accepting Pensionary Benefits: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: K.P.N. SHENOY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 330

The Karnataka High Court has held that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against a bank employee, who happens to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community and is accused of committing irregularities, cannot be challenged under Section 3(1)(p) of the SC/ST Act, after such employee has accepted the penalty and has received the pension.

95. Contents Of "Azan" Don't Violate Rights Of Other Faiths Under Article 25/26 Constitution: Karnataka High Court Disposes PIL

Case Title: CHANDRASHEKAR R v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WP 10473/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 331

Observing that Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution embodies the principle of "religious tolerance" which is a characteristic of Indian civilization, the Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of a public interest litigation alleging that the contents of Azan (call for prayers in Islam) hurt the sentiments of believers of other faiths.

96. Distribution Of State Largesse Must Be Reasonable, Policies Cannot Be Construed By Keeping Common Sense In "Cold Storage": Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MS. H. GAYATHRI v UNION OF INDIA & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.16 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 332

State instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution cannot act arbitrarily or unreasonably whilst considering the claim of citizens for the grant of State largesse, the Karnataka High Court has said.

97. Karnataka Authorities Act On Plea Filed By 9-Yr-Old To Curb Stray Dog Menace In NIMHANS

Case Title: NIHARIKA D RAO v. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE.

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.38851/2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 333

The Karnataka High Court recently disposed of a petition filed by a nine year old girl after the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the Director of NIMHANS assured the court that measures have been taken to curb the stray dog menace in the institute's campus and in its residential quarters.

98. Writ Of Quo Warranto Can't Be Issued Unless Appointment To Public Office Made In Violation Of Constitution/ Statutory Provisions: Karnataka HC

Case Title: PUSHPA B. GAVADI v THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Case NO: W.P. NO.22546 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 334

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a postgraduate law student questioning the appointment of Dr. Shanth Averahally Thimmaiah as the Chairman of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.

99. Karnataka High Court Quashes POCSO Case After Prosecutrix Admits Consensual Relationship, Marries Accused On Attaining Majority

Case Title: RAMA @ BANDE RAMA v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6214 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 335

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a rape complaint registered against an accused after he married the prosecutrix during the pendency of the proceedings and produced adequate documents in that regard.

100. S.482 CrPC | High Courts Can Accept Post Conviction Settlements & Quash Criminal Proceedings Involving Non-Heinous Offences: Karnataka HC

Case Title: LAKSHMIBAI v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7649 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 336

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order of conviction after the parties to the proceedings post the conviction order entered into a settlement and sought for compounding of the offences so made against the petitioner.

101. "Abortive Attempt To Scuttle Innocuous Statutory Proceedings": Karnataka HC Rejects Intel's Plea Against CCI Probe With ₹10 Lakh Cost

Case Title: INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.50727 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 337

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Intel Technology assailing a 2019 CCI order directing a probe into its warranty policy with Rs. 10 lakh cost.

102. S.482 CrPC | Mere Production Of CDR To Show Absence Of Accused At Time Of Alleged Offence Cannot Lead To Closure Of Proceedings: Karnataka HC

Case Title: MANISH KUMAR SINGH @ MANISH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6794 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 338

The Karnataka High Court has observed that mere production of call record details by the accused to show that he was not present at the time of occurrence of alleged incident, would not lead to closure of criminal proceedings by exercising powers under Section 482 of CrPC.

103. Interest Payable On Solatium Under Land Acquisition Act Is 9% For First Year & 15% For Subsequent Years: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: GAS TURBINE RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT DEFENSE UNIT THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER v. NAZIMA SALIQ & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 10625 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 339

The Karnataka High Court recently held that in cases of land acquisition where payment of compensation is pending, interest to be paid on compensation amount for the first year is to be at the rate of 9% per annum and subsequently, it is to be at the rate of 15%.

104. Bhang Not Covered Under NDPS Act, Prosecution Must Show It Is Prepared From Charas/ Ganja: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ROSHAN KUMAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6611 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 340

The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a man accused of possessing Bhang, holding that Bhang is not covered under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).

105. Transfer Orders Cannot Be Passed In Absence Of Vacancy, Must Show Place Of New Posting: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14860 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 341

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to ensure that if transfers are made after the period of general transfers, no request for transfers should be entertained or orders made unless there is a vacant place.

106. No Notice Ought To Be Issued To The Subject Prior To Issuance Of Look Out Circular: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: HARSHAVARDHANA RAO K v. UNION OF INDIA

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.12185 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 342

The Karnataka High Court has held that no notice ought to be issued to the subject of the Look out circular prior to its issuance.

107. Motor Vehicle Act | Insurer Liable To Compensate Spare Driver If Only One Claim Made: Karnataka High Court

Case title: THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD V TAHASEENTAJ W/O SHAMIULLA @ GULLAB, & Others

Case No: M.F.A.No.23205/2011 c/w M.F.A.No.23206/2011

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 343

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the insurer is very much liable to pay compensation in respect of a spare driver under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, if there is only one claim under the policy

108. Representation Of Peoples Act | S.127A Prescribes Non-Cognizable Offence, Magistrate's Permission Mandatory For Police Investigation: Karnataka HC

Case Title: MAHANTESH KOUJALAGI v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5528/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 344

The Karnataka High Court has said that offence under Section 127-A of the Representation of People Act (Restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters, etc) is a non-cognizable offence and hence, permission for police investigation must be granted by Magistrate in terms of Section 155 of CrPC.

109. Minimum Punishment Prescribed U/S 27(d) Of Drugs & Cosmetics Act Can Be Reduced If Accused Enters Plea Bargain: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: The State of Karnataka v. S.B. Shivashankar

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.775 OF 2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 345

The Karnataka High Court has upheld a trial court order imposing a sentence less than the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, noting that the accused had entered into a plea bargain under Section 265-B of CrPC and had accepted his guilt.

110. Article 350 Constitution | Citizens' Grievance Before Jurisdictional Authorities Can't Be Kept Unconsidered Indefinitely. Karnataka High Court

Case Title: S.C. MAHESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.16625 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 346

The Karnataka High Court has observed that Article 350 of the Constitution of India mandates that where a citizen raises a grievance before jurisdictional authorities, it cannot be kept unconsidered indefinitely.

111. Issuance Of Multiple Notices By Investigating Authority Does Not Falter Preliminary Inquiry: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M.PRAKASH v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.15624 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 347

The Karnataka High Court has said that issuance of multiple notices by the investigating agency to a person while carrying out preliminary enquiry into a case cannot be a ground for faltering the enquiry.

112. CET 2022: Karnataka High Court Directs KEA To Redo Ranking Process For Engineering & Technology Courses

Case Title: ESHWAR R & others v KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY

Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.15429 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 348

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka Examinations Authority to redo the CET rankings for admission to undergraduate courses in Engineering and Technology for the academic year 2022-23.

113. Passport Officer Can't Insist On Father's Consent Where Mother Holds Exclusive Custody Of Minor: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: POULAMI BASU v. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO.14716 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 349

The Karnataka High Court has said that once exclusive custody of a child is granted by the Family Court to a mother, the Regional Passport Officer is not justified in insisting upon the presence of the father of the ward or for his consent for issuing a passport to the child.

114. Writ Courts Can't Adopt 'Come What May Attitude' In Contractual Matters When Actions Of Public Functionaries Are Manifestly Arbitrary: Karnataka HC

Case Title: M Chiranjeevi v. State of Karnataka

Case No: WP NO 46302 of 2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 350

The Karnataka High Court has observed that ordinarily, Writ Courts do not grant indulgence in matters involving contract and non-payment of contractors' bills, more particularly when disputed facts are involved. Aggrieved parties can work out their remedies by an ordinary civil suit or by invoking arbitration clause, if there be one.

115. State Legislators Not Disqualified From Holding Posts In Committees, Society: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: HARISH A.S. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: W.P. NO.18278 OF 2021 C/W W.P. NO.19421 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 351

The Karnataka High Court has held that a Member of the State Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council is not disqualified from holding the post of Chairman of any Committee or of any society.

116. Existence Of Arbitration Agreement Can Be Presumed If No Denial Is Made In The Reply: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: S.R. Ravi v. Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 180 of 2020

Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 352

The Karnataka High Court has held that the words "statements of claim and defence" under Section 7(4)(c) of the A&C Act are to be given wider interpretation and reply to a notice of arbitration falls within the section.

117. Balance Must Be Struck Between Development & Ecology: Karnataka High Court Dismisses PIL Against Commercial Use Of Kali River Water

Case Title: DANDELI BACHAO ANDOLAN SAMITHI v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: W.P. NO.16505 OF 2007

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 353

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Dandeli Bachao Andolan Samithi, challenging the State's decision to part with water resources of Kali river and permit commercial use by a sugar mill.

118. Karnataka High Court Restores Bribery Complaint Against Former CM Yediyurappa

Case Title: Abraham T.J v B.S. Yediyurappa & Others

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5659/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 354

The Karnataka High Court has restored a bribery complaint filed against former Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa, his son B.Y. Vijayendra and others alleging offences under Prevention of Corruption Act.

119. POCSO Case Against Minor Can Be Quashed On Parties Arriving At Mutual Settlement: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: AJ v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 355

The Karnataka High Court on Friday allowed a petition filed by a minor boy and set aside the investigation initiated against him under sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl, following a mutual settlement having arrived at between the parties.

120. Magistrate Can't Direct Further Investigation By Police After Rejecting Closure Report Filed By HC Constituted SIT: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M.MANJULA v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.7784 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 356

The Karnataka High Court has held that a Magistrate court cannot direct further investigation by some other investigation agency after rejecting the B report (closure report) filed by a probe agency that was appointed by the High Court.

121. Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Doctor Accused Of Forcefully Performing Sex Change Operation On Minor

Case Title: DR. (SMT.) ANITHA PATIL And STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8213 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 357

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the FIR and chargesheet filed against a doctor under POCSO Act for allegedly conducting a forcible sex change operation on a minor boy, after kidnapping him.

The bench said, "The petitioner in the present matter is a Doctor, who is alleged to have conducted the sex change operation, and the other offences have not been alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has contended that the petitioner has not performed the operation, I am of the considered opinion that this cannot be a matter which can be decided in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that is a matter which is required to be left for trial."

122. Special Court Empowered To Try General IPC Offences Arising Out Of Case Probed By NIA: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: SAYYED SOHEL TORVI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19019 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Special NIA Court is empowered to conduct trial for general offences punishable under Indian Penal Code if the FIR emanates from the very same transaction being probed by the NIA.

A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Sayyed Sohel Torvi an accused in the Bengaluru riots case of 2020, questioning the order of the special court dated September 30, 2021 by which his application made under section 20 r/w Section 8 of the NIA Act for transfer of his case to the Court having jurisdiction to try IPC offences was rejected.

123. Graphite India 'Absolute Owner' Of Closed Bengaluru Plant, Can't Revert Land To State Govt: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: AMRUTHESH N.P v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

Case No: W.P.No.7039/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the State to reacquire the land allotted to M/s Graphite India Ltd., which had to close down its operations after several complaints were made by the residents of the locality with regard to the pollution caused by its functioning.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition filed by one Amruthesh NP seeking to revert the land allotted to Graphite India to the State government, for use either by upcoming entrepreneurs or as a lung space of the locality.

124. Accused Can't Ordinarily Move Quashing Plea If Sessions Court Granted Pre-Arrest Bail On Condition To Cooperate In Criminal Investigation: Karnataka HC

Case Title: VIJAYKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3163 OF 2021 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4322 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

The Karnataka High Court has said that an accused who has secured anticipatory bail orders at the hands of jurisdictional Sessions Judge, wherein a condition is stipulated for the accused to cooperate in the investigation process, cannot readily approach the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while dismissing two petitions filed by Vijaykumar and Abubekar said, "Petitioners have secured anticipatory bail orders at the hands of jurisdictional Sessions Judge wherein a condition is stipulated for the accused to cooperate in the investigation process. That being the position, petitioners cannot readily come before this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. It is for the Investigating Agency to look into the matter and take a call as to its investigation worthiness."

125. Mere Pendency Of One More Case Against Accused Itself Can't Be Treated As Criminal Antecedent To Deny Bail: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: SANDEEP REDDY v State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5740 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

The Karnataka High Court has observed that mere pendency of one more case against the petitioner-accused itself cannot be treated as a criminal antecedent so as to deny him bail.

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by one Sandeep Reddy and granted him bail. Reddy has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC (Punishment for dacoity). He had approached the court seeking bail on the ground of parity, stating that co-accused in the case have been granted bail.

126. Unregistered Family Settlement Admissible In Evidence Only If Agreement Is Confirmed With Approval Of All Family Members: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: KRISHNAPPA v ASHWATHAMMA

Case No: R.S.A.NO.87 OF 2010

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 362

The Karnataka High Court has held that a family settlement arrived at between parties to share immovable properties has to be among all the family members who agree to common terms and conditions and an agreement in writing between two parties to the suit arrived before the panchayat is not acceptable, unless it is a registered document.

The bench said, "Family settlement involves participation and the same needs to be signed by all the members and there has to be an acknowledgment when the agreement is arrived at, free of duress and coercion within the family members. A family settlement is admissible in evidence provided that the agreement is confirmed with approval of all family members who firmly support resolution given in the agreement at a later date which does not require registration."

127. Karnataka High Court Directs Haveri Deputy Commissioner To Act Against Alleged Illegal Slaughter Houses

Case Title: SOMASHEKAR SHANKARAPPA HURUKADLI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WP No 1646/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 363

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Haveri district to expeditiously take action on the representation made to it about alleged illegal slaughter houses being operational in the district without any license.

128. S.451 CrPC: Karnataka High Court Says Gold Ornaments Seized Can Be Kept In Custody For Maximum 1 Month

Case Title: M/S NAMBOOR JEWELLERS v. STATE BY LASHKAR POLICE STATION

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7105 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 364

The Karnataka High Court has said that if gold bullion or gold ornaments are seized during the investigation of an offence, the maximum period that it could be held is 15 days or one month and later, it should be released and interim custody should be handed over to the victim/complainant/applicant.

129. Arbitration Clause, Effect Of Novation; Can't Be Decided Under Section 11 Of A&C Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Jaganmayi Builders and Developers Private Limited & Ors. versus Sumanth Reddy & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 365

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the issue whether an agreement containing an arbitration clause stood novated with the execution of a second agreement and thus, the arbitration agreement between the parties was not subsisting, cannot be decided at the stage of reference to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), since it involves a detailed enquiry which must be decided by the Arbitrator himself under Section 16 of the A&C Act.

130. Loan Recovery: Karnataka High Court Restrains PNB Housing Finance From Taking Coercive Measures Against Apartment Buyers

Case Title: MUDIT SAXENA v UNION OF INDIA

Case No: W.P.NO.17696/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 366

In a significant order, the Karnataka High Court has restrained Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited from taking any coercive measures to recover the amount from loan borrowers who had entered into a tripartite agreements after booking their apartment units with M/S Mantri Developers Private Limited, in terms of "Pre-EMI Scheme".

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed a batch of petitions filed by the loan borrowers and said, "A Writ of Mandamus is issued restraining the Respondent-PNB Housing Finance Limited from taking any coercive measures against the petitioners for recovering any amount comprised in the Loan Agreements and Tripartite Agreements in question."

131. Approval From Chairman Of State Pollution Control Board Must For Initiating Criminal Action Against Defaulters Under Air Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: B.V. BYRE GOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8067 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 367

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Chairman of State's Pollution Control Board to hold necessary workshops to educate and train its officers as regards initiation of criminal proceedings under Air and Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has asked the Chairman to take assistance of NLSIU's Environment Law Centre for this purpose. He is also directed to place on record the topics that could be covered in such workshops along with the material that would be distributed in the said workshops.

132. Karnataka High Court Asks State Government To Review Employee Transfer Guidelines

Case Title: R D RAMADAS v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.11934/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 368

Concerned over the increase in number of cases related to transfer orders of government employees, the Karnataka High Court has said it is high time for the State to have relook at the relevant guidelines framed by it in 2013.

"The State being the largest litigant owes a duty to the justice delivery dispensation," said the court. The court said the state government should look into the concept of commutable distance and also consider the distinction between areas - which are well equipped with all the basic necessities like hospitals, schools, colleges, residential accommodation etc, and remote and inaccessible areas involving Hilly Terrain, Towns and Villages surrounded by forest etc or towns and villages in highly undeveloped or under-developed parts of the State.

133. Karnataka State Commission For SC/ST Cannot Direct Govt To Withhold Grants to School: High Court

Case Title: SRI VASAVI EDUCATION SOCIETY v KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 101248 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 369

The Karnataka High Court has said that Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 does not empower the Commission constituted under it to direct the government to withhold grants being made to an educational institution.

Justice M.I.ARUN of the Dharwad bench allowed the petition filed by Sri Vasavi Education Society and set aside the interim order dated 16.09.2021, by which the commission directed the government to withhold the grants being made to the petitioner institution.

134. Karnataka HC Quashes Order Prohibiting Sri Rama Sene Founder From Meeting Praveen Netturu's Family

Case Title: PRAMOD H. MUTALIK v. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7611 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 370

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an order restraining Sri Ram Sene Founder Pramod H. Mutalik from meeting the family of Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) leader Praveen Netturu, who was killed on July 26 at Bellare in Mangaluru.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Mutalik and said, "The order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the District Commissioner and District Magistrate, Mangaluru, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to issue a notice and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law."

135. Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Just Because Driver Died of Heart Attack In Parked Vehicle: Karnataka HC

Case Title: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v SHANKARAMMA & others

Case No: M.F.A. NO.20003/2010

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 371

The Karnataka High Court has held that an insurance company is not absolved of its liability to pay compensation, in case the driver of an insured vehicle dies of heart attack during the course of employment, only on the ground that the tipper lorry was not in use at the time of his death.

Referring to an earlier ruling in which the court held that driving is undoubtedly a tension-filled job, Justice H P Sandesh of Dharwad bench said, "The Court has to take note of policy taken in order to cover the risk of the driver during the course of employment. I have already pointed out that respondent No.1 [employer] in the written statement in para No.2 categorically admitted that the death is in the course of employment and the same cannot be disputed by the insurer."

136. Article 22(5): Delay In Considering Representation Against Detention Order A Ground To Nullify It, Says Karnataka HC

Case Title: SHIVARAJA @ KULLA SHIVARAJA v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU

Case No: WRIT PETITION (HC) No.39/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 372

The Karnataka High Court has said that delayed consideration by authorities of the representation made by a detenu amounts to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and constitutes a ground to nullify the order of detention.

A division bench of Justice B. VEERAPPA and Justice K.S. HEMALEKHA made the observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by detenue Shivaraja @ Kulla Shivaraja and his wife against the order passed by Commissioner of Police, Bengaluruagainst him under the provision of Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act.

137. Export Of Software Embedded Into Hardware; Sale Proceeds From Export Of Hardware Eligible For Deduction : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s. Subex Limited versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 373

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that where a software embedded into a hardware is exported by the assessee, the proceeds from export of the hardware component is eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that the hardware was separately invoiced and was not manufactured by the assessee, if the software cannot be used independently.

Taking a judicial note of the fact that the software and the hardware components were inseparable from each other, the division bench of Justices P.S. Dinesh Kumar and M.G. Uma held that issue of separate invoices by the assessee for sale of hardware and software components is inconsequential. The Court ruled that what is relevant is the intention of the parties and the product that is actually sold.

138. S.357A CrPC | Magistrate & Sessions Judge Should Recommend In Judgment Whether There Is Need For Compensation To Rehabilitate Victim: Karnataka HC

Case Title: D Reddeppa v. The State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1113/2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 374

The Karnataka High Court has suggested that while delivering final judgments after completion of trial, Magistrate and Sessions Judge must pass a reasoned order as to whether there is a need to make a recommendation for payment of compensation for the rehabilitation of the victim of a crime or not, under Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

A division bench of Justice K. Somashekar and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar said, "Looking into the welfare object behind Section 357A of the Code, which is apparent from the text of the provision, this Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge while delivering final judgments, after completion of the trial, must pass a reasoned order as to whether there is a need to make a recommendation for payment of compensation for the rehabilitation of the victim of a crime or not."

139. Shakespeare's Play Finds Mention As Karnataka HC Upholds Govt Order On Wind Energy Project

Case Title : SRK ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and ors and connected matters

Citation no: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 375

The Karnataka High Court has refused interference in petitions seeking to invalidate Government Order enhancing the capacity of its Wind Energy Project and allotting the same to one Ayana Limited.

Justice Krishna S Dixit observed that so long as State acts fairly in matters of State Largesse without compromising public interest, its decision cannot be interfered with merely citing "arguable" procedural infirmities. While holding thus, the bench made it clear that grievances, if any, need to be balanced and cannot be worked out by clever arguments.

140. CET 2022: Karnataka High Court Directs State To Consider Normalisation Of Marks For Repeater Candidates

Case Title: KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY v. KEERTHANA Y.H & others

Case NO: W.A. NO.900 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 376

The Karnataka High Court on Friday accepted the revised method formulated by the state government for assigning CET rankings to repeater-students, for admission to undergraduate courses in Engineering and Technology for the academic year 2022-23.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said, "During the course of hearing, a consensus has been evolved amongst the learned counsel for the parties in respect of second method for evaluation of the marks of II PUC batch 2021 for the UGCET academic year 2022–2023, be made the basis for assigning CET rankings to the students. It is therefore directed that aforesaid second method shall be made the basis for assigning CET rankings and the State Government shall issue a notification accordingly."

141. Karnataka High Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Former Civil Judge, Upholds Appointments Made to State Information Commission

Case Title: MOHAN CHANDRA P v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.481 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 377

Upholding the appointments made to the posts of Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners in 2019, the Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner, who was a former judicial officer, for suppression of material facts in his plea and unnecessarily harassing the appointees.

A division bench of Justice B.VEERAPPA AND JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA dismissed the intra-court appeal filed by Mohan Chandra P, who appeared in person, against the single judge bench order dated 21.04.2022 by which the writ court rejected his petition questioning the appointments.

142. Temporary Injunction Can Be Continued By Appellate Court If Trial Court Finding Not Clear On Title Of Suit Property: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Shadakshari C.L & others v Santhosha C.A & others.

Case No: MFA NO.667 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 378

The Karnataka High Court has said that if the trial court has not given clear finding in regards the possession of a suit property, it is better for the appellate court to grant an order of temporary injunction, if it was in operation till disposal of the suit before the trial court.

A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "There is no hard and fast rule that the appellate court should not refer to the evidence of the witnesses and the findings given by the trial court while deciding the application for temporary injunction. If the appellate court feels that the evidence has to be looked into, it should be for the limited purpose of forming an opinion regarding the nature or status of the property."

143. Grievance Redressal Committees Of Startups & IT Companies Can't Decide Disputes Qua Termination: Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea Against WIPRO

Case Title: AP v. WIPRO LIMITED REPRESENTED

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 47550 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 379

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that the Grievance Redressal Committees established by various Startups and IT companies, in compliance with State government's notification issued in 2014, cannot decide disputes relating to termination of employment.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that the said notification relates to grievances of an "existing employee" and thus, an ex-employee cannot challenge his termination on the ground that the enquiry against him was not conducted by the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC).

144. Prosecution Must Establish Facts Indicating 'Special Knowledge' To Shift Burden of Proof On Accused U/S 106 Evidence Act: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Siddappa v. State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200104 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 380

The Karnataka High Court has said that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, which are within the special knowledge of the accused.

A division bench of Justices Dr. HB Prabhakara Sastry and Anil B. Katti, sitting at Kalaburagi said, "It is only if the prosecution could be able to show that the facts and circumstances of the case would clearly go to show that a particular fact is especially within the knowledge of the accused, only then the burden of proving that fact would be upon the accused."

145. Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act | Election Petition May Be Presented By Advocate In Immediate Presence of Party: High Court

Case Title: Devandrappa v. Huligemma

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.200133 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 381

The Karnataka High Court has said that under Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, an Election Petition can be presented before the designated court even by the advocate of the party, in the immediate presence of that party.

A single judge bench of Justice HT Narendra Prasad sitting at Kalaburagi said, "It is clear that under Section 15(1) of the 1993 Act, the Election Petition has to be presented by the petitioner to a Designated Court. Even the advocate of the petitioner presented the petition to the Designated Court in the immediate presence of the petitioner, that fulfils the requirement of law."

146. Blood Relatives Can Share Employer-Employee Relationship Under Workmen's Compensation Act: Karnataka HC

Case Title: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD v SAYEEDA KHANAM W/O. LATE AZAM KHAN

Case No: MFA No.25711/2011

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 382

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there are no provisions prohibiting blood relatives to be employer and employee.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh sitting at Dharwad dismissed the appeal filed by the Divisional Manager of Oriental Insurance, questioning the order of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner at Koppal by which it fastened liability on the company in a claim petition filed by the legal heirs of deceased driver Azam Khan, who died in an accident in 2008.

147. Advocates Act Confers No Right To Park Vehicle Inside Court Premises: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: N.S.VIJAYANTH BABU v. ADVOCATES' ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU(AAB)

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18614/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 383

The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 30 of the Advocates' Act only confers the right on the Advocates to practice and it does not confer any right on any advocate to park his/her vehicle inside Court premises.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed a public interest litigation filed by advocate N.S.Vijayanth Babu, seeking quashing of a notice regarding issuance of new vehicle stickers for the members of the Advocates' Association.

148. Karnataka High Court Discharges Accused Who 'Assaulted' Police Officer During Drunk Driving Check

Case Title: PRIYAMSHU KUMAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.298 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 384

The Karnataka High Court recently discharged two men in a case accusing them of assaulting a traffic policeman in 2017 when they were being booked for alleged drunken driving. The police had registered a case under Section 353 IPC against the accused for preventing the cop from discharging his duty. Justice Mohammed Nawaz allowed the petition filed by Priyamshu Kumar and his friend Alok Kumar - who are both in late 20s, and set aside the order passed by the trial court rejecting their application seeking discharge in the case.

149. Test Identification Parade Can't Be Permitted After Lapse Of Several Years: Karnataka HC

Case Title: K. UMESH SHETTY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8077 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 385

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that Test Identification Parade is to ascertain the identity of accused persons and cannot be conducted after lapse of several years, as there is risk of the witnesses having lost proper memory.

It thus set aside an order passed by the trial court permitting the investigating officer to conduct a TIP of an accused after 11 years of filing of complaint.