Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 25 To April 30, 2022

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

Janardhana Pujari S And Karnataka State Law University, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 135

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

Saleem Khan v. State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 137

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

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

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

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

Suo-Motu v. The State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 142

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

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

Judgments/Orders/Reports

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 133

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

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

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

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.57977 OF 2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 134

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

3: Karnataka High Court Directs Law University To Consider Student's Representation Who Could Not Complete LLB Course In Stipulated 10 Yrs Time

Case Title: Janardhana Pujari S v. Karnataka State Law University Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.8775/2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 135

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 136

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 137

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 138

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 139

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 140

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 141

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 142

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 143

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

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

Case Title: HUBBALLI DHARWAD ADVERTISERS ASSOCIATION and others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 104172 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 144

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

Other reports

1: Can POCSO Case Against Minor Be Quashed On Parties Arriving At A Mutual Settlement? Karnataka High Court To Consider

Case Title: AJ v. State of Karnataka

The Karnataka High Court has stayed further investigation in a case against a minor boy who is charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl. The body has approached the High Court seeking to quash the prosecution on a mutual settlement having been arrived at between the parties. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "Till 23.05.2022, further investigation in the matter shall remain stayed which shall be subject to the result of further orders being passed."

2: Plea Challenges Demand Of GST On Royalty Paid For Quarrying Of Building Stone: Karnataka High Court Grants Interim Relief

Case Title: B AND B STONES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

Case No: WP 1593/2022

The Karnataka High Court has till the next date of hearing restrained respondents from demanding and collecting GST on Royalty from the petitioner, a firm engaged in quarrying of building stone. Advocate Kartik Seth appearing for the petitioner B&B Stones had approached the court challenging the imposition of GST on mining royalty on reverse charge basis. Seth had argued that mining royalty is a tax already and tax cannot be imposed on another tax.