Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 5 To December 11, 2022

MANJUNATH B v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 497

Judgments/Orders

'Rich & Poor Should Be Able To Afford Cancer Treatment Alike': Karnataka HC Upholds 30% Cap On Trade Margin Of 42 Anti-Cancer Drugs

Case Title: HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.11057 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 496

The Karnataka High Court has upheld a 2019 order issued by the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers imposing a cap of 30% on trade margin of 42 anti-Cancer Drugs.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Healthcare Global Enterprises Ltd. and said, "Cancer patients in India incur heavy expenditure and cancer drugs need to become somewhat affordable so that whenever a treatment is required, it can be treated at the earliest, to the rich and the poor alike. If such policy is not promulgated, the poor or the middle class which forms a majority of the population of this country, can be seen to be succumbing to the disease due to high prices that the manufacturers project resulting in its unaffordability."

Court Flooded With Cases Concerning Allotment Of Fair Price Shops: Karnataka HC Asks State To Take Forward 'One Nation One Ration Card' Policy

Case Title: MANJUNATH B v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19575 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 497

The Karnataka High Court has expressed concern over the rising litigation relating to allotment of fair price shops under the Public Distribution System and has asked State's Food and Civil Supplies Department to take appropriate steps to 'put its house in order'.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was dealing with a case whereby the licence to run fair price shop of a physically disabled person was cancelled by the Appellate Authority under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 following a grievance raised by the allottee of another fair price depot situated in the same vicinity.

'No Politics In Devotion': Karnataka HC Asks Parties Agitating Shifting Of Deity From New Temple To Old Dilapidated Premises To Approach Civil Court

Case Title: PRAKASH & Others v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.14590 OF 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 498

The Karnataka High Court has refused to issue directions in a plea against shifting of the deity from the newly constructed Kamsagara Beeralingeshwara and Hinde Mallikarjunaswamy Temple at Chitradurga district back to the old temple, which is in a dilapidated condition.

The Court however ordered status quo keeping in mind public safety and asked the parties to agitate their respective rights over the deity continuing in the new building or to be shifted to the old temple by approaching the competent civil Court.

'Removal From Service Cannot Become A Ground For Filing Sexual Assault Complaint': Karnataka HC Quashes Sexual Harassment Case Against Post Master

Case Title: RADHAKIRSHAN @ K RADHAKRISHNA & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8277 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 499

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a sexual harassment case against a post master, who was booked by the police on a complaint filed by a temporary Group-D employee in 2018.

A single judge bench of Justice K. Natarajan allowed the petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings registered for offences punishable under Section 354(A) read with 34 of IPC.

Is Bangalore International Airport Ltd A 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act? Karnataka HC Asks State Information Commission To Decide Afresh

Case Title: BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED v. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION & others

Case No: W.A. NO.900 OF 2010

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 500

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Information Commission to decide afresh whether the Bangalore International Airport Limited (BIAL) is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.

A bench of Justices Alok Aradhe and S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the appeal preferred by BIAL against a single judge's order which upheld the Commission's decision declaring the company to be a 'public authority' and asking it to furnish certain information sought by the private Respondent under RTI Act.

[Motor Accident] Insurance Company Not Exempted From Third Party Liability For Breach Of Policy, May Recover From Insured: Karnataka HC Reiterates

Case Title: BASAVARAJA BEERAPPA KAMBALI v. THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & others

Case No: M.F.A. NO.9207/2013

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 501

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that even if the court comes to the conclusion that there is a breach of any policy condition recognized under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer is liable to compensate the third party and recover the same from the insured.

A single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh allowed an appeal filed by claimant Basavaraja Beerappa Kambali in part and modified the order of the Tribunal by directing Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company (respondent No.1) to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks and recover the same from the insured.

[Employee's Compensation Act] Bar On Commissioner's Power To Conduct Enquiry Imposed By 2010 Amendment Act Is Prospective: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Hanumanthappa v. The Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd & others.

Case No: M.F.A. NO.1234/2014 (WC) C/W. M.F.A. NO.2414/2014 (WC)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 502

The Karnataka High Court has said the amendment brought to Section 20 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, notified on 23.01.2014, which bars the Commissioner from conducting an inquiry/proceedings on the claims under the Act and confers the powers to the concerned courts, is not applicable to a case decided prior to issuing of the notification.

A single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh rejected the appeal filed by the Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd, questioning the judgment and award dated 19.08.2013, passed by Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Davanagere District, questioning the quantum and liability of the compensation awarded to the claimant.

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Registered Against Kannada Actor Chetan Kumar For Allegedly 'Hurting' Hindu Sentiments

Case Title: Chethan A. Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition no. 10651 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 503

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Kannada actor Chetan A. Kumar for quashing of an FIR lodged against him under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, on charges of allegedly making statements which promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between different sections of the Society.

Justice M I Arun said whether the statements made by Kumar amount to an offence as contemplated under Section 505(2) of IPC or not, is a subject matter of investigation.

Wife Entitled To Maintenance Under Two Separate Enactments, Quantum May Be Adjusted Accordingly: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Uday Nayak v. Anita Nayak

Case No: Writ Petition no.22006 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 504

The Karnataka High Court has said that a wife can claim maintenance under two different enactments, particularly after having been granted maintenance under a particular statute.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected a petition filed by the husband challenging an order passed by the Family Court granting interim maintenance of Rs.30,000 to his wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He argued that the wife was already in receipt of Rs. 20,000 maintenance in proceedings instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Insurer Has Third Party Liability If Cancellation Of Policy Over Dishonour Of Premium Cheque Is Not Intimated To Insured Before Accident: Karnataka HC

Case Title: SRIKANTA M.R v. GEETHA & Others

Case No: M.F.A. NO.7043/2014

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 505

The Karnataka High Court has said that an insurance company is liable to pay compensation to a third party, even if the cheque issued towards premium by the insured was dishonoured, if such fact was not intimated to the policy holder before the occurrence of the motor accident.

A single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh while allowing the appeal preferred filed by a claimant against the order of Claims Tribunal which exonerated the Insurance company from liability, observed, "The Tribunal while considering the issue of liability, only considered the bank's memo regarding the dishonour of cheque and comes to the conclusion that the Insurance Company has intimated about the dishonour of cheque as well as cancellation of policy to the owner of the offending vehicle but not discussed whether it was served or not and simply comes to the conclusion that the policy was not in force...No material before the Court that they have intimated the same to the insured."

Offence U/S 3(u) SC-ST Act For Promoting Hatred Against Community Not Attracted If Not In Public View: HC Grants Relief To Karnataka Golf Assn Office Bearers

Case Title: Dr M G Bhat & Others v. State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: WP 11949 of 2022 C/W WP 12182 of 2022.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 506

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the First Information Report (FIR) filed against office bearers of the Karnataka Golf Association by a former member of the Association, under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "If the narration in the complaint is noticed with juxtaposition to the link in the chain of events, what would unmistakably emerge is none of the provisions under which the crime is registered would even prima facie get attracted, as even according to the complainant the entire thing has happened in the meeting hall where the petitioners were present and the complainant barged there. Therefore it is a place which is neither in public view or a public place. Section 3 (1) (u) of the Act makes the offence punishable for those ingredients."

'Private Contract, Writ Not Maintainable': Karnataka HC Refuses Interference In Super Specialty's Dispute With Bharat Biotech Over Covaxin Supply

Case Title: M/s United Brothers Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd v. Ministry of Health And Family Welfare, Government of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9587 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 507

The Karnataka High Court has refused relief to a private super speciality hospital in south Bangalore assailing the conduct of Bharat Biotech in relation to a contract between them for supply of Covaxin during peak of pandemic in 2021.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held that a writ petition for recovery of money, by a private entity, from a private entity, arising out of a private contract, cannot be entertained.

Increased Cost Of Living And Passage Of Time Grounds To Enhance Maintenance Under Special Marriage Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Vineetha Thomas v. SQD LDR Dr Praveen Kumar Borushetty

Case No: WP 16949 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 508

The Karnataka High Court has said that 'passage of time' and 'cost of living' are valid grounds to be considered as changed circumstances for enhancing maintenance amount granted to wife under Special Marriage Act. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Vineetha Thomas and increased the maintenance amount of Rs 10,000 granted to her in the year 2016 to Rs 20,000.

'Unknown To Law': Karnataka High Court Dismisses Muslim Couple's Plea On Adopting Unborn Hindu Child

Case Title: Shahista & Others v. The State.

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4617 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 509

The Karnataka High Court has said that Mohammedan Law does not recognise adoption and thus an agreement entered into between a Hindu couple to give their unborn child in adoption to a Muslim couple is not allowed.

A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice K. S. Hemalekha dismissed a petition filed by the couples challenging the judgment of Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissing the petition filed under Sections 7 to 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, by them.