Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: February 28 To March 6, 2022

Shivanand S/O Karabasappa Gurannavar v. Basavva @ Laxmi W/O Shivanand Gurannavar 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 53

M/S SAPL-GCC JV v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 54

Dhondiba Anna Jadhav v. The State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 55

Padmanabha v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 56

Michael Graham Prince v. Mrs. Nisha Misra 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 57

L.S. Tejasvi Surya v. State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 58

Bibi Ayesha Khanum v. Union Of India 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 59

Rabiya Abdul Hamid Bepari v. The Chairman, School Managing Committee, Volkart Academy. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 60

JUDGMENTS/ORDERS

1. Maintenance Awarded To Wife Under Domestic Violence Act Cannot Be Enhanced U/S 127 CrPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Shivanand S/O Karabasappa Gurannavar v. Basavva @ Laxmi W/O Shivanand Gurannavar Case No: Criminal Petition No.101378/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 53

The Karnataka High Court has held that maintenance awarded to an estranged wife under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, cannot be enhanced on an application made by her under section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, "A maintenance that is awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. can be varied in an application filed under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. What is sine qua-non is that an order of maintenance should precede a petition under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., failing which, a petition under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance is not available."

2. Central Govt Can't Upset Tenders On Baseless Allegations Made By Unsuccessful Bidders: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S SAPL-GCC JV v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.11165 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 54

The Karnataka High Court has observed that the decision of awarding tenders of gigantic value, cannot be readily upset by the Central Government on some baseless allegation being made by the unsuccessful bidders.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit, set aside the order dated 15.04.2021, passed by the Central government by which it had constituted a Committee to conduct a detailed investigation into allegation of some irregularities perpetrated in awarding tender to M/S SAPL-GCC JV, by the New Mangalore Port Trust.

3. Prenatal Sex Determination | Magistrate Can't Take Cognizance Of Complaint Unless Filed By 'Appropriate Authority' Notified By Govt: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Dhondiba Anna Jadhav v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.101392/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 55

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the under section 28 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, a Magistrate court cannot take cognizance of a complaint except it being registered by an 'Appropriate Authority' notified by the Central or the State government.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Dhondiba Anna Jadhav and others who run Sri Dhondida Anna Jadhav Memorial Hospital at Gokak, based on a complaint filed by the Taluka Health Officer.

4. Commercial Tax Office One Of The Hubs Of Corruption' :Karnataka High Court Confirms Conviction Of A Tax Officer Charged Under PC Act

Case Title: Padmanabha v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal 200043/2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 56

Observing that "corruption is a distinct type of offence. It is like cancer to society. It eats the social and economical health every second resulting in unimaginable consequences," the Karnataka High Court recently confirmed the conviction handed down to a Commercial Tax officer under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda dismissed the appeal filed by accused Padmanabha challenging an order of the special court dated April 6, 2015, by which it sentenced the accused to 2 and half years of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh under section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to four years simple imprisonment under section 13 (1) (d) of the Act.

5. Overseas Citizens Of India Can Seek Divorce Before Indian Courts Against OCI Partner : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Michael Graham Prince v. Mrs. Nisha Misra Case No: Writ Petition No.15356 Of 2020

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 57

The Karnataka High Court has held that Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) cardholders can seek matrimonial reliefs before appropriate courts in India, against the estranged partner who is also an OCI cardholder.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "Subsection 2 of section 7B of the Citizenship Act, excludes certain rights from being granted to the OCI Cardholders. However, this exclusion does not cover the right to seek matrimonial reliefs at the hands of the native Courts. The subject statutory notifications do not in so many words vest in them such a right to litigate may be true; but, that per se does not divest them of such a right which otherwise avails even to the OCI Cardholders."

6. Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Permission Granted By Magistrate To Proceed With Investigation Against Tejasvi Surya

Case Title: L.S. Tejasvi Surya v. State Of Karnataka Case no: Criminal Petition No.9961/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 58

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the permission granted by a magistrate court to proceed with the investigation against Member of Parliament, L S Tejasvi Surya, under provisions of the Representation of People Act.

A single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav, while relegating the matter back to the magistrate court for fresh consideration said, "In accordance with the mandate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, the informant is to be referred to the Magistrate which is preceded by the officer in-charge of the police station having made out necessary entry of the substance of the information in the book kept as mandated under Section 155. The Magistrate is to examine the informant and the complaint given by him and then proceed further."

7. Karnataka High Court Issues Directions To Ensure Victim Is Given Notice Of All Bail Proceedings Concerning POCSO Cases

Case Title: Bibi Ayesha Khanum v. Union Of India Case No: Writ Petition No.2318 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 59

The Karnataka High Court recently issued directions for the effective implementation of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020, particularly in cases where the accused were to move the Court for grant of bail. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj disposing of a public interest litigation filed by a mother of a survivor, said, "None can have any doubt that offences under the POCSO Act are heinous in nature and are more often than not committed by depraved persons."

8. Civil Court Not Barred By Education Act To Hear Recovery Suit Filed By Teacher 'Discharged' From Service Sans Order On Her Claim:Karnataka HC

Case Title: Rabiya Abdul Hamid Bepari v. The Chairman, School Managing Committee, Volkart Academy  Case no: R.F.A.NO.100061/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 60

The Karnataka High Court has held that a civil court has jurisdiction to hear and decide on a suit filed by a teacher claiming arrears in salary, if she is discharged from her duties on account of closure of the school and no order is passed by the school management on her claims seeking arrears in salary.

A Division bench of Dr.Justice H.B.Prabhakara Sastry and Justice S. Rachaiah recently set aside the order dated November 9, 2020 passed by the civil court by which it had rejected the plaint filed by an Urdu teacher, on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

OTHER REPORTS

1. No Protest, Processions Shall Be Permitted In Bengaluru Except At Freedom Park: Karnataka High Court

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

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday directed the state government to forthwith ensure that no protest, meetings, processions, etc. are held in the city of Bengaluru, by any group, political parties, organisation, etc., except at the Freedom Park, in an organised manner and by ensuring that traffic in the city is not adversely affected, especially during rush hours.