Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: June 6 To June 12, 2022

ANAND C. @ ANKU GOWDA & others v. CHANDRAMMA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 190

Judgments/Orders/Reports

1. Bigamy Is A Continuing Offence; Wife's Consent For Second Marriage Immaterial: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ANAND C. @ ANKU GOWDA & others v. CHANDRAMMA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9849 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 190

The Karnataka High Court has said that bigamy under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a continuing offence and the consent of wife for the subsequent marriage would become immaterial for consideration of the offence.

2. Magistrate Must Afford Opportunity Of Hearing & Record His Satisfaction About Alleged "Nuisance" Before Passing Order U/S 133 CrPC: Karnataka HC

Case Title: ACHUT D. NAYAK & Others v THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100284 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 191

The Karnataka High Court has said that the power under Sections 133, 138 and 139 of CrPC to prevent public nuisance has to be exercised by affording sufficient opportunities to the parties and to record evidence and to arrive at a legal finding that the action of the person has resulted in nuisance to the general public at large.

3. Motor Accident Compensation For 'Loss Of Future Prospects' May Be Awarded Even If Disability Not Result Of Amputation: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. ABDUL S/O MEHABOOB TAHASILDAR, and C/W matter.

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103807 OF 2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 192

The Karnataka High Court has held that 'Loss of future prospects' has to be factored in, notwithstanding the fact that it is not a case of death but a case of injury without amputation resulting in whole body disability, which ultimately has a bearing on the reduced earning capacity.

4. Magistrate Can't Refer Defamation Complaint To Police For Investigation U/S 156(3) CrPC Even If Other Offences Are Also Alleged: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: DIVYA & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Anr

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.675 OF 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 193

The Karnataka High Court has said the bar under Section 199 CrPC on a Magistrate from exercising powers under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on a complaint involving offences punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, would be applicable even in cases where offences are alleged for other offences in addition with Section 500 of the IPC.

The Karnataka High Court has held that 'Loss of future prospects' has to be factored in, notwithstanding the fact that it is not a case of death but a case of injury without amputation resulting in whole body disability, which ultimately has a bearing on the reduced earning capacity.

5. Debarring Contractor From Participating In Any Contract Affects Right To Life, Prior Notice With Reasons For Blacklisting Is Must: Karnataka HC

Case Title: M/S. CREST FACILITY MANAGEMENT v UNION OF INDIA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.39350/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 194

The Karnataka High Court has said that blacklisting or debarring of a Contractor from participating in any contract has civil consequences and thus, prior notice indicating the reasons for blacklisting and debarment has to be communicated and on receiving reply, a final order may be passed.

6. Karnataka Municipalities Act | Contesting Candidates Must Lodge Accounts Of Electoral Expenses With Returning Officer In 30 Days Of Result: High Court

Case Title: K. SRINIVAS & others v. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & others

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.408 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 195

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of State Election Commission, disqualifying four persons from continuing as the elected members of Municipality over their failure to lodge a true and correct account of electoral expenditure with the Returning Officer within prescribed time.

7. Will Affect State Exchequer, Fresh Job Opportunities: Karnataka High Court Dismisses College Dean's Plea To Increase Retirement Age

Case Title: DR CHIDANANDA P MANSUR v. UNION OF INDIA & others

Case no: W.A. NO.100198/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 196

The Karnataka High Court has observed that fixation of retirement age of public servants has a direct bearing on the state exchequer as well as employment opportunities for others. In view thereof, it dismissed a writ petition filed by the former Dean of a College, seeking directions to the state government to continue his service upto the age of 65 years, instead of 62 years.

8. RGUHS Agrees To Conduct Fresh Practical Exam For Final Year MBBS Students Before Karnataka High Court

Case Title: BASAVARAJ ITAGI & others v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES

Case no: W.P.NO.9494 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 197

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the practical examinations conducted for the student-petitioners pursuing their final year MBBS course at certain colleges affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS), in a plea alleging that the same was not conducted in accordance with law and was done in violation of the University guidelines.

9. Arbitral Award Cannot Be Modified By Executing Court On The Basis Of Just A Memo: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Abhiram Infra Projects Private Limited versus The Commissioner, Karnataka Slum Development Board

Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.4845 OF 2021

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 198

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that in the absence of an application filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for correction of typographical errors in the arbitral award, the Court cannot pass an order modifying and correcting the arbitral award on the basis of a Memo filed before it by a party.

10. Accused Can't Invoke High Court's Jurisdiction Under Art. 226 Or U/S 482 CrPC Through His Power Of Attorney: Karnataka High Court

Case title: SAMANTHA CHRISTINA DELFINA WILLIS & ANR v STATE OF KARNATAKA and others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24602 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 199

The Karnataka High Court has held that a power of attorney holder of an accused cannot maintain a petition be it under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

11.S.216 CrPC | Charge Can Be Altered Anytime During Trial: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Ananda v. State Of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1829 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 200

The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 216 of the Criminal procedure Code (Cr.P.C) the trial court can alter the charge framed even if the trial has progressed to a large extent.

12. POCSO Act | Bar U/S 33(5) To Recall Minor Victim Not Applicable After Her Attaining Majority: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MAHAMMAD ALI AKBAR @ ALI UMAR v State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4449 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 201

The Karnataka High Court has held that on the child attaining 18 years of age, the rigor under Section 33(5) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Act gets diluted and sequentially, will not become a bar for seeking recalling and further cross-examination of the victim under Section 311 of the CrPC on an application made by the accused.

13. Petition Under S. 11(6) Of The A&C Act Would Be Premature When The Precondition Of Conciliation Is Not Fulfilled: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sobha Ltd. v. Nava Vishwa Shashi Vijaya and Ors.

Case No.: C.M.P. No. 24 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 202

The High Court of Karnataka held that the petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act would be premature when the parties have not complied with the precondition of conciliation.

The Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi dismissed the arbitration petition for the appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the petitioner had directly approached the Court without taking recourse to the precondition of conciliation.

14. Landlord-Tenant Disputes Governed By Transfer Of Property Act Are Arbitrable In Nature: Reiterates Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Gokaldas Images Private Limited versus Aries Agro-Vet Associates (Pvt) Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 203

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the landlord-tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are arbitrable in nature.

Other reports

1. Stray Dogs Menace: Karnataka High Court Seeks State's Response On Implementation Of Animal Birth Control Rules

Case Title: RAMESH NAIK L v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WP 10674/2022

The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the State government to place on record measures taken by authorities to implement the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, which prescribes the methodology for Street/ Stray dog population management.

2. APP Vacancies: Karnataka High Court Directs State To Hold Recruitment Exam In Six Weeks

Case Title: High Court of Karnataka v. State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 48130/2019

The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to hold an examination for filling up the vacant post of Assistant Public Prosecutors in the state and declare the results thereof in six weeks.

3. Mosque Loudspeakers: High Court Asks Karnataka Govt If It Has Granted Permanent Licenses, Under What Law

Case Title: Rakesh P v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Writ Petition No 4574/ 2021

The Karnataka High Court on Friday asked the state government to respond to the allegations relating to grant of permanent licenses for installing loudspeakers in Mosques.