Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 17 To October 23, 2022

KANDULA RAGHAVA RAO & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 410

VALERIAL SEQUERIA & others v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY N H 169. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 411

BENGALURU URBAN ZILLA AMATEUR KABBADI ASSOCIATION ® v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 412

Gangappa v. Lingareddy. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 413

M/S CANARA BANK v. M SHANTHA KUMARI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 414

MIRLE VARADARAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 415

SUNIL KUMAR KOUSHIK & ANR v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 416

M/S ib TRACK SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 417

SHREE BEERESHWARA (CHANNAKESHWARA) SWAMY DEVARU TEMPLE & others v. G. N. SATHYA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 418

HARSHA D v. STATE BY HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 419

MRS. DANIELA LIRA NANY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 420

A BANU PRAKASH v. THIMMA SETTY & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 421

NARAYANA GOWDA J S & ANR v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 422

Judgments/Orders

1. Bitters Sale On Amazon: Karnataka High Court Quashes Excise Proceedings Against Company Directors

Case Title: KANDULA RAGHAVA RAO & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6595 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 410

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against an intermediary for the products that are sold through its online platform.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna has allowed the petition filed by Kandula Raghava Rao and Noorulamin Mohd. Saheb Patel, both directors of Amazon Seller Service Private Limited, and quashed the proceedings pending against them under Sections 8, 13(1)(a), 15, 32, 34 and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

2. [National Highways Act] Second Award Not Permitted, State's Illegal Action Has To Be Nipped In The Bud If Affecting Parties' Rights: Karnataka HC

Case Title: VALERIAL SEQUERIA & others v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY N H 169.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.10525 OF 2021(LA-RES) A/W WRIT PETITION NO.10780 OF 2021, WRIT PETITION NO.13547 OF 2021 c/w WRIT PETITION NO.8458 OF 2021.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 411

The Karnataka High Court has said that National Highways Act does not provide for issuing a second award with respect to the land acquired pursuant to Notifications under Section 3-A and 3-D of the Act.

A single judge bench of Justice E S Indiresh allowed a batch of petitions and set aside the second award by the competent authority dated 22nd January, 2021 and Order dated 27th January, 2021, which granted a lower compensation to the petitioners in lieu of their land.

3. Karnataka Societies Registration Act Does Not Permit Two Societies With Same Name: High Court

Case Title: BENGALURU URBAN ZILLA AMATEUR KABBADI ASSOCIATION ® v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.17533 OF 2021 (GM-KSR) C/W WRIT PETITION No.22023 OF 2021 (GM-KSR)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 412

The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 7 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, once a Society is registered with a particular name, registration of a second Society with the same name is impermissible.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna thus declared the registration of Bengaluru Urban District Amateur Kabbadi Association as illegal and quashed it.

4. S.54 TPA | Unregistered Sale Deed Cannot Defy Title By Delivery Of Possession Of Immovable Property Valued Below ₹100: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Gangappa v. Lingareddy

Case No: RSA NO.200352/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 413

The Karnataka High Court has said that if there is alienation of immovable property, whose value is less than Rs.100 and possession is given, then a transfer under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, takes place.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum sitting at Kalaburagi held the same while dismissing an appeal filed by one Gangappa, questioning the concurrent findings of the Courts below, wherein the suit filed by him seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed.

5. Bank Employees' Gratuity Can't Be Adjusted Against Their Outstanding Loan: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S CANARA BANK v. M SHANTHA KUMARI

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11463 OF 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 414

The Karnataka High Court has held that the gratuity amount payable to a bank employee cannot be adjusted by the bank with his outstanding loan amount. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj thus dismissed a petition filed by the Canara Bank questioning the order of Appellate Authority which set aside the order of the Controlling Authority permitting adjustment of gratuity towards loans of the employee.

6. Prosecution Under Karnataka Control Of Organised Crime Act Can't Be Sustained When Proceedings For Predicate Offences Quashed: High Court

Case Title: MIRLE VARADARAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 410 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 415

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that when criminal proceedings for predicate offences are quashed, the prosecution initiated under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 cannot be sustained. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj thus allowed the petition filed by one Mirle Varadaraju and quashed the proceedings under KCOCA, following the quashment of the two FIR's which were the basis for initiating the prosecution under the Act.

7. Contraband In Shipment Vehicle: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Logistic Company Employees In NDPS Case

Case Title: SUNIL KUMAR KOUSHIK & ANR v. State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201054/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 416

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the proceedings pending under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, against two officials of a logistics company on holding that they were unaware that the driver of the transport vehicle is carrying contraband.

A single judge bench of Justice P N Desai sitting at Kalaburagi allowed the petition filed by the Manager and MD of Nitco Logistic Pvt Ltd. The bench said, "The charge sheet materials, allegations against these petitioners, the statement of the driver, the contents of the panchnama and Sections referred above, it is evident that these petitioners cannot be prosecuted as they have nothing to do with the said alleged offences. Therefore, continuing the proceedings against them is nothing but abuse of process of law and Court."

8. Containers Getting Cleared Without Scanning By Customs Can Have Catastrophic Effect On Nation's Security: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S ib TRACK SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.8125 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 417

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a case against ib Track Solutions Pvt Ltd and its director Sudhendra Dhakanikote in a case accusing them of tampering with the RFID e-seals by switching off the tamper notifications which are generally sent to the Customs.

"Such containers passing muster without getting scanned through the customs can result in a catastrophic effect to the security of the nation. Security could be economic, defence or even narcotic. What passes through the container if not detected can definitely pose a serious threat to any of these to the nation," said the court.

9. Mere Presentation Of Plaint Not Sufficient To Initiate Proceedings U/S 92 CPC, Leave of Court Must: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: SHREE BEERESHWARA (CHANNAKESHWARA) SWAMY DEVARU TEMPLE & others v. G. N. SATHYA & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.9267 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 418

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that leave of the court is a precondition for institution of a suit under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against a public trust.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum made the observation while allowing the petition filed by Shree Beereshwara (Channakeshwara) Swamy Devaru Temple and others, and set aside the trial court order appointing Tashildar as the receiver to manage the financial affairs, assets of the Trust.

The bench said, "A scheme suit under Section 92 of CPC, cannot be entertained unless leave is granted. Mere presentation of a plaint filed under Section 92 of CPC does not amount to initiation of proceedings. Therefore, in terms of Section 26 of CPC, it is only when a leave is granted, it can be treated as a duly instituted suit and it is only then, it is to be deemed that machinery is set in motion and proceedings are deemed to have been either instituted or initiated."

10. [S.50 PMLA] Application For Recording Statement Of Accused Can Only Be Made Before Sessions/ Special Court,Not Magistrate: Karnataka HC

Case Title: HARSHA D v. STATE BY HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19042 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 419

The Karnataka High Court has said that in light of the statutory framework of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, applications for recording statements of an accused/ suspect can only be made before the Special Court designated to try cases under the Act.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "PMLA mandates that anything emanating from the PMLA shall be considered only by the Special Court."The bench made the observation while allowing the petition filed by one Harsha D, an accused in the PSI recruitment scam, challenging the order of the Magistrate which allowed the application filed by Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Section 50(3) of the Act seeking permission to record written statement of five accused including the petitioner who were in its custody.

11. Custody Disputes Involve "Human Issues", Can't Devise Straight-Jacket Formula For Resolution: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MRS. DANIELA LIRA NANY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION HABEAS CORPUS NO. 77 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 420

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that disputes involving custody of minor children are complex, involving "human issues" and thus, there can be no straight-jacket formula to resolve the same. A division bench of Justices B Veerappa and KS Hemalekha said that such cases have to be decided on their own facts and circumstances, and no hard and fast rule can be laid down.

12. [Principle Of Pay & Recover] Statutory Right Of Third Party To Be Compensated U/S 149 MV Act Even If Vehicle Owner Contests Claim: Karnataka HC

Case Title: A BANU PRAKASH v. THIMMA SETTY & Others

Case No: M.F.A.No.4945/2014

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 421

The Karnataka High Court has said the 'Principle of Pay and Recover' under Section 149 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is a statutory right available to third party (claimants) and it cannot depend on whether the owner of offending vehicle contests the claim petition or not, or may or may no prefer an appeal against the Tribunal order.

A single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar said, "When the claimants/the victims of the motor accident are third parties, then rights of the third party is statutorily protected as per sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the M.V.Act. Therefore, this right of the third party cannot be fluctuated or oscillated according to the conduct of the owner or any other parties."

13. 'PayCM' Campaign: Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nelamangala Congress Leaders

Case Title: NARAYANA GOWDA J S & ANR v. State of Karnataka.

Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9809 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 422

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered last month against Narayana Gowda J S, who is president of the Indian Youth Congress in Nelamangala assembly constituency and Ramakrishna V, who is head of the party's legal cell there, for allegedly instructing others to pasting posters relating to the PayCM campaign all over the town.

Justice M Nagaprasanna in the order said, "The allegations made against the petitioners would not attract any of the offences either under Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act or under the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act."