Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 24 To October 30, 2022

MRS. JAYA ELIZABETH MATHEW & ANR v. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN FOR THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 423

M. GOPAL v. GANGA REDDY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 424

DR. SWATHI K.S & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 425

HRISHIKESH DEVDIKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 426

OM PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 427

C.V.RAGHAVENDRA & ANR v. STATE BY MALUR POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 428

Y.N. SREENIVASA & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 429

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 430

H K SUMA v. M SANTHOSH. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 431

Judgments/Orders

1. Insurance Company Can Repudiate Mediclaim If Insured Fails To Disclose Pre-Existing Illness: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MRS. JAYA ELIZABETH MATHEW & ANR v. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN FOR THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.14346 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 423

The Karnataka High Court has said that a mediclaim policy is an insurance contract of utmost good faith, wherein divulging pre-existing illness is a duty of the insured, having not done so repudiation of the claim by insurance company cannot be found fault.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by a couple against the order of Insurance Ombudsman declining to accept the insurance claim of the petitioners. The petitioners had sought quashing of a letter of repudiation issued by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and a direction to release of an amount of Rs.28,43,684 being the Insurance claim of the petitioners.

2. Shareholder Can't Itself Initiate Proceedings Before Magistrate For Fraud U/S 447 Of Companies Act, 2013: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M. GOPAL v. GANGA REDDY

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3550 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 424

The Karnataka High Court has held that a shareholder, minority or otherwise, cannot initiate proceedings before the Magistrate by himself or herself for an alleged offence of fraud under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "Sub-Section (6) of Section 212 of the Act specifically deals with the offences covered under Section 447 of the Act and makes it clear that no court shall take cognizance unless a complaint is made by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) or the officer of the Central Government authorised by a general or special order in writing in this behalf by that Government."

3. NEET PG | Quota For In-Service Candidates Reduced In Casual Manner: Karnataka High Court Quashes Govt Notification

Case Title: DR. SWATHI K.S & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & others

Case No: W.P. No.2O512 OF 2O22 (EDN-RES) C/W W.P. NO.2O2O1 OF 2O22 (EDN-RES) W.P.NO.2O847 OF 2O22 (EDN-RES) W.P.NO.2O91O OF 2O22 (EDN-RES)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 425

The Karnataka High Court has quashed and set aside the government notification dated 06.10.2022, by which seats earmarked for in-service candidates for PG-NEET Examination 2022, was reduced from 30 percent to 15 percent.

A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while allowing a batch of petitions said, "The quota for in-service candidates has been reduced without assigning any cogent reasons and the decision appears to have been taken in a casual and cavalier manner. The relevant facts while reduction of quota from 30% to 15% have not been considered by the State Government while reducing the quota. The impugned notification dated 06.10.2022 suffers from the vice of non application of mind and is arbitrary."

4. No Default Bail U/S 167 CrPC If Chargesheet Filed Before Arrest: Karnataka HC Rejects Accused Plea In Gauri Lankesh Murder Case

Case Title: HRISHIKESH DEVDIKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 2997 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 426

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Hrishikesh Devdikar, an accused in the journalist Gauri Lankesh murder case, seeking default bail under section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said that the accused would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 167(2) CrPC if the charge sheet was filed before his arrest (since he was absconding).

5. Google Reviews Have No Legal Evidentiary Value, Can't Be Used To Argue That Accused Is Habitual Offender: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: OM PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8879/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 427

The Karnataka High Court recently rejected an argument that 'Google Reviews' against the accused show that he is a habitual offender, by holding that Google Reviews have no legal evidentiary value.

A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar thus granted anticipatory bail to 71 years old Om Pratap Singh, apprehending arrest in a case registered for Cheating and impersonation in business. He is booked under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008.

6. iPhone-12 Theft From Godown: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To E-Commerce Company Employees

Case Title: C.V.RAGHAVENDRA & ANR v. STATE BY MALUR POLICE STATION

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8693/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 428

The Karnataka High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to the Manager and Assistant Manager of the Flipcart in a case accusing them of stealing 21 Iphones from its godown in Malur. Justice Rajendra Badamikar ordered the petitioners be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.381/2022 of Malur Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 381 of IPC, on each of them executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000, with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court.

7. Private Party Affected By Registered Gift Deed Based On False Docs Can Institute Case For Cheating & Forgery, No Embargo U/S 195 CrPC: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Y.N. SREENIVASA & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15451 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 429

The Karnataka High Court has held that an affected private individual would not be barred from initiating proceedings under Section 419, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against an accused who submits fabricated documents before a Sub-Registrar, for registering a gift deed.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj clarified that the embargo under Section 195 CrPC read with Section 177 IPC would not be attracted to (affected) private individuals. The Court negated the argument of Petitioner-accused that since the document was registered on the basis of alleged false information, only an offence under Section 177 of IPC is attracted (proceedings for which can be instituted only by a public servant in terms of Section 195 CrPC).

8. Legal Metrology Act | Accused Confessing & Compounding Offence Doesn't Impede Co-Accused Challenging Prosecution: Karnataka HC

Case Title: ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5119 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 430

The Karnataka High Court has said that even if one of the accused charged under provisions of the Legal Metrology Act admits the offence and pays fee to compound it, the same does not disentitle co-accused from approaching the High Court to seek quashing of the proceedings.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj reasoned that confession on part of the accused does not bind the co-accused. The development comes in the case instituted against Asian Paints Limited and its Dealer under section 36 of the Legal Metrology Act for storing sealants, which were alleged to not have proper description in terms of Rule 12(2)(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packed Commodities) Rules, 2011.

9. Hardship If Any And Not Convenience Of Parties Relevant Criterion For Deciding Transfer Petitions U/S24 CPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: H K SUMA v. M SANTHOSH

Case No: CIVIL PETITION NO. 367 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 431

The Karnataka High Court has said that courts should consider the hardships that would be caused to the parties and not look at the convenience of the parties, while deciding an application made under Section 24 of CPC seeking to transfer proceedings pending from one court to another.

A single judge bench of Justice E.S.Indiresh dismissed a petition filed by a wife seeking to transfer the proceedings pending on the file of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to the competent Family Court at Doddaballapura.