Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 3 To October 9, 2022

V. SRINIVAS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 386

ASSOCIATE LUMBERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 387

GHODAWAT PACKERS LLP v. UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 388

K S MAHADEVAN v. CYPRIAN MENEZES. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 389

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. GANGANNA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 390

SAMIULLA B v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 391

DR. NAGESH v. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 392

Judgments/Orders

1: Karnataka High Court Quashes Govt Notification For OBC, Women Reservation In BBMP Elections, Polls To Convene By Dec 31

Case Title: V. SRINIVAS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.17191/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 386

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a notification issued by the state government whereby it notified ward wise reservation for 243 wards of BBMP out of which, 81 wards were reserved for backward classes and 120 wards are reserved for women randomly.

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar directed the State government to redo the exercise of providing reservation (posts) to women for BBMP councillor elections, by allocating seats in the descending order with respect to the wards having a greater percentage of women population.

2: Bank Can Initiate Criminal Action If Account Declared Fraud, Even After Invoking SARFAESI Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ASSOCIATE LUMBERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7325 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 387

The Karnataka High Court has said that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) can investigate the complaint registered by a bank against a company and its directors, alleging offences of cheating, criminal conspiracy, even after initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and possession of the recovery certificate.

"This Court again in plethora of cases has clearly held that when the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is invoked by the Bank, unless such an action is declared to be a fraud, they cannot maintain two proceedings – one before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the other setting the criminal law in motion. If the account is declared to be a fraud and the account holders to be wilful defaulters, then it would become open to initiate such proceedings in terms of the Master Circular," said the court.

3: Karnataka High Court Upholds Levy Of Excise Duty & Calamity Contingent Duty On Tobacco & Its Products

Case Title: GHODAWAT PACKERS LLP v. UNION OF INDIA

Case No: W.P. NO.145107/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 388

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the decision of the Central Government to impose Excise duty and National Calamity Contingent duty, separately on tobacco and tobacco products.

A Single judge bench of Justice M.I.Arun dismissed a batch of petitions filed questioning the imposition of Excise Duty and National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) on the tobacco products being manufactured and sold.

4: Litigant Can't Sue His Advocate For Cheating/ Fraud Merely On Losing Case: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: K S MAHADEVAN v. CYPRIAN MENEZES

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 54069 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 389

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a complaint filed against an advocate by his client under Sections 406 (Punishment for criminal breach of trust) and 420 (Cheating) IPC, on the allegation that he did not obtain favourable orders from the Supreme Court in his case.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by K S Mahadevan and said, "An advocate can only appear and make his best efforts in the matter. No advocate can either state or hold out that he would obtain favourable orders nor could a client believe that an Advocate will definitely obtain favourable orders just because he has made payment of the fees to the Advocate."

5: State Can't Take Contradictory Stands In Disciplinary Proceedings & Before Court: Karnataka HC Directs KSRTC To Devise SOP

Case Title: THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. GANGANNA

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24370 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 390

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Managing Director of State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) to institute a proper Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure that no contradictory stand is taken by any of the disciplinary authorities and/or the authorities who file written statements in the Motor Accident claim proceedings.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "if any such event occurs, necessary disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against such persons by following the applicable rules." It added, "Instructions to be also issued that a statement to be made in any written statement filed in a Motor Vehicle Accident claim petition, if any disciplinary proceedings are initiated or not."

6: Employee Cannot Initiate Criminal Proceedings After Termination To Arm Twist Employer: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: SAMIULLA B v. State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9520 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 391

The Karnataka High Court has said that an employee, who is terminated from the organisation, cannot initiate criminal proceedings against the organisation for the alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Samiulla B and quashed the case pending against him before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Sti Mutturaj G.S., the employee had filed an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506, 149 of the IPC against the petitioner and others.

7: Disciplinary Proceedings Against Doctors A Serious Matter, May Drive Delinquent Medico To 'Defensive Medicine':Karnataka High Court

Case Title: DR. NAGESH v. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.60243 OF 2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 392

The Karnataka High Court has said the Karnataka Medical Council (KMC) or complainants including the hospitals cannot use provisions of law pertaining to the doctors' professional misconduct as a machinery for recovery of money from them in the guise of disciplinary proceedings.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "The provisions of law, Chapter VII of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 read with Section 15 of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, cannot be used either by the complainant or by the disciplinary authority i.e., KMC as the machinery for recovery of the money, in the guise of disciplinary proceedings."