Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: December 12 To December 18, 2022

Parvathamma v. Munish Moudgil & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 510

M/s Pradhan Mercantile Pvt Ltd v. M/s Virgin Apparels & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 511

Tumakuru City Corporation v. Tumkuru Poura karmikara Sangha & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 512

V.M. Sanjeevaiah & others v. The Deputy Commissioner (Food) & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 513

Venkataraya S Nayak v. D Vijaygopal Mallya. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 514

VS v. PKR & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 515

Rangappa v. State By Basavapatna P S. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 516

Krishi Infratech & ANR v. Union of India & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 517

Judgment/Orders

Karnataka High Court Imposes ₹3 Lakh Cost On Tahsildars For Not Implementing Judicial Order For 8 Yrs

Case Title: Parvathamma v. Munish Moudgil & others

Case No: Civil Contempt Petition No 2019 of 2018.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 510

The Karnataka High Court has directed the concerned Tahasildars who held the post between July 24, 2014 to February, 10, 2022 to jointly pay a cost of Rs 3 lakh from their personal pockets to a 68-year-old woman, for disobeying a court order passed in 2014, directing survey of her land.

A division bench of Justices B Veerappa and K S Hemalekha while dropping the contempt proceedings initiated by Parvathamma against Munish Moudgil, Commissioner, Land Survey and Land Record Department, said, "...the learned Single Judge passed order on 24-7-2014 directing the accused or the competent authority to conduct survey...However, the same has been complied with, after the lapse of eight years. The complainant who is a senior citizen was forced to file the present contempt petition by engaging the services of the counsel by spending litigation expenses, and faced mental trauma because of not implementing the court order for more than eight years."

[S.143 NI Act] Failure To Record Summary Nature Of Proceedings In Order Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Shown: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Pradhan Mercantile Pvt Ltd v. M/s Virgin Apparels & Anr

Case No: Criminal Revision Petition no 773 of 2013.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 511

The Karnataka High Court has said that the Appellate Court should be very cautious and exercise the discretion judiciously while remanding the matter for a de-novo trial.

A single judge bench of Justice Dr HB Prabhakara Sastry, set aside the order dated September 2, 2013 passed by the appellate court which had in turn set aside the conviction handed down by the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI) against the accused and remanded the matter to the trial Court ordering for a de-novo trial.

Direct Payments Made By City Corporation Establishes Employer-Employee Relationship: Karnataka HC Regularizes 250 Pourakarmikas In Tumakuru

Case Title: Tumakuru City Corporation v. Tumkuru Poura karmikara Sangha & others

Case No: WP 28392 of 2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 512

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, directing the Tumakuru City Corporation to regularise services of 250 daily wage workmen (pourakarmikas), by paying equal pay for equal work from the date of their joining and extend all statutory benefits, emoluments and facilities as available under law to permanent workmen in the similar cadre/post.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the appeal filed by the corporation against the tribunal order and said "Payments being made albeit on few occasions to the workmen directly by the Corporation would constitute employer-employee relationship."

[Public Distribution System] Irregularity In Distributing Grains Is Serious Mischief Warranting Cancellation Of License: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: V.M. Sanjeevaiah & others v. The Deputy Commissioner (Food) & others

Case No: Writ Appeal no 761 of 2022.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 513

The Karnataka High Court has said that allegations against a Fair Price shop owner of distributing the food grains at the higher rates than the prescribed rates, certain card holders not receiving the food grains and not issuing bills after distributing the essential commodities, are serious in nature and the action by authorities in cancelling the authorisation is sustainable.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi dismissed an appeal challenging the order of the Single judge bench of the court which upheld the decision of the authorities to cancel the authorisation granted to run a fair price shop to one V.M. Sanjeevaiah.

Not Mandatory For Each Partner In A Firm To Contribute Towards Share Capital: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Venkataraya S Nayak v. D Vijaygopal Mallya

Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1035 OF 2007

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 514

The Karnataka High Court has said that it is not necessary that there must be an investment (share capital) by each partner to constitute a partnership firm and it cannot be presumed that a partner who does not contribute is a co-worker and not a partner in the firm.

A single judge bench of Justice Umesh M Adiga made the observation while setting aside an order of appellate court which reversed trial court order dismissing a suit filed by one D Vijaygopal Mallya S/o Diwakar, seeking a declaration that M/s Vinyl Prints and Designs exclusively belongs to him and it is a proprietary concern. Mallya claimed that the defendant (appellant herein) has no right, title or interest in the business run by him and the defendant be restrained by permanent injunction from interfering and obstructing in running the business of the plaintiff in his own rights.

Husband Cannot Seek Mobile Tower Location Of Wife's Alleged Lover To Prove Adultery As It Violates Privacy: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: VS v. PKR & ANR.

Case No: WP 13165/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 515

The Karnataka High Court has said that disclosure of mobile tower locations of a third party in a matrimonial case cannot be permitted as it would violate the right to privacy of the person, who is not a party to the proceedings.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said a citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his family, marriage and other incidental relationships. Informational privacy also forms an integral part of the right to privacy, said the court.

[NDPS Act] Cannabis Seeds & Leaves Excluded From Definition Of 'Ganja' Only When Not Accompanied By Flowering & Fruiting Tops: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Rangappa v. State By Basavapatna P S

Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11678 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 516

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that only when cannabis seeds and leaves are not accompanied by fruiting and flowering tops that they can be excluded from the definition of 'ganja' under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act.

Blacklisting Order Has Civil And Economic Consequences, Must Be Reasoned: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Krishi Infratech & ANR v. Union of India & others

Case No: WP 20978 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 517

The Karnataka High Court has said that a reasoned order must be passed by authorities blacklisting or banning a firm as it has civil and economic consequences.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "The order has economic and civil consequences upon the petitioner. Any order having civil or economic consequences should bear application of mind. Application of mind is discernible only when the order contains reasons, as reasons are live links between the decision maker and the decision taken."