Karnataka High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part II [Citations 261-521]
Mustafa Plumber
29 Dec 2022 11:30 AM IST
![Karnataka High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part II [Citations 261-521]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/12/28/750x450_451153-karnataka-high-court-yearly-digest-2022.webp "Karnataka High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part II [Citations 261-521]")
Continued From Part ICitations: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 261 to 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 521Nominal IndexNIRANJAN HEGDE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 261THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY HARIHAR POLYFIBERS, EMPLOYEES UNION & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 262KARAN MENON v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 263P.N.CHANDRASHEKAR v. STATE OF...
Continued From Part I
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 261 to 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 521
Nominal Index
NIRANJAN HEGDE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY HARIHAR POLYFIBERS, EMPLOYEES UNION & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
KARAN MENON v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
P.N.CHANDRASHEKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
Dhananjay v. Jumma Masjid Malalipete. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
AMBADI MADHAV v. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
Parveez Pasha v. The State by Tilak Park Police Tumkur. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 267
J SRINIVAS & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 268
Jeetendar Singh v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 269
Y Harish and Anr. versus Y Satish and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 270
M/s. Noorani Properties (P) Ltd. versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 271
Mrs M Dhanalakshmi @ Lakshmi Rajan & Anr. v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 272
SANGEETA W/O BAPU LAMANI & Others v. BAPU S/O SOMAPPA LAMANI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
SHOBHA & Others v. KAREWWA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
Himanshu Gupta And V Narayana Reddy. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
NAZRULLA KHAN @ NAZRULLA And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
N R RAVI v. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. SEM INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
Lysosomal Storage Disorders Support Society v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
ZAKIR HUSSAIN v STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
Dharmrao S/o Sharanappa Shabdi & Others v Syed Arifa Parveen W/o Mushtaq Ahmed. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
M/s. D.P.J. Bidar-Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project Pvt Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
Godolphine India Private Limited versus UM Projects LLP. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
B M MUNIRAJU v. THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
Ramesh Naik.L v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
CHERANDA NAND SUBBAIAH v. THE UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
Gopal v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
M/S Bestpay Solutions Private Limited versus M/S Razorpay Software Private Limited. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 287
K.R.KUMAR NAIK v. THE STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 288
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT And BASAVARAJ. YARADEMMI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 289
K Durga Prasad Shetty v. Dr Shashikala and Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
M/s Geosmin Studio Sustainable Solutions LLP versus M/s Ethnus Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 291
M/S. Flipkart Internet Private Limited versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
BANK OF INDIA v THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
Dyavappa v Bangalore University & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
Dr Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Education Trust v. Banu Begum & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
NINGARAJU N v. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S INDIA HOLIDAY (PVT) LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
Suo-Motu v. The State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
AMIT GARG v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
DIVYA RAJESH HAGARAGI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
IMRAN SIDDIQUI v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
George Varghese v Superintendent of Police. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
J MANJUNATH v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
M/S. MADHI TRADING CO & Others v THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA v RAVISHIVAPPA PADASALAGI @ SAVADI & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
Vijay Nishant & others And State of Karnataka & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Ateeq Ahmed & others And National Investigating Agency. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
KHIRASA S/O. KRISHNA KATHARE & Others V. SHANTA ALIAS GEETA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
LATHA RAJANIKANTH v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY v UNION OF INDIA & Others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
V.KRISHNAREDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
THAHSEEN BEGUM @ TASI v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
MALNAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY v KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
CHIDANANDA URS B.G v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
STEEL HYPERMART INDIA PVT. LTD. & Others v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v GANGAPPA S/O. CHINNAPPA SAUNSHI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
V. SHASHIDHAR & others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
CHIRAG R. MEHTA v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
M/S NITESH RESIDENCY HOTELS PVT.LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
PERIYASWAMY M v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
Dr Shashidhar Subbanna v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
HYDERABAD KARNATAKA NURSING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION v. THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
PADMANABHA T G v. M/S RADICAL WORKS PVT. LTD. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
MS. NOWHERA SHAIK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
ADARSHA SUGAMA SANGEETHA ACADEMY v. VRINDA S. RAO & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
K.C.Ramu @ Ramanna v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 325
HUSAINSAB v. MODINABI @ FAKRUBI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 326
G VARADARAJU v. UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 327
B T Raju And State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
K.P.N. SHENOY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
CHANDRASHEKAR R v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
MS. H. GAYATHRI v UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
NIHARIKA D RAO v. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 333
PUSHPA B. GAVADI v THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 334
RAMA @ BANDE RAMA v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 335
LAKSHMIBAI v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 336
INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
MANISH KUMAR SINGH @ MANISH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
GAS TURBINE RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT DEFENSE UNIT THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER v. NAZIMA SALIQ & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 339
ROSHAN KUMAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
MURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
HARSHAVARDHANA RAO K v. UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD V TAHASEENTAJ W/O SHAMIULLA @ GULLAB, & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
MAHANTESH KOUJALAGI v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
The State of Karnataka v. S.B. Shivashankar. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
S.C. MAHESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
M.PRAKASH v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
ESHWAR R & others v KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
POULAMI BASU v. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
M Chiranjeevi v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 350
HARISH A.S. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 351
S.R. Ravi v. Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 352
DANDELI BACHAO ANDOLAN SAMITHI v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 353
Abraham T.J v B.S. Yediyurappa & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 354
AJ v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 355
M.MANJULA v STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 356
DR. (SMT.) ANITHA PATIL And STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 357
SAYYED SOHEL TORVI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 358
AMRUTHESH N.P v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 359
VIJAYKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 360
SANDEEP REDDY v State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 361
KRISHNAPPA v ASHWATHAMMA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 362
SOMASHEKAR SHANKARAPPA HURUKADLI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw 363
M/S NAMBOOR JEWELLERS v. STATE BY LASHKAR POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 364
Jaganmayi Builders and Developers Private Limited & Ors. versus Sumanth Reddy & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 365
MUDIT SAXENA v UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
B.V. BYRE GOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 367
R D RAMADAS v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 368
SRI VASAVI EDUCATION SOCIETY v KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
PRAMOD H. MUTALIK v. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v SHANKARAMMA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
SHIVARAJA @ KULLA SHIVARAJA v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
M/s. Subex Limited versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 373
D Reddeppa v. The State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
SRK ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and ors and connected matters. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 375
KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY v. KEERTHANA Y.H & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 376
MOHAN CHANDRA P v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 377
Shadakshari C.L & others v Santhosha C.A & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 378
AP v. WIPRO LIMITED REPRESENTED. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 379
Siddappa v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 380
Devandrappa v. Huligemma. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 381
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD v SAYEEDA KHANAM W/O. LATE AZAM KHAN. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 382
N.S.VIJAYANTH BABU v. ADVOCATES' ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU(AAB). 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 383
PRIYAMSHU KUMAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 384
K. UMESH SHETTY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 385
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
SANJANA FERNANDES @ RAVEERA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 393
VENKATESHWARA DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
ABC v. STATE BY T.N.PURA POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
M/S EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
MUKKARAM JAN v. SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
EDURKALA ISHWARA BHAT v. RAGHAVESHWARA BHARATHI SWAMIJI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
SHIVAKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
H.N. NAGARAJ v. SURESH LAL HIRA LAL. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 400
NARAYANA. B v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
B. L. SHANKARAPPA v. FEDERATION OF KARNATAKA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (FKCCI) & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 402
J C MADHUSWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 403
UJJAPPA NINGAPPA KAMDOD & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 404
State of Karnataka by Amruthahalli Police Station v. Swetha. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD v. SUSILA W/O. SHAMRAO PATIL. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 406
Swathi v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 407
DR. SHAHUL HAMEED VALAVOOR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE, BANTWAL. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 408
NAGARAJ v. ISHWAR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
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
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
Farddin v. State and another. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 432
PRATHAP KUMAR.G v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 433
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. ALWIN LOBO. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 434
SAFWAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 435
MOHAMMAD WASEEM AHAMAD & Others v. 1 STATE BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 436
MANJULA.N v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY POLICE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 437
XYZ v. ABC. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 438
VEENASHRI v. SHANKAR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 439
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CUMAPPOINTING AUTHORITY KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY v. THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES/SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 440
ALLABAKSH v. IMAM HUSSAIN. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 441
The State through Grameen Police Station v. Sharanu @ Sharanappa @ Sharanabasappa. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 442
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 443
SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANAND HITTANAGI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 444
Supriya Shirnate & others And MRT Music & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 445
MOHAMMAD SHARIFF @ FAHIM HAJI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 446
PUNIT S/O BHIMSINGH RAJPUT v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 447
YELLAWWA v. SAVITRI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 448
GURUNAGOUDA @ GURUMURTHYGOUDA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 449
NAGESH & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 450
VIMALA RAMANATH PAWAR v. SENIOR MANAGER, CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 451
VASANTH ADITHYA. J v. STATE BY KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 452
JAVVAJI DHANA THEJA & others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 453
RAHUL CHARI & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 454
HEENA THIRUMALI SATEESH & ANR v. M/S MINIMELT ENGINEERS INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 455
CHERIYAN M C & Others v. STATE BY JAYAPURA POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 456
SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT. LTD & others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 457
Syed Ahammed v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 458.
HARISH .G & Others v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 459
A.V. GAYATHRI SHANTHEGOWDA v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & others. 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 460
M/s. BASF India Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 461
ASHWINI GANAPATI HARIKANTRA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 462
THAHA UMMER v. UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 463
SUNITA W/O BHARATKUMAR AITAWADE & ANR v. MALIKJAN S/O BHASKAR SANNAKKI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 464
UMADEVI MURUGESH & ANR VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 465
NAFEEZA & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 466
THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION & Others v. COMPETITION COMMISION OF INDIA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 467
KAJAL NARESH KUMAR v. Union of India & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 468
K. B. NAIK v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 469
A.N.MURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 470
ASHVEEJA T.C v. ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 471
MR. M.M. KARIAPPA & ANR v. ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS, INC.. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 472
GIRISH S/O VINAYAK KMUTTATTI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 473
RAJATH R v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 474
NALINI DEVI v. THE GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 475
K.S.RAMA RAO v. SUBBALAKSHMI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 476
RAMANJI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 477
SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT. LTD & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 478
SA RA GOVINDU & Others v. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 479
KEMPAMANI D E v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 480
SHREESHA SASITHOTA PRABHAKARAN v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 481
UMA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 482
GAJANAN v. APPASAHEB SIDDAMALLAPPA KAVERI.. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 483
K. SURESH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 484
ANIL KUMAR & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 485
SURESH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA DAMBAL v. THE STATE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 486
MILAAP SOCIAL VENTURES INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR v. GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 487
M.S.UBEDULLA KHAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 488
SIR PASHA v. UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 489
THE REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. MASTER THARUN C. GOWDA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 490
THE LORD BISHOP & ANR v. THE LAND TRIBUNAL & OTHERS. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 491
CHANDRA SUVARNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 492
UMAPATHI S v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 493
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. K.N. JAGADISH KUMAR @ JAGADEESH MAHADEV @ JAGADEESH. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 494
Purbayan Chakraborty v. Union of India. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 495
HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 496
MANJUNATH B v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 497
PRAKASH & Others v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 498
RADHAKIRSHAN @ K RADHAKRISHNA & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 499
BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED v. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 500
BASAVARAJA BEERAPPA KAMBALI v. THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 501
Hanumanthappa v. The Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 502
Chethan A. Kumar v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 503
Uday Nayak v. Anita Nayak. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 504
SRIKANTA M.R v. GEETHA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 505
Dr M G Bhat & Others v. State of Karnataka & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 506
M/s United Brothers Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd v. Ministry of Health And Family Welfare, Government of India & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 507
Vineetha Thomas v. SQD LDR Dr Praveen Kumar Borushetty. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 508
Shahista & Others v. The State. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 509
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
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others v. RAHAMATHULLA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 518.
SRI Siragalli Lakshmidevi Recreation Club v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 519
THE Official Liquidator of M/s Ideal Jawa (India) Limited (In Liquidation) v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 520
S. Nancy Nithya v. The Government of India & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 521
Judgments/Orders
Case title: NIRANJAN HEGDE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5657 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a husband seeking to quash a case of dowry death registered against him under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC, after his wife, living separately since over two years, committed suicide in her parental house.
262. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Grasim's Plea Against Increase In Employees' Retirement Age To 60 Yrs
Case Title: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD v. THE GENERAL SECRETARY HARIHAR POLYFIBERS, EMPLOYEES UNION & Others
Case NO: WRIT APPEAL NO. 100250 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Management of M/S Grasim Industries, challenging a single judge bench order which upheld the modification of Certified Standing Order passed by the Labour Commissioner, that enhanced the retirement age of employees in private sector from 58 to 60 years.
Case Title: KARAN MENON v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9334 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
The Karnataka High Court has said that Section 468(2)(c) of CrPC specifies that no court shall take cognizance of the offences punishable with imprisonment for a period of three years after the expiry of three years from the date of alleged incident.
Case Title: P.N.CHANDRASHEKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7589/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
The Karnataka High Court has said that registration of a First Information Report (FIR) invoking cognizable offences after conducting the raid on a dance bar is not permissible in law.
Case Title: Dhananjay v. Jumma Masjid Malalipete
Case No: WP 11528/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
The Karnataka High Court on Friday rejected a petition filed questioning the decision of the Additional City Civil court in Mangalore to first decide on the aspect of maintainability of the suit for permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the Malali Jumma Masjid authorities from dismantling the old tiled-structure of masjid said to be resembling a temple, before deciding on the application for appointment of a court commissioner to survey the masjid.
Case Title: AMBADI MADHAV v. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8288/2013
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
The Karnataka HIgh Court has quashed an order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission directing a Deputy Conservator of Forests (deputed as the Public Information officer) to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for delay in furnishing information sought under the Right to Information Act (RTI).
Case Title: Parveez Pasha v. The State by Tilak Park Police Tumkur
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.155 OF 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 267
The Karnataka High Court has said that in those cases where circumstances warrant to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, it is necessary to examine the Investigating officer.
268. Karnataka High Court Prohibits BBMP From Constructing Swimming Pool, Gym In 30 Yrs Old Public Park
Case Title: J SRINIVAS & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: W.P.NO.45466 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 268
The Karnataka High Court has restrained the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) from constructing a swimming pool and gymnasium inside a 30 years old public park (Mariappanapalaya Park), situated in city's Rajajinagar area.
269. Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Youth Accused Of Sharing Military Base Photos With Pakistan ISI
Case Title: Jeetendar Singh v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 1691/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 269
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the bail petition filed by a 24-year-old, accused of sharing photographs of important places like Naval Base Army area with Pakistan ISI.
Case Title: Y Harish and Anr. versus Y Satish and Ors.
Dated: 01.07.2022 (Karnataka High Court)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 270
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that if a party has disputed the arbitrability of a dispute raised by the opposite party, in its reply to the notice invoking the arbitration clause, it is deemed to have waived its right to seek the reference of the dispute to arbitration. The Court added that if a right is once waived by a party, it cannot be allowed to be reclaimed and hence, the party cannot be permitted to contend that the suit instituted by the opposite party before the Commercial Court was barred by law.
Case Title: M/s. Noorani Properties (P) Ltd. versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Anr.
Dated: 30.06.2022 (Karnataka High Court)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 271
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order passed by the ITAT holding that the assessee was liable to pay Wealth Tax with respect to a property, despite transferring possession of the said property to a developer under a Joint Development Agreement.
Case Title: Mrs M Dhanalakshmi @ Lakshmi Rajan & Anr. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 2386/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 272
The Karnataka High Court has said that in order to constitute the offence of Cheating punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), there must be specific allegation that from inception, there must be a dishonest intention on the part of the accused to cheat the complainant.
Case Title: SANGEETA W/O BAPU LAMANI & Others v. BAPU S/O SOMAPPA LAMANI
Case No: REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100043 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
The Karnataka High Court has held that family courts shall accept the affidavit by aggrieved parties (wife and children) indicating their place of residence away from matrimonial home and not raise issue of jurisdiction while hearing an application seeking maintenance from the husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Case Title: SHOBHA & Others v. KAREWWA & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 146130 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
The Karnataka High Court has said that a trial court cannot reject an application made by legal representatives seeking to come on record following the death of the sole plaintiff to a suit, without considering whether the 'right to sue' survives on the legal representatives.
Case Title: Himanshu Gupta And V Narayana Reddy
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 3555 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
The Karnataka High Court has said under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court can direct payment of interim compensation even without the complainant making an application praying for the same, but not without following principles of natural justice.
Case Title: NAZRULLA KHAN @ NAZRULLA And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2045 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction handed down to a husband under section 304-B (Dowry Death) of the Indian Penal Code, noting that there were discrepancies in the two dying declarations of the deceased wife, recorded before the police.
Case Title: N R RAVI v. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. SEM INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED.
Case No: COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
The Karnataka High Court has held that upon the Official Liquidator taking possession of the premises belonging to a third party, which was in possession of the Company in liquidation, the Official Liquidator would be required to make payment of the rentals to such third party land owner as costs of winding proceedings, the landlord being entitled to the rentals immediately as per the terms of the lease deed.
278. Karnataka High Court Directs Centre, State To Ensure Implementation Of National Rare Diseases Policy
Case Title: Lysosomal Storage Disorders Support Society v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: W.P 19061 of 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Central Government and State Government to ensure implementation of policies framed for treatment of the patients suffering from rare diseases.
Case Title: ZAKIR HUSSAIN v STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2612 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
The Karnataka High Court while rejecting a bail application by an accused charged under provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (NDPS) has reiterated that merely because the chemical analysis report of the contraband seized is not received within 15 days, it is not a ground to release the accused on bail.
Case Title: Dharmrao S/o Sharanappa Shabdi & Others v Syed Arifa Parveen W/o Mushtaq Ahmed
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.200204/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
The Karnataka High Court has said that mere non-production of a school leaving certificate does not take away the evidentiary value of witnesses examined for establishing relationship of a plaintiff to the deceased person in a suit for declaration of ownership to a property.
Case Title: M/s. D.P.J. Bidar-Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
Case No: W.P. No. 7233/2022
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect and Customs (CBIC) clarifying that GST is not exempt on the annuity (deferred payments) paid for the construction of roads and allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.
Case Title: Godolphine India Private Limited versus UM Projects LLP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the restriction contained under Section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) would not apply once an application under Section 9(1) for interim measures has been "entertained" by the Court before the appointment of the arbitrator.
Case Title: B M MUNIRAJU v. THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.7387/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Jail Superintendent of the Central Prison at Bengaluru to consider a parole application filed by an accused convicted under the Negotiable Instruments Act seeking to arrange 50% of the disputed amount for depositing with the Supreme Court Registry in connection with an appeal against conviction pending before it.
Case Title: Ramesh Naik.L v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 14266/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking protection for Justice HP Sandesh, who recently made sensational revelations regarding "transfer threats" for slamming investigations carried out by the Anti-Corruption Bureau in a case allegedly involving Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (Urban).
285. Karnataka Govt Has Not Given Permission For Radio-Collaring Of Tigers: High Court Closes PIL
Case Title: CHERANDA NAND SUBBAIAH v. THE UNION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WP 34294/2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
The Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of a petition filed in the year 2009 questioning the action of radio collaring of tigers in the Nagarhole National Park.
286. Courts Should Not Seek To Run Governments In The Guise Of Judicial Review: Karnataka High Court
Title: Gopal v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
"It is primarily the task of the Government to govern and in the guise of judicial review, Courts should not seek to run the governments," the Karnataka High Court has observed.
A division bench comprising of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice P Krishna Bhat added that when a measure taken by the Government is for implementing a Mega Infrastructural Project pursuant to a policy framed embedded with the opinion of experts, Court should refrain from acting like a "super-accountant and interference with the same should be extremely rare where it is inevitable."
Case Title: M/S Bestpay Solutions Private Limited versus M/S Razorpay Software Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 287
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a party can invoke the Arbitration Clause contained in an agreement with respect to the disputes arising with a third party under another agreement, if both the agreements refer to each other and form one composite transaction.
288. ACB Blissfully Ignored 'ABC' Of Procedure: KarnatakaHigh Court Quashes Corruption FIR
Case Title: K.R.KUMAR NAIK v. THE STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 7911 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 288
The Karnataka High Court has held that in a case where a public servant is charged with offences punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on allegation of amassing wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income, every ingredient that is required to be assessed in the source report must be present.
Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT And BASAVARAJ. YARADEMMI & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102109 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 289
The Karnataka High Court has observed that in a Welfare State, the Government as a litigant is ordinarily governed by the same norms that govern the commoners.
Case Title: K Durga Prasad Shetty v. Dr Shashikala and Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 22744/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
The Karnataka High Court has said only in a trial can it be held whether a property is ancestral property or self acquired properties and therefore amendment of the plaint at the pre-trial stage to include such properties, is permissible.
Case Title: M/s Geosmin Studio Sustainable Solutions LLP versus M/s Ethnus Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 291
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a notice issued by a party, stating that the matter would be referred to the Council of Architecture, is sufficient for the purpose of invocation of the Arbitration Clause, since the Council of Architecture is an arbitral institution within the meaning of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: M/S. Flipkart Internet Private Limited versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to issue a 'Nil Tax Deduction at Source' Certificate to Flipkart under Section 195(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with respect to the reimbursements made by it to Walmart Inc.
Case Title: BANK OF INDIA v THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO.12038 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
The Karnataka High Court has held that the attachment of a secured asset under the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Deposit in Financial Establishment Act, 2004, would have no priority over the claim of the Bank (Secured Creditor), to recover dues made under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Case Title: Dyavappa v Bangalore University & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 6426/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
The Karnataka High Court has said that the state government order, providing that in case eligible women applicants under a reserved category post are not available, such posts could be filled up by eligible male candidates of the same category is applicable to recruitment notifications issued under the General Recruitment Rules or recruitment as regards backlog vacancies under the Special Recruitment Rules.
Case Title: Dr Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Education Trust v. Banu Begum & Others
Case NO: MFA 202022/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
The Karnataka High Court has said an insurance company cannot disown its responsibility to indemnify the liability of the insurer (vehicle owner) on the ground that on the date of accident, the fitness certificate and the permit of the vehicle were not in force.
Case Title: NINGARAJU N v. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S INDIA HOLIDAY (PVT) LTD.
Case No: COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2022 C/W COMPANY PETITION NO.26 OF 2008.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
The Karnataka High Court has held that whenever any warrant is issued, whether bailable or non-bailable, the arresting officer is required to ascertain the identity and be satisfied that the person proposed to be arrested is the same person as against whom the warrant has been issued.
Case Title: Suo-Motu v. The State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 5781/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the State government to ensure compliance of the Licensing and Regulation of Protests, Demonstrations and Protest Marches (Bengaluru City) Order, 2021 issued under the Karnataka Police Act, permitting procession, dharna and protest only at Freedom Park in Bengaluru.
Case Title: AMIT GARG v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4856 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
The Karnataka High Court has said that the criminal law cannot be set into motion for recovery of money paid under a contract, unless the offence of cheating or even criminal breach of trust is established.
Case Title: DIVYA RAJESH HAGARAGI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP 12388/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Divya Rajesh Hagaragi who is a prime accused in the Police Sub-Inspector Recruitment Scam, questioning the appointment of Dr. N. Ramakrishna Reddy as a Special Officer to the Karnataka Nursing and Paramedical Sciences Education (Regulation) Authority.
Case Title: IMRAN SIDDIQUI v STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.10023 OF 2022 C/W WRIT PETITION No.10029 OF 2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
The Karnataka High Court has said that unexplained delay in registering a complaint of extortion under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, gives rise to embellishment to a particular complaint.
Case Title: George Varghese v Superintendent of Police
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1193 OF 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
The Karnataka High Court has held that sanction under Section 137 of the Customs Act, to prosecute an officer of the Customs Department, charged under the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, is not required.
302. Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Former Bengaluru Urban Dy Commissioner In Corruption Case
Case Title: J MANJUNATH v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRL.P 6578/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 302
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed the bail petition filed by IAS Officer J Manjunath, who has been arrested by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) in a bribery case.
Case Title: M/S. MADHI TRADING CO & Others v THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.46677 OF 2013
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the orders passed by the Director General of Police back in 2013 by which petitioners running the business in crackers & fireworks items were prohibited from carrying on their businesses in the congested areas of Bangalore city, mentioned in the order.
Case Title: ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA v RAVISHIVAPPA PADASALAGI @ SAVADI & Others
Case No: OSA No.100001 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
The Karnataka High Court has "set at naught" a single bench order summoning Ex-Chief Election Commissioner of India, Sunil Arora, as a witness in an Election Petition calling in question the election of BJP candidate Mahesh Kumatalli from Athani Assembly Constituency in 2019.
Case Title: Vijay Nishant & others And State of Karnataka & others
Case No: W.P No 6374 of 2021 C/W W.P No. 11738 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Board for Wildlife to reconsider the proposal submitted by Chief Conservator of Forests for declaring Hesaraghatta Grassland as Conservation Reserve.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petitions filed by Vijay Nishant and others and quashed the order dated 19.01.2021 of the Board rejecting the proposal.
Case Title: Ateeq Ahmed & others And National Investigating Agency
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.814/2022 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.788/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
The Karnataka High Court has said that use of petrol bottles while attacking police personnel and police stations by accused persons during the Bengaluru Riots of 2020 would prima-facie constitute 'Terrorist Act' under Section 15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Case Title: KHIRASA S/O. KRISHNA KATHARE & Others V. SHANTA ALIAS GEETA & Others
Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100095/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
The Karnataka High Court has said that a suit for a primary relief of partition and separate possession cannot be rejected at the threshold citing Section 27 of the Limitation Act 1963.
Case Title: LATHA RAJANIKANTH v STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.10145 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
In partial relief to superstar Rajanikanth's wife Latha Rajanikanth, the Karnataka High Court has quashed charges of cheating, giving false statement and using evidence known to be false, levelled against her in a private complaint filed by a Chennai-based advertising company.
Case Title: NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY v UNION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WP 2360/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) to give access to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to the documents submitted by 12 alleged Bangladeshi nationals to obtain the Aadhaar Cards, so as to verify their genuineness.
Case Title: V.KRISHNAREDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.685 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
The Karnataka High Court has said that the General Manager of Nandini Milk Products, which is a unit of KMF, a cooperative society, would become a 'public servant' within the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, for the ACB to register a crime.
Case Title: THAHSEEN BEGUM @ TASI v STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12097 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a case of sexual harassment registered against a school teacher under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act for allegedly beating a 5-year-old student and removing her pants, revealing the body of the child as a measure of punishment.
Case Title: MALNAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY v KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
Case No: W.P.NO.5805/2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Information Commission to decide whether societies and educational institutions (aided) run by the societies are subject to Right to Information Act, 2005.
313. Karnataka High Court Abolishes Anti-Corruption Bureau; Transfers Cases To Lok Ayukta
Case Title: CHIDANANDA URS B.G v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP 19386/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday set aside the government notification issued in the year 2016, constituting the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) in the state and vesting with it the powers of the Karnataka Lokayukta Police to investigate corruption cases against public servants.
314. ACB Was Constituted To Shield Corrupt Politicians, Officers From Lokayukta: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: CHIDANANDA URS B.G v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP 19386/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
The Karnataka High Court in its order abolishing the Anti Corruption Bureau, has observed that the very Constitution of ACB by the Government is to shield the Corrupt politicians, Ministers, and the officers from the watchful eyes of the Lokayukta and that Government is weakening the institution of Lokayukta to protect these persons from prosecution, inter alia under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
Case Title: STEEL HYPERMART INDIA PVT. LTD. & Others v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.919 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered by CBI's Banking Securities Fraud Branch against Steel Hypermart India and its founder for alleged bank fraud of over Rs. 200 crore.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the company's declaration as a 'wilful defaulter' was stayed by the Court and the matter is pending before the Review Committee of the Indian Bank.
Case Title: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v GANGAPPA S/O. CHINNAPPA SAUNSHI
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102868 OF 2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
The Karnataka High Court has said that even married daughters are entitled for compensation on all the heads from the insurance company on the death of their parent in an accident.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh, sitting at Dharwad made the observation while dismissing the appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd challenging the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal dated May 9, 2014.
Case Title: V. SHASHIDHAR & others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6376/2019 (GM-RES) A/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4811/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the case of sedition registered against a dismissed police constable who formed a Police Association namely Akhila Karnataka Police Maha Sangha (Welfare Body) in the year 2016 and was accused of spearheading a movement to instigate the lower rung of the Police force to act against the present elected Government
318. S.207 CrPC | Denial Of Chargesheet Material To Accused Results In Unfair Trial: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: CHIRAG R. MEHTA v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5712 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a petitioner/accused would become entitled to all copies of the charge sheet material, denial of which would undoubtedly be contrary to the principle of fairness and result in an unfair trial.
Case Title: M/S NITESH RESIDENCY HOTELS PVT.LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & Others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO.2004 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
The Karnataka High Court has said that writ courts neither have means nor the expertise to re-evaluate the "prudential decisions" of the Banks that are made in the ordinary course of their commercial transactions with accumulated wisdom in the trade.
Case Title: PERIYASWAMY M v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6288 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
In connection with a trial under the POCSO Act, the Karnataka High Court has said that an application made by the accused under Section 311 of the CrPC for summoning of material witnesses should be ordinarily permitted unless the Court comes to a conclusion that it is a ruse to drag the proceedings or permitting it, would become an abuse of the process of the law.
Case Title: Dr Shashidhar Subbanna v. State of Karnataka
Case no: Criminal Revision petition no 1612/2016 C/W Criminal revision petition 1613/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
The Karnataka High Court has observed that a husband suggesting to his wife or asking her to pursue her education further, cannot be considered as cruelty.
322. Karnataka High Court Nod To Inspection Of Nursing Colleges By Legislative Panel
Case Title: HYDERABAD KARNATAKA NURSING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION v. THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9438 OF 2022 C/w. WRIT PETITION No. 9441 OF 2022 & WRIT PETITION No.9456 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitution of a Special House Committee which has been empowered to visit all the Nursing Colleges and Allied Health Sciences Institutions in the State and carry out inspections to ascertain whether they are functioning as per the directions of Indian Nursing Council and whether they have the necessary infrastructure and other facilities.
Case Title: PADMANABHA T G v. M/S RADICAL WORKS PVT. LTD
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.524/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
The Karnataka High Court has said that delay in disposal of case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be a ground to grant interim compensation under Section 143A of the Act.
Case Title: MS. NOWHERA SHAIK v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6926 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
The Karnataka High Court has said that head cooks and cooks employed on contract basis under the 'Bisi Oota Mid-day Meal scheme', being run by the state government do not qualify for wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Case Title: ADARSHA SUGAMA SANGEETHA ACADEMY v. VRINDA S. RAO & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.33264 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
The Karnataka High Court has said that for exercising jurisdiction under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the civil court is to first draw a factual finding from the material placed on record whether the Trust is a public charitable or a religious Trust and also whether the persons approaching the Court have any interest in the Trust.
Case Title: K.C.Ramu @ Ramanna v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.206 OF 2018 C/w. CRIMINAL PETITION No.711 OF 2018 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.7026 OF 2019.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 325
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Sessions Court discharging a woman accused of bigamy and hatching a conspiracy with her second husband to murder her first husband.
Case Title: HUSAINSAB v. MODINABI @ FAKRUBI
Case No: R.F.A.No.1979/2005
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 326
The Karnataka High Court has held that a first cousin brother on the mother's side is not entitled to a share in the property of the deceased uncle, under the category of residuaries, as per Section 65 of the Mohammedan Law.
Case Title: G VARADARAJU v. UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.13145 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 327
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition assailing the constitutional validity of section 394(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides for abatement of criminal appeals on the death of accused.
329. Corruption Rampant In Govt Offices, No File Moves Without 'Bribe': Karnataka High Court
Case Title: B T Raju And State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition 5614 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
The Karnataka High Court has observed that nowadays, in Government offices, corruption has become rampant and no file is moved without a 'bribe'.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan made the observation while refusing bail to BT Raju, working as Assistant Engineer with the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The Anti-Corruption Bureau had arrested him for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 5 lakh.
Case Title: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP 14143/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Urban Local Bodies in the city to properly implement the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) framed by the government to tackle 'monkey menace' and to deal with the issue of their capture and relocation.
Case Title: K.P.N. SHENOY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
The Karnataka High Court has held that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against a bank employee, who happens to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community and is accused of committing irregularities, cannot be challenged under Section 3(1)(p) of the SC/ST Act, after such employee has accepted the penalty and has received the pension.
Case Title: CHANDRASHEKAR R v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP 10473/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
Observing that Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution embodies the principle of "religious tolerance" which is a characteristic of Indian civilization, the Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of a public interest litigation alleging that the contents of Azan (call for prayers in Islam) hurt the sentiments of believers of other faiths.
Case Title: MS. H. GAYATHRI v UNION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.16 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
State instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution cannot act arbitrarily or unreasonably whilst considering the claim of citizens for the grant of State largesse, the Karnataka High Court has said.
334. Karnataka Authorities Act On Plea Filed By 9-Yr-Old To Curb Stray Dog Menace In NIMHANS
Case Title: NIHARIKA D RAO v. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.38851/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 333
The Karnataka High Court recently disposed of a petition filed by a nine year old girl after the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the Director of NIMHANS assured the court that measures have been taken to curb the stray dog menace in the institute's campus and in its residential quarters.
Case Title: PUSHPA B. GAVADI v THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Case NO: W.P. NO.22546 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 334
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a postgraduate law student questioning the appointment of Dr. Shanth Averahally Thimmaiah as the Chairman of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.
Case Title: RAMA @ BANDE RAMA v STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6214 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 335
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a rape complaint registered against an accused after he married the prosecutrix during the pendency of the proceedings and produced adequate documents in that regard.
Case Title: LAKSHMIBAI v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7649 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 336
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order of conviction after the parties to the proceedings post the conviction order entered into a settlement and sought for compounding of the offences so made against the petitioner.
Case Title: INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.50727 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Intel Technology assailing a 2019 CCI order directing a probe into its warranty policy with Rs. 10 lakh cost.
Case Title: MANISH KUMAR SINGH @ MANISH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6794 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
The Karnataka High Court has observed that mere production of call record details by the accused to show that he was not present at the time of occurrence of alleged incident, would not lead to closure of criminal proceedings by exercising powers under Section 482 of CrPC.
Case Title: GAS TURBINE RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT DEFENSE UNIT THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER v. NAZIMA SALIQ & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 10625 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 339
The Karnataka High Court recently held that in cases of land acquisition where payment of compensation is pending, interest to be paid on compensation amount for the first year is to be at the rate of 9% per annum and subsequently, it is to be at the rate of 15%.
Case Title: ROSHAN KUMAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6611 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a man accused of possessing Bhang, holding that Bhang is not covered under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).
Case Title: MURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14860 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to ensure that if transfers are made after the period of general transfers, no request for transfers should be entertained or orders made unless there is a vacant place.
Case Title: HARSHAVARDHANA RAO K v. UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.12185 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
The Karnataka High Court has held that no notice ought to be issued to the subject of the Look out circular prior to its issuance.
Case title: THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD V TAHASEENTAJ W/O SHAMIULLA @ GULLAB, & Others
Case No: M.F.A.No.23205/2011 c/w M.F.A.No.23206/2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the insurer is very much liable to pay compensation in respect of a spare driver under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, if there is only one claim under the policy
Case Title: MAHANTESH KOUJALAGI v STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5528/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
The Karnataka High Court has said that offence under Section 127-A of the Representation of People Act (Restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters, etc) is a non-cognizable offence and hence, permission for police investigation must be granted by Magistrate in terms of Section 155 of CrPC.
Case Title: The State of Karnataka v. S.B. Shivashankar
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.775 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a trial court order imposing a sentence less than the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, noting that the accused had entered into a plea bargain under Section 265-B of CrPC and had accepted his guilt.
Case Title: S.C. MAHESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.16625 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
The Karnataka High Court has observed that Article 350 of the Constitution of India mandates that where a citizen raises a grievance before jurisdictional authorities, it cannot be kept unconsidered indefinitely.
Case Title: M.PRAKASH v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.15624 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
The Karnataka High Court has said that issuance of multiple notices by the investigating agency to a person while carrying out preliminary enquiry into a case cannot be a ground for faltering the enquiry.
Case Title: ESHWAR R & others v KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.15429 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka Examinations Authority to redo the CET rankings for admission to undergraduate courses in Engineering and Technology for the academic year 2022-23.
Case Title: POULAMI BASU v. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO.14716 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
The Karnataka High Court has said that once exclusive custody of a child is granted by the Family Court to a mother, the Regional Passport Officer is not justified in insisting upon the presence of the father of the ward or for his consent for issuing a passport to the child.
Case Title: M Chiranjeevi v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP NO 46302 of 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 350
The Karnataka High Court has observed that ordinarily, Writ Courts do not grant indulgence in matters involving contract and non-payment of contractors' bills, more particularly when disputed facts are involved. Aggrieved parties can work out their remedies by an ordinary civil suit or by invoking arbitration clause, if there be one.
352. State Legislators Not Disqualified From Holding Posts In Committees, Society: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: HARISH A.S. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: W.P. NO.18278 OF 2021 C/W W.P. NO.19421 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 351
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Member of the State Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council is not disqualified from holding the post of Chairman of any Committee or of any society.
Case Title: S.R. Ravi v. Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 180 of 2020
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 352
The Karnataka High Court has held that the words "statements of claim and defence" under Section 7(4)(c) of the A&C Act are to be given wider interpretation and reply to a notice of arbitration falls within the section.
Case Title: DANDELI BACHAO ANDOLAN SAMITHI v STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: W.P. NO.16505 OF 2007
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 353
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Dandeli Bachao Andolan Samithi, challenging the State's decision to part with water resources of Kali river and permit commercial use by a sugar mill.
355. Karnataka High Court Restores Bribery Complaint Against Former CM Yediyurappa
Case Title: Abraham T.J v B.S. Yediyurappa & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5659/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 354
The Karnataka High Court has restored a bribery complaint filed against former Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa, his son B.Y. Vijayendra and others alleging offences under Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: AJ v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 355
The Karnataka High Court on Friday allowed a petition filed by a minor boy and set aside the investigation initiated against him under sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl, following a mutual settlement having arrived at between the parties.
Case Title: M.MANJULA v STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.7784 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 356
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Magistrate court cannot direct further investigation by some other investigation agency after rejecting the B report (closure report) filed by a probe agency that was appointed by the High Court.
Case Title: DR. (SMT.) ANITHA PATIL And STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8213 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 357
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the FIR and chargesheet filed against a doctor under POCSO Act for allegedly conducting a forcible sex change operation on a minor boy, after kidnapping him.
The bench said, "The petitioner in the present matter is a Doctor, who is alleged to have conducted the sex change operation, and the other offences have not been alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has contended that the petitioner has not performed the operation, I am of the considered opinion that this cannot be a matter which can be decided in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that is a matter which is required to be left for trial."
Case Title: SAYYED SOHEL TORVI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19019 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 358
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Special NIA Court is empowered to conduct trial for general offences punishable under Indian Penal Code if the FIR emanates from the very same transaction being probed by the NIA.
A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Sayyed Sohel Torvi an accused in the Bengaluru riots case of 2020, questioning the order of the special court dated September 30, 2021 by which his application made under section 20 r/w Section 8 of the NIA Act for transfer of his case to the Court having jurisdiction to try IPC offences was rejected.
Case Title: AMRUTHESH N.P v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
Case No: W.P.No.7039/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 359
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the State to reacquire the land allotted to M/s Graphite India Ltd., which had to close down its operations after several complaints were made by the residents of the locality with regard to the pollution caused by its functioning.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition filed by one Amruthesh NP seeking to revert the land allotted to Graphite India to the State government, for use either by upcoming entrepreneurs or as a lung space of the locality.
Case Title: VIJAYKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3163 OF 2021 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4322 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 360
The Karnataka High Court has said that an accused who has secured anticipatory bail orders at the hands of jurisdictional Sessions Judge, wherein a condition is stipulated for the accused to cooperate in the investigation process, cannot readily approach the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while dismissing two petitions filed by Vijaykumar and Abubekar said, "Petitioners have secured anticipatory bail orders at the hands of jurisdictional Sessions Judge wherein a condition is stipulated for the accused to cooperate in the investigation process. That being the position, petitioners cannot readily come before this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. It is for the Investigating Agency to look into the matter and take a call as to its investigation worthiness."
Case Title: SANDEEP REDDY v State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5740 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 361
The Karnataka High Court has observed that mere pendency of one more case against the petitioner-accused itself cannot be treated as a criminal antecedent so as to deny him bail.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by one Sandeep Reddy and granted him bail. Reddy has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC (Punishment for dacoity). He had approached the court seeking bail on the ground of parity, stating that co-accused in the case have been granted bail.
Case Title: KRISHNAPPA v ASHWATHAMMA
Case No: R.S.A.NO.87 OF 2010
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 362
The Karnataka High Court has held that a family settlement arrived at between parties to share immovable properties has to be among all the family members who agree to common terms and conditions and an agreement in writing between two parties to the suit arrived before the panchayat is not acceptable, unless it is a registered document.
The bench said, "Family settlement involves participation and the same needs to be signed by all the members and there has to be an acknowledgment when the agreement is arrived at, free of duress and coercion within the family members. A family settlement is admissible in evidence provided that the agreement is confirmed with approval of all family members who firmly support resolution given in the agreement at a later date which does not require registration."
Case Title: SOMASHEKAR SHANKARAPPA HURUKADLI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP No 1646/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 363
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Haveri district to expeditiously take action on the representation made to it about alleged illegal slaughter houses being operational in the district without any license.
Case Title: M/S NAMBOOR JEWELLERS v. STATE BY LASHKAR POLICE STATION
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7105 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 364
The Karnataka High Court has said that if gold bullion or gold ornaments are seized during the investigation of an offence, the maximum period that it could be held is 15 days or one month and later, it should be released and interim custody should be handed over to the victim/complainant/applicant.
Case Title: Jaganmayi Builders and Developers Private Limited & Ors. versus Sumanth Reddy & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 365
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the issue whether an agreement containing an arbitration clause stood novated with the execution of a second agreement and thus, the arbitration agreement between the parties was not subsisting, cannot be decided at the stage of reference to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), since it involves a detailed enquiry which must be decided by the Arbitrator himself under Section 16 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: MUDIT SAXENA v UNION OF INDIA
Case No: W.P.NO.17696/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
In a significant order, the Karnataka High Court has restrained Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited from taking any coercive measures to recover the amount from loan borrowers who had entered into a tripartite agreements after booking their apartment units with M/S Mantri Developers Private Limited, in terms of "Pre-EMI Scheme".
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed a batch of petitions filed by the loan borrowers and said, "A Writ of Mandamus is issued restraining the Respondent-PNB Housing Finance Limited from taking any coercive measures against the petitioners for recovering any amount comprised in the Loan Agreements and Tripartite Agreements in question."
Case Title: B.V. BYRE GOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8067 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 367
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Chairman of State's Pollution Control Board to hold necessary workshops to educate and train its officers as regards initiation of criminal proceedings under Air and Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has asked the Chairman to take assistance of NLSIU's Environment Law Centre for this purpose. He is also directed to place on record the topics that could be covered in such workshops along with the material that would be distributed in the said workshops.
369. Karnataka High Court Asks State Government To Review Employee Transfer Guidelines
Case Title: R D RAMADAS v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.11934/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 368
Concerned over the increase in number of cases related to transfer orders of government employees, the Karnataka High Court has said it is high time for the State to have relook at the relevant guidelines framed by it in 2013.
"The State being the largest litigant owes a duty to the justice delivery dispensation," said the court. The court said the state government should look into the concept of commutable distance and also consider the distinction between areas - which are well equipped with all the basic necessities like hospitals, schools, colleges, residential accommodation etc, and remote and inaccessible areas involving Hilly Terrain, Towns and Villages surrounded by forest etc or towns and villages in highly undeveloped or under-developed parts of the State.
370. Karnataka State Commission For SC/ST Cannot Direct Govt To Withhold Grants to School: High Court
Case Title: SRI VASAVI EDUCATION SOCIETY v KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 101248 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
The Karnataka High Court has said that Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 does not empower the Commission constituted under it to direct the government to withhold grants being made to an educational institution.
Justice M.I.ARUN of the Dharwad bench allowed the petition filed by Sri Vasavi Education Society and set aside the interim order dated 16.09.2021, by which the commission directed the government to withhold the grants being made to the petitioner institution.
371. Karnataka HC Quashes Order Prohibiting Sri Rama Sene Founder From Meeting Praveen Netturu's Family
Case Title: PRAMOD H. MUTALIK v. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7611 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an order restraining Sri Ram Sene Founder Pramod H. Mutalik from meeting the family of Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) leader Praveen Netturu, who was killed on July 26 at Bellare in Mangaluru.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Mutalik and said, "The order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the District Commissioner and District Magistrate, Mangaluru, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to issue a notice and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law."
Case Title: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v SHANKARAMMA & others
Case No: M.F.A. NO.20003/2010
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
The Karnataka High Court has held that an insurance company is not absolved of its liability to pay compensation, in case the driver of an insured vehicle dies of heart attack during the course of employment, only on the ground that the tipper lorry was not in use at the time of his death.
Referring to an earlier ruling in which the court held that driving is undoubtedly a tension-filled job, Justice H P Sandesh of Dharwad bench said, "The Court has to take note of policy taken in order to cover the risk of the driver during the course of employment. I have already pointed out that respondent No.1 [employer] in the written statement in para No.2 categorically admitted that the death is in the course of employment and the same cannot be disputed by the insurer."
Case Title: SHIVARAJA @ KULLA SHIVARAJA v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU
Case No: WRIT PETITION (HC) No.39/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
The Karnataka High Court has said that delayed consideration by authorities of the representation made by a detenu amounts to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and constitutes a ground to nullify the order of detention.
A division bench of Justice B. VEERAPPA and Justice K.S. HEMALEKHA made the observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by detenue Shivaraja @ Kulla Shivaraja and his wife against the order passed by Commissioner of Police, Bengaluruagainst him under the provision of Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act.
Case Title: M/s. Subex Limited versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 373
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that where a software embedded into a hardware is exported by the assessee, the proceeds from export of the hardware component is eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that the hardware was separately invoiced and was not manufactured by the assessee, if the software cannot be used independently.
Taking a judicial note of the fact that the software and the hardware components were inseparable from each other, the division bench of Justices P.S. Dinesh Kumar and M.G. Uma held that issue of separate invoices by the assessee for sale of hardware and software components is inconsequential. The Court ruled that what is relevant is the intention of the parties and the product that is actually sold.
Case Title: D Reddeppa v. The State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1113/2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
The Karnataka High Court has suggested that while delivering final judgments after completion of trial, Magistrate and Sessions Judge must pass a reasoned order as to whether there is a need to make a recommendation for payment of compensation for the rehabilitation of the victim of a crime or not, under Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
A division bench of Justice K. Somashekar and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar said, "Looking into the welfare object behind Section 357A of the Code, which is apparent from the text of the provision, this Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge while delivering final judgments, after completion of the trial, must pass a reasoned order as to whether there is a need to make a recommendation for payment of compensation for the rehabilitation of the victim of a crime or not."
376. Shakespeare's Play Finds Mention As Karnataka HC Upholds Govt Order On Wind Energy Project
Case Title : SRK ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and ors and connected matters
Citation no: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 375
The Karnataka High Court has refused interference in petitions seeking to invalidate Government Order enhancing the capacity of its Wind Energy Project and allotting the same to one Ayana Limited.
Justice Krishna S Dixit observed that so long as State acts fairly in matters of State Largesse without compromising public interest, its decision cannot be interfered with merely citing "arguable" procedural infirmities. While holding thus, the bench made it clear that grievances, if any, need to be balanced and cannot be worked out by clever arguments.
Case Title: KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY v. KEERTHANA Y.H & others
Case NO: W.A. NO.900 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 376
The Karnataka High Court on Friday accepted the revised method formulated by the state government for assigning CET rankings to repeater-students, for admission to undergraduate courses in Engineering and Technology for the academic year 2022-23.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said, "During the course of hearing, a consensus has been evolved amongst the learned counsel for the parties in respect of second method for evaluation of the marks of II PUC batch 2021 for the UGCET academic year 2022–2023, be made the basis for assigning CET rankings to the students. It is therefore directed that aforesaid second method shall be made the basis for assigning CET rankings and the State Government shall issue a notification accordingly."
Case Title: MOHAN CHANDRA P v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.481 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 377
Upholding the appointments made to the posts of Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners in 2019, the Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner, who was a former judicial officer, for suppression of material facts in his plea and unnecessarily harassing the appointees.
A division bench of Justice B.VEERAPPA AND JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA dismissed the intra-court appeal filed by Mohan Chandra P, who appeared in person, against the single judge bench order dated 21.04.2022 by which the writ court rejected his petition questioning the appointments.
Case Title: Shadakshari C.L & others v Santhosha C.A & others.
Case No: MFA NO.667 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 378
The Karnataka High Court has said that if the trial court has not given clear finding in regards the possession of a suit property, it is better for the appellate court to grant an order of temporary injunction, if it was in operation till disposal of the suit before the trial court.
A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "There is no hard and fast rule that the appellate court should not refer to the evidence of the witnesses and the findings given by the trial court while deciding the application for temporary injunction. If the appellate court feels that the evidence has to be looked into, it should be for the limited purpose of forming an opinion regarding the nature or status of the property."
Case Title: AP v. WIPRO LIMITED REPRESENTED
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 47550 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 379
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that the Grievance Redressal Committees established by various Startups and IT companies, in compliance with State government's notification issued in 2014, cannot decide disputes relating to termination of employment.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that the said notification relates to grievances of an "existing employee" and thus, an ex-employee cannot challenge his termination on the ground that the enquiry against him was not conducted by the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC).
Case Title: Siddappa v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200104 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 380
The Karnataka High Court has said that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, which are within the special knowledge of the accused.
A division bench of Justices Dr. HB Prabhakara Sastry and Anil B. Katti, sitting at Kalaburagi said, "It is only if the prosecution could be able to show that the facts and circumstances of the case would clearly go to show that a particular fact is especially within the knowledge of the accused, only then the burden of proving that fact would be upon the accused."
Case Title: Devandrappa v. Huligemma
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.200133 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 381
The Karnataka High Court has said that under Section 15(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, an Election Petition can be presented before the designated court even by the advocate of the party, in the immediate presence of that party.
A single judge bench of Justice HT Narendra Prasad sitting at Kalaburagi said, "It is clear that under Section 15(1) of the 1993 Act, the Election Petition has to be presented by the petitioner to a Designated Court. Even the advocate of the petitioner presented the petition to the Designated Court in the immediate presence of the petitioner, that fulfils the requirement of law."
Case Title: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD v SAYEEDA KHANAM W/O. LATE AZAM KHAN
Case No: MFA No.25711/2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 382
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there are no provisions prohibiting blood relatives to be employer and employee.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh sitting at Dharwad dismissed the appeal filed by the Divisional Manager of Oriental Insurance, questioning the order of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner at Koppal by which it fastened liability on the company in a claim petition filed by the legal heirs of deceased driver Azam Khan, who died in an accident in 2008.
384. Advocates Act Confers No Right To Park Vehicle Inside Court Premises: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: N.S.VIJAYANTH BABU v. ADVOCATES' ASSOCIATION, BENGALURU(AAB)
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18614/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 383
The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 30 of the Advocates' Act only confers the right on the Advocates to practice and it does not confer any right on any advocate to park his/her vehicle inside Court premises.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed a public interest litigation filed by advocate N.S.Vijayanth Babu, seeking quashing of a notice regarding issuance of new vehicle stickers for the members of the Advocates' Association.
385. Karnataka High Court Discharges Accused Who 'Assaulted' Police Officer During Drunk Driving Check
Case Title: PRIYAMSHU KUMAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.298 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 384
The Karnataka High Court recently discharged two men in a case accusing them of assaulting a traffic policeman in 2017 when they were being booked for alleged drunken driving. The police had registered a case under Section 353 IPC against the accused for preventing the cop from discharging his duty. Justice Mohammed Nawaz allowed the petition filed by Priyamshu Kumar and his friend Alok Kumar - who are both in late 20s, and set aside the order passed by the trial court rejecting their application seeking discharge in the case.
386. Test Identification Parade Can't Be Permitted After Lapse Of Several Years: Karnataka HC
Case Title: K. UMESH SHETTY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8077 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 385
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that Test Identification Parade is to ascertain the identity of accused persons and cannot be conducted after lapse of several years, as there is risk of the witnesses having lost proper memory.
It thus set aside an order passed by the trial court permitting the investigating officer to conduct a TIP of an accused after 11 years of filing of complaint.
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.
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.
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.
390. 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."
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."
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.
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."
Case Title: SANJANA FERNANDES @ RAVEERA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8929 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 393
The Karnataka High Court has said the government should come up with some regulatory measures to check the growth of therapists, who offer their services online including via social media.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "It is in public domain that there are huge mushrooming of so called therapies and therapists on social media i.e., Instagram, Twitter or Facebook as the case would be, wherein therapists pose themselves to be in the field of any therapy. It is also in public domain that they are all pseudo-therapists who are "instagram influencers".
Case Title: VENKATESHWARA DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.12902 OF 2022 (EDN-MED ADM) C/W WRIT PETITION No.12946 OF 2022 (EDN-MED ADM)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh each on two dental colleges for having wasted the court's time by filing "speculative" petitions seeking relief on behalf of few students who did not get admission to BDS courses, for the year 2021-2022.
Case Title: ABC v. STATE BY T.N.PURA POLICE STATION
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6789 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
The Karnataka High Court has said that the DNA analysis report, which favours the accused in a rape case, is not a clinching evidence that would result in termination of proceedings against him.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while dismissing the accused's petition against the criminal proceedings, said: "If a positive result of the DNA comes about against the accused, it would constitute a clinching evidence against him for further proceeding. If the result is negative i.e., favouring the accused, then the weight of other materials and evidence on record will still have to be considered for corroboration. Therefore, it does not form such clinching evidence that would result in termination of proceedings against the accused, the petitioner in the case at hand."
Case Title: M/S EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6919 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that sanction to prosecute as mandated under Section 33M of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 is applicable only in case of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs and it is not applicable where prosecution relates to Allopathic drugs.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while allowing the petition filed by Emcure Pharmaceuticals and its two Directors for quashing the complaint registered against them by the Drug Inspector under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
398. SEBI Can't Prosecute Company For Delay After Payment of Dividends: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: MUKKARAM JAN v. SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
The Karnataka High Court has said that the Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI") has no power to initiate any action against a company or its directors which has defaulted in payment of dividend within 30 days as specified under Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956, after payment of dividend.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed a criminal petition filed by Cranes Software Int. and its directors and said, "A combined reading of Section 55(A) and Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956 clearly indicates that the SEBI is vested with power to safeguard the interests of the shareholders in the matter of non payment of dividends and the moment the dividends are paid, the SEBI has no power to initiate any action against the company or its directors who have defaulted in payment of dividend within 30 days as specified under Section 207 of the Act."
399. Temples Managed By Math Cannot Be Regulated Under Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments Act: High Court
Case Title: EDURKALA ISHWARA BHAT v. RAGHAVESHWARA BHARATHI SWAMIJI
Case No: W.P. NO.25124 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act 1997 does not apply to a Math or a Temple attached to or managed by a Math and thus, no directions can be issued to the state government to exercise its executive power to regulate them.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty observed, "The 1997 Act does not apply to the provisions of the Maths. There is a conscious omission on the part of the Legislature in keeping the Maths out of the purview of the Act, which is also evident from the statement of objects and reasons of Karnataka Act No.27 of 2011 namely the Amendment Act."
Case Title: SHIVAKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7422 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
The Karnataka High Court has rapped the administration of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) for indulging in acts of registering cases against the advocates who represent it before the court, when the decision delivered is not in its favour.
"The University or the Registrar who has now sought to explain out the circumstances, is admonished and is directed to exercise caution while registering such reckless complaints in hottest haste. Any such iteration of the kind of haste, as seen in the case at hand, would be viewed seriously," said the court.
Case Title: H.N. NAGARAJ v. SURESH LAL HIRA LAL
Case NO: CRL.P.NO.8257/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 400
The Karnataka High Court has held that a proprietary concern is not a separate entity and as such, ought not to be arrayed as a separate accused in a case registered under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, "In a proceeding under Section 138 of N.I.Act, the arraying of a proprietor as an accused or a proprietary concern represented by the proprietor would be sufficient compliance with the requirements under Section 138 of N.I.Act, the proprietor and the proprietary concern are not required to be separately arrayed as a party accused."
Case Title: NARAYANA. B v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 8524 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
The Karnataka High Court has issued a slew of directions to be followed by authorities whenever any surety is furnished for release of an accused on bail.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj while hearing a petition filed by the 65-year-old Narayana. B - who died during the pendency of the case. The case related to an instance of fake surety. The bench noted that several reports that have been filed before the court indicate that this is not a stray occurrence. It added that this kind of situation has arisen on several occasions and in some cases, investigation and prosecution has also taken place.
403. Federation Of Karnataka Chambers Of Commerce & Industry Is Not 'State' Under Article 12: High Court
Case Title: B. L. SHANKARAPPA v. FEDERATION OF KARNATAKA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (FKCCI) & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.7123 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 402
The Karnataka High Court has held that Federation of Karnataka Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FKCCI) is a private entity and not an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution and thus, a writ petition is not maintainable against it.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while dismissing a petition filed by B. L. Shankarappa said, "An association of persons incorporated or not, may undertake activities very much in public interest, say for example, it may profess to protect the sovereignty & integrity of nation; laudable it is, undoubtedly; however thereby, it does not become a 'State Agency' for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution."
Case Title: J C MADHUSWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6535/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 403
The Karnataka High Court has held that for initiating proceedings for non-cognizable offences under Sections 171-F and 171-C of IPC, the Magistrate must grant permission after due application of mind. A mere endorsement on the requisition made by the Police is not sufficient.
Holding thus, single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav set aside the proceedings initiated against State's Law Minister JC Madhuswamy and restored the matter to the stage of the informant having appeared before the police authorities.
405. Karnataka HC Directs Restoration Of De-Reserved Grazing Lands Not Utilized For Allotted Purpose, Compliance Of Land Revenue Rules In Future
Case Title: UJJAPPA NINGAPPA KAMDOD & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Case No: W.P.No.11546/2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 404
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to ascertain as to whether the grazing lands (mention in writ petition) which have been de-reserved have been utilised or allotted for the purpose for which they were de-reserved or whether any developmental activities have taken place in the said land.
It directed that if it is found that the said lands are not utilised or allotted for the purpose for which they were de-reserved, necessary action must be taken to restore the said lands as Gomal lands and thereafter take necessary steps to change the revenue entries of the said lands accordingly.
Case Title: State of Karnataka by Amruthahalli Police Station v. Swetha
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1665 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State government challening an order passed by the trial court acquitting a woman accused of abetting the suicide of a man who was in a relationship with her.
A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar dismissed the appeal filed against the order acquitting the accused/respondent for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD v. SUSILA W/O. SHAMRAO PATIL
Case No: M.F.A. No.22468/2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 406
The Karnataka High Court recently allowed the claim filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act by legal heirs of a deceased bike rider, who was killed after a big tree branch fell on his head while riding the bike.
The insurance company, in appeal against the award passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, contended that the accident occurred because of fall of branch of eucalyptus tree and the same cannot be treated as a motorcycle accident and hence the company is not liable to pay the compensation.
Case Title: Swathi v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition no 8209/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 407
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a woman who allegedly, with a view to take revenge and spoil another woman co-artist's chances in getting roles in dramas, threw acid on her face.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petition filed by Swathi and directed the Committal Court to release her on bail in case registered by Nandini Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 326A, 448 read with Section 34 of IPC, on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000, with two sureties for the like sum.
409. 'Marriage Dissolved, Chargesheet U/S 498A Without Any Substance': Karnataka HC Quashes Proceedings
Case Title: DR. SHAHUL HAMEED VALAVOOR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE, BANTWAL.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7036 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 408
The Karnataka High Court while quashing a case registered by a woman against her ex-husband and in-laws under section 498-A (dowry harassment) said the charge sheet filed on the basis of omnibus and general allegations is without any substance.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Dr. Shahul Hameed Valavoor and others and quashed the prosecution registered under sections 498 A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Case Title: NAGARAJ v. ISHWAR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200033/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
The Karnataka High Court has said that an acquittal order cannot be passed by the trial court under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for non-appearance of the complainant while recording plea of accused.
A single judge bench of Justice P N Desai sitting at Kalaburagi allowed the petition filed by Nagaraj and restored the prosecution before Additional Civil Judge. The bench said, "For non-appearance of the complainant on each and every date of hearing, an order of acquittal cannot be passed in every case. The Court has to see the stage of the case and the previous appearance of the accused and complainant and how many years the complaint is pending and what is the nature of the case before passing any such dismissal order. Simply to dispose of the cases or get rid of the case, the complaint cannot be dismissed when there is no necessity of the presence of the complainant."
411. 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.
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.
413. 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.
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.
415. 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.
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.
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."
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.
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."
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.
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.
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."
423. '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."
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.
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."
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."
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).
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.
429. 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.
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).
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.
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.
Case title - Farddin v. State and another
Citation no: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 432
The Karnataka High Court recently denied bail to a man who allegedly raped a 16-year-old Muslim girl as it noted that even if the girl had consented to a physical relationship, her consent becomes irrelevant as she is a minor.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar observed thus as it rejected the argument put forth by the counsel for the accused that the age of puberty was required to be taken note of as the parties are Mohammedans.
Case Title: PRATHAP KUMAR.G v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 433
The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code which pertains to rash driving would not be attracted in cases of accident involving a pet dog/ animals.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj further held that such accidents would also not attract liability under Sections 134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act which pertain to 'Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person' and 'Punishment for offences relating to accident' respectively.
Case Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. ALWIN LOBO
Case No: M.F.A.NO.8449/2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 434
The Karnataka High Court has said that in an appeal against compensation filed by an Insurance Company in a Motor Accident case, the appellate court can invoke Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC to enhance compensation, if injustice is caused to the victim or deceased due to compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC deals with the power of the Court of Appeal to pass an appropriate order in a case regardless of the fact that the appeal is only with respect to a part of the decree or that the appeal is filed only by some of the parties. In other words, the Appellate Court can pass an order as it deems it fit regardless of the scope of the appeal.
Case Title: SAFWAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.513 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 435
The Karnataka High Court has observed that protesting against Supreme Court's decision in Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case delivered in the year 2019, is nothing but promoting enmity between two groups on the ground of religion.
However, the court allowed the petition filed by an alleged member of the Campus Front of India (which is also a part of the PFI), and quashed the criminal proceedings against him as the prosecution failed to obtain prior sanction from the state government for taking cognizance of offence under Section 153(A) .
437. Karnataka High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Muslim Man For Impregnating Minor Wife
Case Title: MOHAMMAD WASEEM AHAMAD & Others v. 1 STATE BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5917 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 436
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the POCSO case registered against a Muslim man for impregnating his minor wife. The matter was put to rest after a settlement between the accused and the victim, who was married to him as per the Mohammedan Law.
The order was passed by Justice K.Natarajan on 10th October, two days before another single bench of the High Court declared that POCSO Act overrides personal law and thus, the age for involving in sexual activities is 18 years.
Case Title: MANJULA.N v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY POLICE
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.33134/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 437
The Karnataka High Court has said that an agreement entered between two persons allowing the other to seek compassionate appointment under Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules,1996, cannot be enforced against the State.
A single judge bench of Justice S G Pandit dismissed the petition filed by Manjula. N seeking a direction to Deputy Commissioner of Police City, Armed Reserve Force, to consider her application for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Case Title: XYZ v. ABC
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7582 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 438
The Karnataka High Court has said that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a matter of right to a neglected wife, even in cases where she withdraws the petition seeking divorce.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "The divorce petition being withdrawn by the wife is of no avail as the wife is still in the matrimonial fold with the husband. So long as the respondent remains a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the fact that she has been deserted by the husband, interim maintenance is a matter of right to the wife."
440. Wife Cannot Be Made Accused in NI Act Case For Cheque Issued By Her Husband: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: VEENASHRI v. SHANKAR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2129 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 439
The Karnataka High Court has said proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be initiated against the wife for "dishonor of the cheque issued by her husband".
A single judge bench of Justice M I Arun while allowing the petition filed by petitioner Veenashri and quashing the proceedings against her, said, "Petitioner cannot be made accused for dishonour of the cheque issued by her husband and he alone can be prosecuted for the same."
441. Karnataka State Commission For SC/ST Has No Adjudicatory Power In Service Matters: High Court
Case Title: THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CUMAPPOINTING AUTHORITY KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY v. THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES/SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION & ANR
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.36193/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 440
The Karnataka High Court has said that the State Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes Commission is not conferred with adjudicatory powers under the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 and it cannot direct regularisation of services.
A single judge bench of Justice S.G. Pandit allowed the petition filed by the Executive Director-cum-Appointing Authority of Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society and set aside the 2016 order of the Commission directing regularisation of service of Jyothi Mallappa Savanalli as Principal of Morarji Desai Residential School Arakeri.
Case Title: ALLABAKSH v. IMAM HUSSAIN
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 109761 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 441
The Karnataka High Court has said that prayers seeking for injunction, restraining the defendant from transferring, alienating, mortgaging, creating gift or any right in changing nature of the suit land, would not amount to distinct prayers and are related to each other and filing of a single application seeking for such reliefs would not be in violation or come within a mischief under Rule 23 of the Civil Rules of Practice, 1967.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Dharwad allowed the petition filed by one Allabaksh and set aside the order passed by trial court and appellate court by which the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was dismissed.
Case Title: The State through Grameen Police Station v. Sharanu @ Sharanappa @ Sharanabasappa.
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200058/2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 442
The Karnataka High Court has said that while determining the age of a minor rape victim, the certificate issued by the school authorities stands on a higher footing than the medical opinion of a doctor.
To determine the age of a victim, suspected to be a minor, Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 applies. A division bench of Justices Dr H B Prabhakara Sastry and Anil B Katti observed that it is only in the absence of the matriculation or equivalent certificates or the date of birth certificate from the School or a birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal authority or a panchayat, that the medical opinion would be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or the child.
444. Teenage Relationships & POCSO: Karnataka HC Asks Law Commission To Rethink Age Of Consent For Sex
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 443
In a significant observation, the Karnataka High Court has said that in view of the ground realities, it is imperative for the Law Commission to rethink on the age of consent under the POCSO Act.
Case Title: SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANAND HITTANAGI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100187 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 444
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Director General of the Police, the Director of Public Prosecution and HC Registrar (General) to make arrangements for necessary training of their officers in respect of receiving, handling, storage and use of electronic evidence.
A division bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice G Basavaraja sitting at Dharwad, issued the directions for better implementation of the directions already issued regarding the collection, handling and storing of electronic evidence, by coordinate benches in two other cases.
Case Title: Supriya Shirnate & others And MRT Music & others.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 445
The Karnataka High Court today allowed the appeal preferred by Indian National Congress against a civil court order which directed Twitter to block the national party's user account and that of Bharat Jodo. The relief is subject to the party removing material from their handles that offend MRT Music's copyrights.
A division bench of Justices G. Narendar and PN Desai remarked, "The impugned order virtually grants an enlarged relief...Shutting out (blocking account) is punitive." The trial court yesterday directed Twitter to temporarily block the handles of Indian National Congress and Bharat Jodo after MRT Music in a suit accused the party of infringing its copyright by "illegal" use of KGF chapter-2's music in the videos uploaded by it on the microblogging platform.
Case Title: MOHAMMAD SHARIFF @ FAHIM HAJI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.8502 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 446
The Karnataka High Court has upheld registering of multiple FIRs against different persons accused of rape based on the complaint of a minor girl who was allegedly forced into prostitution.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "There was physical contact of every man who had come in contact with a minor girl. Those are separate incidents which may have happened on the same day. The accused are different as every man was different. Merely because the victim is the same, it cannot be said that only one crime should have been registered and all of them should be put in one basket as accused in the said crime."
Case Title: PUNIT S/O BHIMSINGH RAJPUT v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100191 OF 2019 (C-) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100194 OF 2019.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 447
Irked by the recurring number of cases where the Police investigation is not up to the mark, the Karnataka High Court has asked the Director General of Police to have a standard operating procedure (SOP) for investigating different crimes and to hold disciplinary proceedings against the investigating officers if the SOP established is not adhered to.
A division bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice G Basavaraja, while setting aside a Murder conviction, observed, "We have observed that the investigation has not been carried out properly. This is again not a stray occurrence but a very common occurrence that this Court has been coming across. Hence, it is required of the Director General of Police to make available refresher training from time to time to all the Investigating Officers and have a standard operating procedure to be established for investigation into different crimes, on penalty of disciplinary proceedings if the SOP is not adhered to."
Case Title: PUNIT S/O BHIMSINGH RAJPUT v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100191 OF 2019 (C-) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100194 OF 2019.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 447
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to establish a Task Force to work out a methodology of sharing the existing digital records with courts and to consider digitization of all processes. While dealing with a criminal appeal where it was put to "great difficulty" in going through the documents submitted by the investigation officer, a division bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice G Basavaraja said, "Time is not far when any handwritten documents will not be acceptable or accepted by a Court. Production of handwritten documents comes in the way of digitalization of the judicial process which is of prime importance today."
Case Title: YELLAWWA v. SAVITRI
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 109954 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 448
The Karnataka High Court has said that no civil court can return a plaint on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction without following the requirements of Rule 10 of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Dharwad allowed the petition filed by one Yellawwa, mother of one late Army officer Anand and set aside the order passed by the trial court rejecting her application seeking to restrain the authorities including the bank from releasing any amount to her daughter-in-law out of the account maintained by them and disbursing any amount from dues available out of the account of the deceased.
Case Title: GURUNAGOUDA @ GURUMURTHYGOUDA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100476 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100485 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 449
The Karnataka High Court recently refused bail to a man involved in a murder investigation, seeking release to attend his pregnant wife whose delivery date is soon due. A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar sitting at Dharwad remarked, "Merely because the wife of appellant/accused No.29 is pregnant and her due date of delivery is 06.11.2022 as per medical records, is not a ground for grant of bail at this stage when the investigation is in progress."
Case Title: NAGESH & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.580/2013
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 450
Observing that it is open for a court to consider the right of self defence if it arises from the material on record, the Karnataka High Court recently acquitted three men, who had attacked and injured their cousins during a property-related quarrel in 2008.
A single bench of Justice S. Rachaiah said Section 96 of the IPC provides that nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of the right of private defence. "It is settled principle of law that, even if the accused does not plead self defence, it is open to the Court to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record."
Case Title: VIMALA RAMANATH PAWAR v. SENIOR MANAGER, CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20321 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 451
The Karnataka High Court has said that though recovery of excess amounts paid by banks to pensioners is permitted, that would not mean that the excess is to be recovered in one stroke. Such amount may be recovered in monthly installments, it said.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the case of a 73-years-old widow aggrieved by the action of Canara Bank which debited Rs. 6,40,000 from her family pension account without even any communication.
454. Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Lawyer Accused Of Throwing Water Bottle At Law Intern
Case Title: VASANTH ADITHYA. J v. STATE BY KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9854 OF 2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 452
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered by the police against a lawyer under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act, 2000, on a complaint filed by a Law Intern.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petition filed by Advocate Vasanth Adithya. J and quashed the case registered for offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 354, 506 and 509 and under IPC 67 IT Act. Earlier, in April the bench had refused to quash the case against the accused, observing that investigation was still under progress.
Case Title: JAVVAJI DHANA THEJA & others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9257 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 453
The Karnataka High Court has said that a trial court rejecting an application made under Section 451 and 457 of Criminal Procedure Code, for release of a vehicle seized in a criminal case, by owners, on the ground of identification of vehicle during trial is not correct.
A single judge bench of Justice K.Natarajan allowed the petition filed by Javvaji Dhana Theja and others and set aside the order dated 05.04.2022, by which their application for release of seized vehicles were rejected.
Case Title: RAHUL CHARI & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.2865 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 454
The Karnataka High Court has directed the judicial magistrates to hear the bank account holders first, particularly in cases involving intermediaries, and then only pass directions for transfer of the amount while dealing with applications under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.
The court asked the magistrates to not allow the applications filed under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C in "a casual manner". Justice M Nagaprasannasaid, "This Court is coming across scores and scores of cases where the account is frozen, defrozen and the amount that the complainant [claims] is due from a suspect or an accused is transferred to the account of the complainant from the account of third parties which action is contrary to all cannons of law."
Case Title: RAHUL CHARI & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.2865 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 454
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a magistrate's order directing a bank to transfer Rs.69,143 from PhonePe Director Rahul Chari's personal account to the account of an online-financial-fraud victim. The woman had made the transaction using UPI app PhonePe
Justice M Nagaprasanna directed that the amount debited from Chari's account be refunded to his account forthwith. The court also directed the police to pursue the investigation into the victim's complaint on the financial fraud.
Case Title: HEENA THIRUMALI SATEESH & ANR v. M/S MINIMELT ENGINEERS INDIA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2340 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 455
The Karnataka High Court has said that in proceedings initiated against directors of a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant is only expected to make necessary averments regarding their vicarious liability and thereafter, the burden is upon such directors to show that they are not liable to be convicted.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "The complainant is supposed to know only generally as to who were in-charge of the affairs of the Company... the complainant is expected to allege that the persons named in the complaint are in-charge of the affairs of the Company... The burden would be on the Board of Directors or persons in-charge of the affairs of the Company to show that they are not liable to be convicted."
Case Title: CHERIYAN M C & Others v. STATE BY JAYAPURA POLICE STATION
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.13035 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 456
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Deputy Commissioner's decision to appoint the complainant's private lawyer as a special public prosecutor in the case.
Justice K.Natarajan said the SC/ST Rules empower the Deputy Commissioner to appoint an eminent lawyer on behalf of the victim under clause (5) of Rule 4.
Case Title: SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT. LTD & others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2778 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 457
The Karnataka High Court has said that the word 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of CrPC would include his or her legal heirs and they would have the locus to continue the criminal case in case of victim's death, before Police files the chargesheet.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "A victim would mean a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression 'victim' includes his or her guardian or legal heir."
Case Title: Syed Ahammed v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1094 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 458
The Karnataka High Court has said that food articles sold without labels mentioning its batch number, 'best before' and 'Veg' or 'Non-veg' symbol, is clearly an offence under Section 7(i) and 7(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, punishable under Section 16(1)(a) thereof.
A single judge bench of Justice Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry said, "Admittedly, the food article sold was not labelled in accordance with the requirement of the Act and the Rules made there under, by mentioning its batch number, 'best before' and 'Veg' or 'Non-veg' symbol, which is clearly an offence under Section 7(i) and 7(ii) punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act."
Case Title: HARISH .G & Others v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.52425/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 459
The Karnataka High Court recently suggested the State government to issue general directions to Medical colleges against collection of excess fees from students over and above what is fixed by the government and the Karnataka Examinations Authority.
A division bench of Justices B. Veerappa and KS Hemalekha said, "It is the duty of the State Government to protect the students and issue directions to all the colleges including respondent No.6, who collected excess amount over and above fee fixed by the State Government, if the State is really interested in the welfare of the citizens of the State."
Case Title: A.V. GAYATHRI SHANTHEGOWDA v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & others
Case No: W.P.NO.1850/2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 460
The Karnataka High Court has held that persons nominated as representative of the Government under Section 352(1)(b) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 are not eligible to be included in the electoral roll of the Local Authorities Constituency for Karnataka Legislative Council polls.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, allowing a batch of petition challenging the inclusion of nominated members in the voter list, said: "The term 'every member of the Local Authority' means 'only the elected members who are the councillors of the Town Panchayat and the said term cannot be extended to persons nominated by the Government to the Town Panchayat, who are not the councillors of the Town Panchayat and interpretation otherwise would lead to absurd results and goes against the spirit of Article 243-R Constitution of India and Section 352 of the Act, 1964."
Case Title: M/s. BASF India Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No.43797 Of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 461
The Karnataka High Court has held that open purchase orders are only standing offers that do not constitute a confirmed "agreement to sell" and that movements of goods are mere stock transfers.
The division bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar and Justice M.G. Uma has observed that the open purchase orders do not constitute any contract. The Purchase Orders issued from time to time for the supply of goods constituted a contract between the parties. Thus, the sale effected pursuant to such Purchase Orders is an intra-state sale in that state
Case Title: ASHWINI GANAPATI HARIKANTRA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103215 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 462
The Karnataka High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a government hospital nurse accused of mediating the sale of a new born baby-girl, after the infant's mother expressed undesirability to raise her on account of financial hardship.
A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar sitting at Dharwad observed that there is no specific averment in the complaint that the Petitioner-nurse facilitated the sale.
Case Title: THAHA UMMER v. UNION OF INDIA
Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9450/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 463
The Karnataka High Court has rejected the bail petition filed by one Thaha Ummer, a resident of Kerala, who was arrested on August 25 for allegedly exporting banned Clonazepam Tablets.
Ummer has been booked under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) by the Narcotic Control Bureau.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar while rejecting the bail petition said: "The drug menace is affecting the entire society and especially it is targeting the younger generation and it affects the economy of the country and illicit money is being used for drug trafficking and illegal money is being generated to promote the same. This is a serious aspect and it cannot be taken in a light way."
Case Title: SUNITA W/O BHARATKUMAR AITAWADE & ANR v. MALIKJAN S/O BHASKAR SANNAKKI
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100639 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 464
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated against two former directors of a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the complainant claiming that when he invested the money in the company they were directors.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Sunita and Vidya and quashed the proceedings pending against them. A private complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'), alleging that the cheque, which was issued by the Company in favour of the complainant, when presented for realisation was dishonoured for want of funds. The Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and issued summons to the accused.
Case Title: UMADEVI MURUGESH & ANR VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9966/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 465
The Karnataka High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the wife and child of a practising advocate, who is accused of sending fake orders to his client.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar allowed the petition filed by the woman and her son. The court said: "The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are directed to be enlarged on bail in event of their arrest, in Crime No.44/2022 of Vidhana Soudha Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 of IPC on each of them executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakhs only) with one surety for the like-sum."
Case Title: NAFEEZA & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3420 OF 2013 (LR)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 466
The Karnataka High Court has said that if a tenanted land is allotted to the share of a member of the joint family, such allottee becomes the landlord.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishan S Dixit observed the same while dismissing a petition filed by tenants of a land challenging the order of the Tashildar directing resumption of land in favour of Retired Lieutenant Colonel. The bench remarked, "This is a classic instance of how poorly a section of society can treat the very soldiers who risk their lives & limbs to protect the frontiers of our country."
Case Title: THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION & Others v. COMPETITION COMMISION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24297/2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 467
The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with the investigation initiated by Competition Commission of India against the Karnataka Chemists and Druggists Association, which is accused of anti-competitive unfair trade practices.
Terming the association's plea premature, Justice K S Hemalekha granted the union a liberty to submit their objections along with the information and documents to CCI Director General within a period of four weeks, in response to the notice issued to them.
Case Title: KAJAL NARESH KUMAR v. Union of India & others
Case No:WRIT PETITION No.20850 OF 2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 468
The Karnataka High Court has said that mere filing of a B Report (Closure report) by the police before the jurisdictional court which is yet to be accepted would not mean that the accused is acquitted in the case, thus passport authorities would have the right to refuse to issue of passport or travel documents.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "The rigour of Section 6(2)(f) of the (Passport) Act gets evaporated only when the applicant who is facing criminal proceedings or a FIR is acquitted, discharged or the proceeding against the said applicant is quashed by a competent Court of law, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Mere filing of 'B' report would not mean that the petitioner becomes allegation free qua Section 6(2)(f) of the Act."
Case Title: K. B. NAIK v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20983 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 469
Stressing upon the significance of following principles of natural justice by any authority in power, the Karnataka High Court recently referred to the legend of Adam and Eve.
Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "God himself gave an opportunity of hearing to Adam and Eve before passing the sentence for consumption of the forbidden fruit. The principle has emerged since then. Thus, it is not today that this concept exists; it is as early as humanity."
The Judge added that the principle has since then been honed and refined through "judicial treatment" by Courts of law to render justice and ensure minimum protection of rights of an individual against any arbitrary procedure.
Case Title: A.N.MURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.22038 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 470
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that appeals filed before the State Government, challenging demand notices issued by the Deputy Director, Department of Mining and Geology which are approved by the Director, who is the Controlling Authority, are maintainable.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi said, "The petitioner has not committed any error in submitting the revision petition, being aggrieved by the issuance of demand notices by the Deputy Director on an approval by the Director, to the State Government for its consideration."
Case Title: ASHVEEJA T.C v. ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20999 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 471
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the order passed by the Endowment Commissioner, dismissing an Archak of the Bhoga Nandishwara Temple in Chikkaballapur Taluk, without holding an inquiry on charges of alleged misconduct.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna directed the respondent-authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and complete the enquiry within two weeks, as was directed by the High Court in an earlier round of litigation (against petitioner's suspension). Till then, it permitted the petitioner to perform as Archak in the temple.
Case Title: MR. M.M. KARIAPPA & ANR v. ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS, INC.
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.106 OF 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 472
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Civil court in Bengaluru restraining Vogue Institute Of Management from using the trademark 'VOGUE' as a part of their name and trading style by way of permanent injunction.
Justice M I Arun while allowing the appeal filed by the institute said, "The trial court ... has applied the test i.e., applicable to a common man who would get confused by the use of the word 'VOGUE' itself and has come to the erroneous conclusion that the defendants' institute can be passed off as the institute of the plaintiff."
475. Adopted Child Entitled To Seek Compassionate Appointment: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: GIRISH S/O VINAYAK KMUTTATTI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 100362 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 473
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an adopted child can seek compassionate appointment following the death of his/her adoptive parent who took care of the family.
A division bench of Justices Suraj Govindaraj and G Basavaraja observed, "A son is a son or a daughter is a daughter, adopted or otherwise, if such a distinction is accepted then there would be no purpose served by adoption."
Case Title: RAJATH R v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 8902 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 474
The Karnataka High Court has said that a Tender Inviting Authority can change, modify or amend the tender document before opening of the technical bid. The only rider is that the information should be given to all the tenderers.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "In terms of Rule 14 (of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements, Rules, 2000) before opening of technical bid, the change, modification or amendment to the tender document is a permissible exercise of power. The only rider is that the information should be given to all the tenderers. The information is required to be given to all the tenderers, if the changes are made after the last date of submission of bids, but before opening of technical bid or opening of any bid for that matter."
Case Title: NALINI DEVI v. THE GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.22058 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 475
The Karnataka High Court has restrained the Canara Bank from recovering the excess amount paid to a senior citizen in the family pension account and has asked the bank to recover the same from its officers who are responsible for not acting on the pensioner's representations for years.
The pensioner had, on several occasions starting from the year 2016, requested the bank to deduct the excess amount in instalments and unblock her account.
Case Title: K.S.RAMA RAO v. SUBBALAKSHMI
Case No: R.S.A NO. 1092 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 476
The Karnataka High Court has said that mere handing over of sale consideration by a person to the vendor, at the time of execution of sale deed, will not in itself create such persons' right in the property.
"The endorsement only indicates that the money that was paid by Rangamma was handed over by plaintiff to the vendor...a feeble attempt is made by plaintiff to lay a false claim over the suit schedule property under the garb that he has equally contributed while acquiring his properties."
Case Title: RAMANJI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10639 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 477
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a chargesheet filed against an accused under the Karnataka Police Act merely because the Police did not cite any independent witness.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan observed, "Merely the Police have not cited any independent witness in the charge sheet, but that itself is not a ground to quash the criminal proceedings." It thus dismissed the petition filed by one Ramanji who is charged under Section 78(3) of the Police Act for allegedly running matka in a gambling bid.
Case Title: SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT. LTD & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2778 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 478
The Karnataka High Court earlier this month quashed a criminal case filed against commercial vehicles manufacturer Scania India, its Directors and Managers, alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating in sale of around 70 buses.
The complaint was lodged by the proprietor of SRS Travels, a Bengaluru based travel agency. He claimed that the company sold him defective buses and he was saddled with numerous problems in the operation and maintenance of vehicles which led to huge financial losses.
Case Title: SA RA GOVINDU & Others v. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.14787 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 479
The Karnataka High Court has held that Registrar of Cooperative Societies, in exercise of its power to conduct enquiry under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, cannot assume power of a Civil Court to consider evidence in election matters.
The provision empowers the Registrar to, on his own or on the application of majority members of the society, hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society.
482. Karnataka Home Guards Can Be Suspended Without Prior Notice: High Court
Case Title: KEMPAMANI D E v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.17691/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 480
The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with an order suspending a Home Guard without prior notice following registration of a FIR against her. A Single judge bench of Justice S G Pandit said,
"Rule 14-B of the Karnataka Home Guards Rules, 1963 empowers the Commandant General or Commandant to keep a Home Guard under suspension. No notice would be necessary for keeping a Home Guard under suspension, since suspension would be pending or contemplated enquiry."
Case Title: SHREESHA SASITHOTA PRABHAKARAN v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9971/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 481
The Karnataka High Court has said that a petition under Section 438 (anticipatory bail) or 439 (bail) of CrPC is not maintainable when offences under Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (KPIDFE) are incorporated in the FIR.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar said that an accused aggrieved by dismissal of bail plea has remedy to file an appeal under Section 16 of the Act.
Case Title: UMA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6123 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 482
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a criminal case registered against residents of an apartment who allegedly gathered and prevented officials of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) from surveying and removing encroachment over Rajakaluve (storm water drain), as per Court orders.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the contention of the petitioners that they are the residents of the Apartment and there is no illegal intention in assembling together. It said, "The petitioners, being the owners of the Apartment, must be in the Apartment, but they all together joined their hands with an intention to prevent the public authority while discharging duty, which attracts Section 149 of IPC i.e. common object and unlawful assembly under Section 143 of IPC for committing an offence on the public servant."
Case Title: GAJANAN v. APPASAHEB SIDDAMALLAPPA KAVERI.
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 2011 OF 2013
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 483
The Karnataka High Court has held that contravention of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes if the transaction amount is more than Rs.20,000, such transaction shall be made through cheque or demand draft, does not make the transaction void and it can be called a legally recoverable debt.
Accused Gajanan had approached the court seeking to set aside the judgment of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Magistrate Court, convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,28,000.
Case Title: K. SURESH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.13219 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 484
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an advocate seeking directions to the Union and State Government to conduct a study into the feasibility of implementing 'moving garden' on all possible vehicless.
The petitioner prayed that if the concept is found to be feasible, the State Government be directed to implement it so as to maintain ecology and environment.
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case no: WRIT PETITION NO.17708/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 485
The Karnataka High Court has observed that as per Rule 214 (2) (b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, no enquiry can be initiated against a retired person in respect of an event which had taken place more than four years prior to institution of enquiry.
A single judge bench of Justice SG Pandit allowed the petition filed by Anil Kumar and T. Mallanna, former employees of Karnataka Housing Board, and quashed the Charge Memo as well as appointment of Enquiry Officer.
Case Title: SURESH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA DAMBAL v. THE STATE
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.102858/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 486
The Karnataka High Court has denied relief to a rape accused who sought bail on the ground that the trial against him is at the fag end and material witnesses including the victim and complainant have turned hostile.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz while dismissing the petition filed by one Suresh Dambal said, "When the trial is at the fag end, it may not be proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The learned Trial Judge is directed to conclude the trial as far as possible, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Case Title: MILAAP SOCIAL VENTURES INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR v. GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6220 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 487
The Karnataka High Court has said that in a suit against passing off, amendment to plaint is permissible to include the remedy for trademark infringement if the cause of actions are substantially identical and both the reliefs are virtually based on the same fundamental idea.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the application filed by Milaap Social Ventures, seeking amendment of its plaint to include remedy of trademark infringement by the respondents, Google India and Impact Guru Technology Ventures (respondent No.2), by using the mark 'MILAAP' in its keywords and metatags.
Case Title: . M.S.UBEDULLA KHAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10563 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 488
The Karnataka High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a doctor accused of outraging the modesty of a woman who visited him for treatment.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar allowed the petition filed by MS Ubedulla Khan and granted him anticipatory bail on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety for the like-sum. It said, "The petitioner alleged to be a medical practitioner and the question of him absconding or fleeing away from justice does not arise at all. Further it is submitted that the statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C, of the victim has been already recorded and hence the question of tampering with the prosecution witnesses also does not arise."
491. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Centre Giving Immediate Effect For PFI Ban
Case Title: NASIR PASHA v. UNION OF INDIA
Case NO: WP 21440/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 489
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed questioning the notification issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, declaring the Popular Front of India and its associates or affiliates or fronts as "unlawful associations" with 'immediate effect' for a period of 5 years in exercise of the powers under Sec 3(1) of UAPA.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna pronounced the order on the petition filed by one PFI activist named Nasir Pasha through his wife, as he is presently in judicial custody.
Case Title: THE REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. MASTER THARUN C. GOWDA & others.
Case NO: M.F.A.NO.5197/2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 490
The Karnataka High Court has said that the burden lies on the insurance company to prove that licence of the driver of vehicle which met with an accident was fake, by examining the author of the document (RTO), and unless the same is proved as a fake document, the shifting of the liability on the owner does not arise.
A single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh dismissed the appeal filed by the United India Insurance challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which allowed the claim petition filed by injured Master Tharun Gowda, 8 years old at the time.
Case Title: THE LORD BISHOP & ANR v. THE LAND TRIBUNAL & OTHERS
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1762 OF 2005
Citation; 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 491
The Karnataka High Court has observed that even a void order unless certified by the magistra dicta as being void, would continue to be operational.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit made the observation while rejecting a petition filed by the Diocesan Lord Bishop and Melvin D'souza, questioning the order of the Land Tribunal to the extent that it grants occupancy rights to the respondent in case of certain lands.
Case Title: CHANDRA SUVARNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.19527/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 492
The Karnataka High Court recently made deprecating remarks against allotment of public properties as political favours and directed the State to ensure transparency in the allotment process through public auctions/ tenders.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was faced with a case where 700 sq.mts. of space in the port of Malpe Beach were allotted to one Santhosh V Saliana, Partner of Sea Foods, at the recommendation made by political representatives in his favour. While setting aside such allotment, the bench said, "Public property, is trite to be leased out only by way of public auction/tender failing which it would become an arbitrary exercise of power. Public property cannot be bartered away at the whim and fancy of interested persons without even the public coming to know availability of such property...This case would form the last straw of admonishing the State for bartering away public property at its whim and fancy. Any such iteration would, without doubt, be viewed seriously, as such actions cannot bear any sanction under any law. Rule of law is insurmountable."
495. FIR Uploading Delayed Only In Sensitive Cases By Lokayukta Police, Karnataka High Court Told
Case Title: UMAPATHI S v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP 20297/2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 493
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday was informed by the State that only in some sensitive cases the police wing of Karnataka Lokayukta delays the uploading of First Information Report (FIR) on its website.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi accepted the affidavit filed by the Additional Director General of Police (Karnataka Lokayukta) through Superintendent of Police attached to the Karnataka Lokayukta, and disposed of a PIL seeking directions for uploading of all the First Information Reports (FIRs) on the website of Police wing of Karnataka Lokayukta, within 24 hours of registration.
Case Title: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. K.N. JAGADISH KUMAR @ JAGADEESH MAHADEV @ JAGADEESH
Case no: CRL.CCC. NO. 1 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 494
The Karnataka High Court has dropped criminal contempt proceedings initiated against an Advocate for creating a ruckus by repeatedly banging his hand on the table in a lower court, despite the judge's warnings.
The Registrar of the City Civil Court had written to the High Court seeking action against Kumar, whereafter the suo moto proceedings were initiated.
Case Title: Purbayan Chakraborty v. Union of India
Case No: WP 19157/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 495
The Karnataka High Court on Friday allowed a law student to withdraw his PIL challenging a Central Government notification which imposes a precondition on candidates appearing for SSC (NT) JAG entry scheme 2023 to have appeared for CLAT 2022 PG program.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi orally observed that a public interest litigation petition is not maintainable in service matters. Moreover, when a selection agency wants a candidate having a certain qualifications, the Court cannot sit over the decision.
Case Title: HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.11057 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 496
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a 2019 order issued by the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers imposing a cap of 30% on trade margin of 42 anti-Cancer Drugs.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Healthcare Global Enterprises Ltd. and said, "Cancer patients in India incur heavy expenditure and cancer drugs need to become somewhat affordable so that whenever a treatment is required, it can be treated at the earliest, to the rich and the poor alike. If such policy is not promulgated, the poor or the middle class which forms a majority of the population of this country, can be seen to be succumbing to the disease due to high prices that the manufacturers project resulting in its unaffordability."
Case Title: MANJUNATH B v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19575 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 497
The Karnataka High Court has expressed concern over the rising litigation relating to allotment of fair price shops under the Public Distribution System and has asked State's Food and Civil Supplies Department to take appropriate steps to 'put its house in order'.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was dealing with a case whereby the licence to run fair price shop of a physically disabled person was cancelled by the Appellate Authority under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 following a grievance raised by the allottee of another fair price depot situated in the same vicinity.
Case Title: PRAKASH & Others v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.14590 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 498
The Karnataka High Court has refused to issue directions in a plea against shifting of the deity from the newly constructed Kamsagara Beeralingeshwara and Hinde Mallikarjunaswamy Temple at Chitradurga district back to the old temple, which is in a dilapidated condition.
The Court however ordered status quo keeping in mind public safety and asked the parties to agitate their respective rights over the deity continuing in the new building or to be shifted to the old temple by approaching the competent civil Court.
Case Title: RADHAKIRSHAN @ K RADHAKRISHNA & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8277 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 499
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a sexual harassment case against a post master, who was booked by the police on a complaint filed by a temporary Group-D employee in 2018.
A single judge bench of Justice K. Natarajan allowed the petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings registered for offences punishable under Section 354(A) read with 34 of IPC.
Case Title: BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED v. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION & others
Case No: W.A. NO.900 OF 2010
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 500
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Information Commission to decide afresh whether the Bangalore International Airport Limited (BIAL) is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.
A bench of Justices Alok Aradhe and S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the appeal preferred by BIAL against a single judge's order which upheld the Commission's decision declaring the company to be a 'public authority' and asking it to furnish certain information sought by the private Respondent under RTI Act.
Case Title: BASAVARAJA BEERAPPA KAMBALI v. THE CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & others
Case No: M.F.A. NO.9207/2013
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 501
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that even if the court comes to the conclusion that there is a breach of any policy condition recognized under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer is liable to compensate the third party and recover the same from the insured.
A single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh allowed an appeal filed by claimant Basavaraja Beerappa Kambali in part and modified the order of the Tribunal by directing Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company (respondent No.1) to pay the compensation amount with interest within six weeks and recover the same from the insured.
Case Title: Hanumanthappa v. The Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd & others.
Case No: M.F.A. NO.1234/2014 (WC) C/W. M.F.A. NO.2414/2014 (WC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 502
The Karnataka High Court has said the amendment brought to Section 20 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, notified on 23.01.2014, which bars the Commissioner from conducting an inquiry/proceedings on the claims under the Act and confers the powers to the concerned courts, is not applicable to a case decided prior to issuing of the notification.
A single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh rejected the appeal filed by the Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd, questioning the judgment and award dated 19.08.2013, passed by Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Davanagere District, questioning the quantum and liability of the compensation awarded to the claimant.
Case Title: Chethan A. Kumar v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition no. 10651 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 503
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Kannada actor Chetan A. Kumar for quashing of an FIR lodged against him under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, on charges of allegedly making statements which promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between different sections of the Society.
Justice M I Arun said whether the statements made by Kumar amount to an offence as contemplated under Section 505(2) of IPC or not, is a subject matter of investigation.
Case Title: Uday Nayak v. Anita Nayak
Case No: Writ Petition no.22006 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 504
The Karnataka High Court has said that a wife can claim maintenance under two different enactments, particularly after having been granted maintenance under a particular statute.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected a petition filed by the husband challenging an order passed by the Family Court granting interim maintenance of Rs.30,000 to his wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He argued that the wife was already in receipt of Rs. 20,000 maintenance in proceedings instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Case Title: SRIKANTA M.R v. GEETHA & Others
Case No: M.F.A. NO.7043/2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 505
The Karnataka High Court has said that an insurance company is liable to pay compensation to a third party, even if the cheque issued towards premium by the insured was dishonoured, if such fact was not intimated to the policy holder before the occurrence of the motor accident.
A single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh while allowing the appeal preferred filed by a claimant against the order of Claims Tribunal which exonerated the Insurance company from liability, observed, "The Tribunal while considering the issue of liability, only considered the bank's memo regarding the dishonour of cheque and comes to the conclusion that the Insurance Company has intimated about the dishonour of cheque as well as cancellation of policy to the owner of the offending vehicle but not discussed whether it was served or not and simply comes to the conclusion that the policy was not in force...No material before the Court that they have intimated the same to the insured."
Case Title: Dr M G Bhat & Others v. State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 11949 of 2022 C/W WP 12182 of 2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 506
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the First Information Report (FIR) filed against office bearers of the Karnataka Golf Association by a former member of the Association, under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "If the narration in the complaint is noticed with juxtaposition to the link in the chain of events, what would unmistakably emerge is none of the provisions under which the crime is registered would even prima facie get attracted, as even according to the complainant the entire thing has happened in the meeting hall where the petitioners were present and the complainant barged there. Therefore it is a place which is neither in public view or a public place. Section 3 (1) (u) of the Act makes the offence punishable for those ingredients."
Case Title: M/s United Brothers Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd v. Ministry of Health And Family Welfare, Government of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9587 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 507
The Karnataka High Court has refused relief to a private super speciality hospital in south Bangalore assailing the conduct of Bharat Biotech in relation to a contract between them for supply of Covaxin during peak of pandemic in 2021.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held that a writ petition for recovery of money, by a private entity, from a private entity, arising out of a private contract, cannot be entertained.
Case Title: Vineetha Thomas v. SQD LDR Dr Praveen Kumar Borushetty
Case No: WP 16949 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 508
The Karnataka High Court has said that 'passage of time' and 'cost of living' are valid grounds to be considered as changed circumstances for enhancing maintenance amount granted to wife under Special Marriage Act. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Vineetha Thomas and increased the maintenance amount of Rs 10,000 granted to her in the year 2016 to Rs 20,000.
511. 'Unknown To Law': Karnataka High Court Dismisses Muslim Couple's Plea On Adopting Unborn Hindu Child
Case Title: Shahista & Others v. The State.
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4617 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 509
The Karnataka High Court has said that Mohammedan Law does not recognise adoption and thus an agreement entered into between a Hindu couple to give their unborn child in adoption to a Muslim couple is not allowed.
A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice K. S. Hemalekha dismissed a petition filed by the couples challenging the judgment of Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissing the petition filed under Sections 7 to 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, by them.
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."
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.
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."
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.
516. 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.
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.
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.
519. 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."
Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others v. RAHAMATHULLA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.23210/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 518
The Karnataka High Court has issued a stern warning to the state government to desist from filing "all and sundry cases" which eat into valuable judicial time and lead to docket explosion.
A division bench of Justices G. Narendar and PN Desai said, "We feel that time has come where this Court is required to send a message to the biggest litigant and that merely because it is the biggest litigant, it will not be a licence to enable it in filing all and sundry cases, which eat into the valuable judicial time. The irony is that the State is one of the prime movers to popularize the Alternate Dispute Resolution System and in this background, the State cannot be the reason for docket explosion."
Case Title: SRI Siragalli Lakshmidevi Recreation Club v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No.22854/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 519
The Karnataka High Court has said that police authorities should not act with a presumption that every society, or association or club, registered for the purpose of running the Club will be indulging in unlawful activities.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha disposed of the petition filed by the Sri Siragalli Lakshmidevi Recreation Club, and directed the police authorities not to interfere with the lawful activities of the petitioner's association.
Case Title: THE Official Liquidator of M/s Ideal Jawa (India) Limited (In Liquidation) v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Others.
Case No: C.A. No. 71/2018.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 520
The Karnataka High Court has declared that Ideal Jawa (India) Ltd is the owner of the mark "Yezdi" (word and device) taken independently or in conjunction with other words and that the trademarks of the Company (in liquidation), remain in custodia legis of the court, as they were owned by the company prior to the time of its winding up.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar has accordingly restrained Boman Irani and Classic Legends Pvt. Ltd, or any person claiming through or under from using the yesteryears famous motorbike brand mark "Yezdi" or any other mark containing the word "Yezdi" as a word or a device whether independently or in conjunction with other words including all domain names which use the word / mark "Yezdi.
Case Title: S. Nancy Nithya v. The Government of India & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.22378 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 521
The Karnataka High Court has said the Passport Manual issued for smooth functioning is only guidelines or solutions to answer circumstances that would emerge, but it cannot run counter to the Statute including rules.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "The Rules are framed by the Central Government in terms of Section 24 of the (Passport) Act. Therefore, they are part of the statute and are statutory. The Passport Manual are guidelines to issue a passport are a solution to answer circumstances that would emerge, but, cannot run counter to the statute, as they are not statutes."
