Karnataka High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2022 [Citations 1 - 97]

PS Mohan v. State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)1

Case Title: PS Mohan v. State Of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)1

The Karnataka High Court said that no permission of the Central Government was required to construct lodges/ resorts within the reserve forest area at Dubare in Kodagu district as the concerned company- Jungle Lodges and Resorts Limited- is owned and controlled by the Karnataka Tourism Development Corporation.

Also Read - 'No Illegality': Calcutta High Court Upholds State Govt's Door Step Ration Delivery Scheme

2. Karnataka High Court Directs Govt To Immediately Start Construction Of Organ Transplantation Institute In Bengaluru

Case Title: Dr. R. Chandrashekara v. State Of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 2

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the State Government to immediately start construction of Gastroenterology Science & Organ Transplantation Institute in Bengaluru and complete the same in a time bound manner. It will be the first hospital only for organ transplant in the country. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition filed by Dr. R. Chandrashekara and Dr. B. Rudrappa, pending which the construction of the hospital had been put on hold.

3. 'No Prohibition On Ordering DNA Test In Deserving Cases,Does Not Amount To Self-Incrimination Under Article 20(3)': Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Malappa @Malingaraya v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 3

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a rape accused seeking to quash the DNA report which confirmed him to be the biological father of a child born to the victim of sexual assault. Justice HP Sandesh dismissed the petition filed by accused Mallapa @Malingarya. The Court said, "It is clear that ordering for DNA itself should not be as a matter of routine but wherein deserving cases, the Court can direct for DNA test and there is no prohibition for ordering DNA test and the same is subject to each facts and circumstances of the case."

4.Enforcement Directorate May Probe PMLA Cases Throughout India, Including J&K: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Anish Mohammed Rawther v. The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 4

The Karnataka High Court has said that the Enforcement Directorate can probe a case under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, throughout India, including the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "Sub-section (2) of section 1 of the (PML) Act reads "It extends to the whole of India. Thus, keeping the RPC (Ranbir Penal Code) offences away from the Act would offend the very parliamentary intent of extending this Act "to the whole of India."

5.'Adverse Possession' Of Property vs 'Permissive Possession': Karnataka High Court Explains

Case Title: Chepudira Madaiah v. Mallengada Chengappa

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 5

The Karnataka High Court has said a person will not acquire adverse possession by simply remaining in permissive possession, for however long it may be. Dr. Justice HB Prabhakara Sastry said, "Article 65 of the Limitation Act presupposes that the limitation starts only if the defendants prove the factum of adverse possession affirmatively from a particular time."

6. Section 427 CrPC -Sentence Of Escaped Life Convict Will Not Run Concurrently : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Bandenawaj v. The State Of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 6

The Karnataka High Court has said that a life convict on being sentenced for escaping from prison on grant of parole leave, cannot claim that his subsequent sentence, less severe in nature, runs concurrently with the prison term he was undergoing. The Court held that an escaped convict cannot seek the benefit of Section 427(2) CrPC, which says that the subsequent sentence of a person already undergoing imprisonment will run concurrently.

7. Karnataka High Court Upholds GST & Central Excise Duty On Tobacco; Says 'Articles 246 & 246A Can Be Simultaneously Exercised'

Case Title: M/s.V.S.Products v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 7

The Karnataka High Court upheld the notification dated July 6, 2019 issued by the Union of India by which Central Excise Duty has been levied on tobacco and tobacco products. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav said, "It needs to be kept in mind that taxation is not merely a source of raising revenue but is also recognised by the fiscal tool to achieve fiscal and social objective."

8. Live Streaming Of Court Proceedings: Karnataka High Court Directs State To Provide Requisite Infra At Subordinate Courts

Case Title: Dilraj Rohit Sequeira v. Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 8

The Karnataka High Court directed the State government to expeditiously consider and resolve the infrastructure requirements at district courts in Karnataka, for effective implementation of the Live streaming rules of judicial proceedings.

9. Won't Give Effect To Google Play Billing Policy Clarification Till Oct 31 : Google Tells Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Google India Private Limited v. Competition Commission Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 9

The Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of the petition filed by Google India challenging an order of the Competition Commission of India rejecting its request for access to the identity of app developers/ start-ups allegedly suffering harm on account of Google Play store payments policy 2020. A single-judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit took on record the joint memo filed by the parties–Google, Competition Commission of India and Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF).

10. S. 482 CrPC| Can't Appreciate Evidence In Quashing Petition: Karnataka High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Pradeep Moparthy v. State Of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 10

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a Court hearing a petition for quashing of FIR/ charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC cannot appreciate evidence as the same lies within the domain of the trial Court. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "It is a settled principle that while deciding the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, evidence cannot be appreciated as it lies within the domain of the Trial Court."

11. Person Working At Mutt Can't Claim 'Tenancy Rights' Over Appurtenant Land Granted For Residential Use: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sr Admar Mutt v. Yashoda

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 11

The Karnataka High Court has held that a cook, working for the Sr Admar Mutt in Udupi district, cannot claim occupancy over appurtenant land which was granted to him by the Mutt for residential use. A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice P Krishna Bhatt allowed the appeal filed by the Mutt challenging the single judge bench order dated April 21, 2011, by which it had confirmed the Land tribunal order granting occupancy to the cook.

12. CID Not Authorized To File Charge Sheet, Proceedings Vitiated: Karnataka High Court Upholds Seer's Acquittal

Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shree Shree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 12

The Karnataka High Court has upheld a 2016 order of the trial court by which it discharged/ acquitted Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji, pontiff of the Shree Ramachandrapura Math, accused in a rape case. Justice V. Srishananda noted that the charge sheet in the matter was not filed by the authorized person. It thus observed, "If the charge sheet is filed by a person who is not the authorised person to file a final report as is contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, entire proceedings would definitely stand vitiated. Consequently, the further proceedings in pursuance of the said charge sheet is to be declared as non est."

13. Essential Commodities Act: Karnataka HC Upholds State's Prerogative To Impose Conditions For Grant Of Authorization/Compassionate Appointment.

Case Title: Manmohankumar V.C v. The State Of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 13

The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the state government's power and prerogative to impose conditions such as restriction of 'age' and 'pass in 10th Standard' while considering the applications for grant of compassionate authorization under the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order. Justice P S Dinesh Kumar said, "The State Government's power and prerogative to impose conditions while considering the applications for grant of authorisation is upheld."

14. Karnataka HC Directs State Mental Health Authority To Provide Proper Medical Treatment To Mentally Ill Inmates At Destitute Centres, Asylums, Etc.

Case Title: The Member Secretary v. Chief Secretary, Govt of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 14

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Mental Health Authority to take appropriate and necessary steps for providing proper medical treatment to the mentally ill inmates of rehabilitation centres, aged homes, destitute centres, reception centres, asylums, orphanages centres, etc.

15. The Marriage Is Totally Dead': KarnatakaHigh Court Grants Divorce To Couple Living Separately Since 21 Yrs

Case Title: K Mallikarjuna v. H A Sudha Mallikarjuna

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 15

Observing that "the marriage is totally dead" and that nothing would be gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist, the Karnataka High Court recently granted divorce to a couple who lived separately for a period of 21 years. A division bench of

Justice B Veerapa and Justice K S Hemalekha said, "Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time of more than 21 years and one of them presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down."

16. Medical Negligence Cases RecklesslyLaunched': Karnataka High Court Bats For Legal Protection Of Doctors AgainstBonafide Errors

Case Title: Dr Ganesh Nayak v. V Shamanna

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 16

The Karnataka High Court has suggested that medical professionals should be protected from legal action just like public servants are protected against bonafide errors in their action. Justice Krishna S Dixit expressed that more often than not, the cases of medical negligence are launched recklessly by the patients and their relatives. The court said "Compensation culture'' which obtains in other jurisdictions is gradually gaining entry to the field of medical services in our society affecting a healthy relationship of doctor & patient.

17. Payment Of Wages Act Is Beneficial Piece Of Legislation,Weaker Section Can't Be Denied Legal Entitlement On Technicalities: KarnatakaHC

Case Title: Parvathamma v. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 17

The Karnataka High Court recently observed that Payment of Wages Act is a beneficial piece of enactment. The workmen cannot be denied the legal entitlement by applying technicalities while adjudicating the claim application. Justice Jyoti Mulimani thus quashed the order dated January 28, 2015 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner rejecting the claim petition filed by one Parvathamma, who worked as a watcher with the Department of Forest and Environment Department, merely because her signature was missing on the claim application.

18. Greatest Agony Of Parent Is To Lose Child During Lifetime': Karnataka HC Enhances Compensation For Death Of 2YrsOld In Motor Accident

Case Title: Suresh v. D Ramesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 18

Observing that the amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child, the Karnataka High Court recently enhanced the compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) to a couple who lost their 2-year old daughter in an accident. Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar modified the order dated August 16, 2016, by which MACT had awarded a compensation of Rs 3.50 lakh to the petitioners.

19. Borrower Can't Claim Loan MoratoriumAs A Right Based On RBI's Circular Of March 2020 : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: The Governor Reserve Bank Of India v. Velankani Information Systems Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 19.

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the directions issued to Reserve Bank of India by a single judge bench of the High Court directing it to monitor the implementation of Covid-19 package announced on March 27, 20202, by which RBI had allowed Banks to declare a three-month moratorium on all term loans, outstanding as on March 1, 2020. The High Court also held that the RBI's circular was a guideline and cannot be construed as a mandatory requirement, creating a right in favour of a borrower to avail loan moratorium.

20. Not Arraigning Company As Accused Would Not VitiateProceedings Initiated Against Occupier Under Factories Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Yashihirao Horinouchi v. The Deputy Director Of Factories

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 20

The Karnataka High Court recently held that non-arraigning of the Company as an accused would not vitiate the proceedings initiated under the Factories Act, against the occupier of the factory. Justice M. Nagaprasanna in its order dated December 6, 2021 observed, "Section 2(n) of the Factories Act and its proviso makes it clear that one of the Directors of the company would be responsible for proper implementation of the provisions of the Act. This ensures that more care is taken for the maintenance of the factory and various safety measures prescribed under the Act, so that the health, welfare and safety of the workers are not neglected. It is the occupier who would become responsible for all such acts of a factory."

21.Cricket Match Fixing Does Not Amount To Offence OfCheating Under Section 420 IPC: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against KPLPlayers

Case Title: Abrar Kazi v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 21

The Karnataka High Court has said that cricket match fixing does not amount to the offence of cheating and therefore the offence under Section 420 IPC cannot be invoked against the alleged offenders. A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "It is true that if a player indulges in match fixing, a general feeling will arise that he has cheated the lovers of the game. But, this general feeling does not give rise to an offence".

22. Karnataka HC Cancels Bail Of Lecturer Accused Of SexuallyAssaulting Minor; Says Trial Court Obligated To Hear Complainant U/s 439(1A)CrPC

Case Title: Lalitha v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 22

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order granting bail to a lecturer, accused of sexually assaulting a minor student of his college, as the trial court failed to given an opportunity to the complainant/victim of being heard before passing the order. Justice H P Sandesh set aside the order dated August 10, 2021 granting bail to Gururaj L, and directed that the accused be arrested and commit him to custody under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.

23. Cause Fulfilled': Karnataka High CourtCloses Suo Moto Case For Ensuring Elections To Municipal Bodies

Case Title: High Court Of Karnataka v. The State Of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 23

The Karnataka High Court on Friday closed its suo moto case, registered for ensuring that elections are conducted to the Corporations/Municipalities in the State in order to comply with the mandate of Article 243-U(3) of the Constitution. The development ensued after the State Election Commission informed the Court that all the elections to the Local Bodies and the Municipalities in the State have been completed by 30.12.2021, except the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Vijayapura Municipal Corporation regarding whom the matter is pending before the Apex Court.

24. Obtaining Of False Caste Certificate By Non-SC Persons Not Offence Under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act : Karnataka High Court

Case Title : Yamuna and another versus The State

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 24

The Karnataka High Court has held that if persons not belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe obtains a false caste certificate, they cannot be prosecuted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

25. Breaching Promise To Marry Will Not Amount To Offence Of Cheating Under IPC : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Venkatesh And State of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 25

The Karnataka High Court while quashing the FIR registered against a man and his family has reiterated that not abiding with the promise of marriage will not amount to the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. A single-judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the petition filed by Venkatesh and others said "Absolutely there is no ingredient stated by her in order to show that there is a criminal intention of cheating by petitioner No.1 and thereby, he has promised to marry her but has broken his promise."

26. Child's Educational Prospects Should Not Be Affected By Estrangement Between Parents: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Amrusha Das v. State Of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 26

The Karnataka High Court has said that estrangement between a couple should not affect their child's education prospects. Justice Krishna S Dixit thus allowed the petition filed by a mother and her 8-year old daughter, seeking directions to a school in Bengaluru to issue her Transfer certificate.

27. Further Investigation U/s 173(8) CrPC Must Always Relate To Incidents Of Crime For Which Charge Sheet Is Filed: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 27

The Karnataka High Court has said that further investigation conducted under Section 173(8) of CrPC must always relate to the incident of alleged crime in respect of which the charge sheet has been filed already. It is not reinvestigation. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while quashing two cases registered under the NDPS Act, against party organiser Virendra Khanna said, "Further investigation is always in accordance with Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C,with a view to collecting further evidence supplemental to the evidence already on record. It is not reinvestigation."

28. Father Can't File Habeas Corpus Petition To Seek Child's Custody From Mother: Karnataka High Court Imposes 50K Cost

Case Title: Gaurav Raj Jain V. State Of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 28

Observing that "Litigants and members of the Bar appear to have not understood the importance and seriousness of this extraordinary writ of Habeas Corpus," the Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a father seeking directions to produce his 2 year old girl before the court, who is in safe custody of her mother. A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice M G Uma while dismissing the petition filed by Gaurav Raj Jain, imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on him, stating that no ground to allow the writ petition is made out and (petitioner) has abused the judicial process. The amount is payable within a month to the Police Welfare Fund.

29. Motor Accident| Courts Can Award Compensation Higher Than What Is Claimed: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Basavaraj v. Umesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 29

Coming to the aid of a 14-year old (at the time) who suffered permanent disability to his pelvic region in an accident, the Karnataka High Court recently modified the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, awarding compensation of Rs 50,000 under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and increased it to Rs 10 lakhs.

A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "Since the marriage prospect of the claimant is wiped out, the claimant is deprived of all the pleasure and benefits of married life. The mental trauma of having to remain single, and answering the curious questions posed by the people around throughout life, for not getting married, are some of the things not easy to cope with. The trauma is going to be perennial and unabated."

30. Mere Pasting Of Circular For Interest Rate Reduction By Bank On Its Notice Board Does Not Mean It Is Communicated To Customers: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. Shekar B S

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 30

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) challenging an order of the Single judge by which it was directed to grant benefit of reduction of interest rate on Home loan to a customer from the date of issuance of the circular for reduction, instead of when the customer applied for seeking reduction. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj was informed by the bank that the circular dated June 30, 2010 was pasted on the notice board of the bank and as such there was due communication to the customers of the bank.

31.Anticipatory Bail Plea Not Maintainable Once Accused Enters Appearance, Either Personally Or Through Counsel: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Ramesh v. State Through Dy RFO

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 31

The Karnataka High Court has said that once an accused has appeared before the court, either personally or through his counsel, he cannot seek anticipatory bail by invoking section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Justice H P Sandesh thus dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by one Ramesh and granted him liberty to approach the Trial Court by filing the necessary application for recalling the warrant issued against him.

32. Being Govt Employee Not A Ground For Grant Of Bail In Rape Case: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Srinivas Murthy H.N. And State Of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 32

The Karnataka High court has said that being a government employee is no ground to grant bail to an accused alleged of committing rape. Justice H P Sandesh while dismissing the petition filed by one Srinivas Murthy H.N. said "The fact that petitioner is a Government employee is not a ground to enlarge him on bail, when the serious offence of rape is alleged against the petitioner."

33. COFEPOSA Act| Subjective Satisfaction Of Detaining Authority Can't Be Challenged Except On Grounds Of Malafide: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mrs Kiran Iccha Kaur Bhasin And Director-General

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 33

The Karnataka High Court has held that grounds on which subjective satisfaction is based while passing a detention order by the authority under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), cannot be challenged in a court of law, except on the grounds of malafides. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M G S Kamal while dismissing a petition filed by the daughter of a detenu Gurmeet Singh Kohli said, "It is well settled in law that the reasonableness of satisfaction of detaining authority cannot be questioned in a court of law, for the reason that satisfaction of detaining authority to which Section 3(1)(a) of the Act refers to be subjective satisfaction of the Authority."

34. Karnataka High Court Reduces Sentence Of KSRTC Employee Convicted For Rash Driving, Endangering Life Of Others

Case Title: Devendrappa H v. The State

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 34

Granting relief to a bus driver employed with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and convicted for the offence of rash driving, the Karnataka High Court recently reduced his sentence of two months simple imprisonment and confined it to fine only. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while granting relief to petitioner Devendrappa H also said, "The sentence of conviction shall not affect his career and shall not be treated as a remark for his employment with KSRTC."

35. S. 63 Of Copyright Act Is Cognizable Offence, Police Can Register FIR On Receipt Of Complaint: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ANI Technologies Private Limited v. State Of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 35

The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 63 of the Copyright Act, which prescribes a punishment of minimum 6 months that may extend to 3 years imprisonment, is a cognizable offence and police can register an First Information Report, on receipt of a complaint. Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "Merely because a separate provision under Section 64 of the Act which depicts power of search and seizure by the Police is also found in the statute, it does not take away cognizability of the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act."

36. Applicant Seeking Relief U/S 5 Limitation Act Must 'Explain Delay For Every Day' That Elapses Beyond Prescribed Period: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Surrayya Parveen @ Annapoorna v. Labour Officer Cum Minimum Wages Enquiry Authority

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 36

The Karnataka High Court has said that it is the duty of the applicant seeking relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act. In the absence of sufficient cause, the Court of the Authority has no power to extend the time Justice Jyoti Mulimani said, "I can say only this much that the law of limitation is not an equitable statute. It is a statute of repose."The court accordingly rejected a petition filed by one Surrayya Parveen challenging the order passed by the Labour Officer, rejecting her claim petition on the ground of delay of 8 years.

37. Petitioner Surrendered His Seat Before Last Counselling & Not Mid-Course, Institute Can't Recover Entire Course Fees: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr Vaibhav Khosla v. State of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 37

The Karnataka High Court has said that educational institutions have only a right to recover the prescribed fee for one semester/year and not recover the entire course fees from a candidate who surrenders his seat. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M G S Kamal relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy Of Education & Anr. v. State Of Karnataka & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 697 said, "It is evident that the institution has only a right to recover the prescribed fee for one semester/year."

38. 'Daring Ride On Court': Karnataka HC Dismisses 11 Contempt Petitions Filed Against Its Registrar General With ₹11 Lakh Cost

Case Title: Jeetendra Kumar Rajan v. T. G. Shivashankare Gowda

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 38

Observing that "Nobody can be permitted to tarnish the image of the temple of justice," the Karnataka High Court has dismissed 11 contempt petitions filed by one Jeetendra Kumar Rajan seeking action against the High Court Registrar General. A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice M G Uma further observed that no leniency can be shown when it comes to maintaining the the majesty of the Court and hence, imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on each petition, totaling to Rs 11 lakh.

39. Sex CD Scandal: Karnataka HC Quashes Proceedings Initiated Against Bengaluru Police Commissioner Kamal Pant For Delay In Registering FIR

Case Title: Kamal Pant v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.21264 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 39

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against Bengaluru Police Commissioner Kamal Pant and two other police officers, for alleged commission of an offence under Section 166A IPC which pertains to disobedience of law by a public servant. It includes refusal of a Police officer to record any information given to him under Section 154(1) CrPC in relation to cognizable offences pertaining to sexual harassment.

40. S.50 NDPS Act | Personal Search Conducted In Presence Of ACP Not Bad Merely Because He Belongs To Police Dept: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Joswin Lobo v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.6916/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 40

The Karnataka High Court has said there is no bar on a police officer, who is a gazetted officer, on carrying out a personal search to draw a mahazar, on an accused/ suspect under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh said, "Assistant Commissioner of Police is also a Gazetted Officer...Search by the officer of the said department is not a bar and no law prescribes that he (suspect/accused) should be subjected to the personal search in the presence of the Gazetted Officer not belonging to the particular department."

41. Probationer In Police Dept Can't Be Terminated On Grounds Of Misconduct Sans Inquiry Under Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules:High Court

Case Title: Ramesh Malli v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Wireless Case No: W.P. No. 104944/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 41

The Karnataka High Court has said that a probationer in the Karnataka police department cannot be terminated on the grounds of misconduct without carrying out an inquiry under the Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977. A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "It is true that the petitioner has no right to hold the post and he can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the probationary period for general unsuitability, but a probationer cannot be discharged imputing allegations amounting to misconduct. If any misconduct is alleged, then enquiry under Rule 7 of '1977 Rules' is necessary."

42. Hijab Ban : Karnataka High Court Uploads Interim Order Banning Religious Dress In Classrooms In Colleges Where Uniform Is Prescribed

Case Title: Resham & Anr v. State of Karnataka

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 42

The Karnataka High Court on Friday uploaded the interim order passed in the petitions challenging Hijab ban in colleges in the state. The Court has requested the State to re-open the educational institutions at the earliest and has restrained students from wearing any sort of religious clothes in classrooms, regardless of their faith, while the matter is pending hearing. The interim order is only applicable to those institutions which have prescribed a uniform dress code.

43. Building Owner Can Claim GST Exemption If Residential Premises Leased Out Are Used As Hostel: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish v. Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling Karnataka Case No: W.P. No.14891 OF 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 43

The Karnataka High Court has held that an owner of a building can claim tax exemption under the Goods and Services Act (GST) if the residential premises leased out are used as a hostel to house students and working professionals. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M I Arun while allowing the petition filed by one Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish said, "The service provided by the petitioner i.e., leasing out residential premises as hostel to students and working professionals is covered under Entry 13 of Notification No.9/2017 dated 28.09.2017 namely 'Services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence' issued under the Act. The petitioner is held to be entitled to benefit of exemption notification."

44. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Appeal Filed By IIM-B Against Single Judge Order Setting Aside Expulsion Of 9 Students Caught For Exam Malpractice

Case Title: Indian Institute of Management Bangalore v. Daivanti Thakare Case No: WA 91/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 44

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Indian Institute of Management (Bangalore), challenging an order of the Single Judge bench by which it had set aside the order of the Institute, expelling nine students caught for exam malpractice. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and as such, do not consider it to be a necessary case for interference. The writ appeal is dismissed."

45. Condition To Surrender Property Free Of Cost For Road Widening To Sanction Building Plan Violates Article 300A: Karnataka HC Quashes BBMP Circular

Case Title: Dr Arun Kumar B C v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.9408/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 45

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the circular issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), dated 29.2.2016 by which it directed property owners to relinquish the properties earmarked for road widening in the master plan, free of cost as a condition precedent for processing their applications for sanctioning of building plans.

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar said, "I am of the considered view that the impugned endorsements issued by the respondent - BBMP requiring the petitioners to relinquish the properties in question free of cost as a condition precedent for processing their applications for sanctioning of building plans is without authority of law and the same violate Article 300A of the Constitution of India."

46.Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement For Accepting ₹50 Bribe Disproportionate: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M.S. Kadkol v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.110912 of 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 46

Almost 18 years after an employee of the State government was subjected to compulsory retirement for accepting a bribe of Rs. 50, the Karnataka High Court recently held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence. It thus set aside the order of compulsory retirement issued in the year 2004.

A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde sitting at Dharwad partly allowed the petition filed by M.S. Kadkol. It confirmed the guilt of the petitioner however, set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order of punishment on the petitioner.

47. Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Law Banning Online Gaming With Stakes

Case Title: All India Gaming Federation v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 18703/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 47

The Karnataka High Court on Monday held certain provisions of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021, by which the state government has banned online games with stakes to be ultra vires to the Constitution and struck them down. The Act provides maximum imprisonment of three years and penalty up to Rs. 1 lakh for violation of the provisions. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Krishna S Dixit said "In the above circumstances these writ petitions succeed. The Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021 to the extent provisions we have said, not the entire act is struck down is declared to be ultra vires to the constitution and struck down."

48. LLB : Karnataka High Court Allows KSLU To Hold Exams For 3 Year Course; Sets Aside Single Bench Order Which Quashed Exam Notification

Case Title: Karnataka State Law University v. Mahantesh Case No: WA 100319/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 48

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday set aside the single judge bench order dated on December 14, 2021, by which the court had quashed the notification issued by Karnataka State Law University, by which it was to conduct offline examinations for the students of 2nd and 4th semester of three year LLB course. A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde while allowing the intra-court appeal filed by Karnataka State Law University said, "In the best interest of legal education. The following order, writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 14/12/2021 passed in writ petition no 104008/2021, is set aside."

49. If Advocate Of Accused In Custody Fails To Appear, Trial Court Bound To Appoint Legal Aid Advocate: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Somashekara @ Soma v. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 328/2018

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 49

The Karnataka High Court has said that if an advocate representing the accused who is in custody fails to appear before the court, the trial court is bound to appoint a legal aid advocate to defend the accused. A single judge bench of Justice K.S.Mudagal said, "Article 39A of the Constitution of India casts duty on the state not to deny access to justice on the ground of economic or other disabilities. To achieve the object of Article 39A of the Constitution, the Legal Services Authority Act has been enacted. Under the said Act, Legal Services Authorities are constituted right from national level to taluk level. The district courts have the District Legal Services Authority and a panel of advocates for rendering legal aid to the unaffordable as contemplated under Section 304 of Cr.P.C."

50. Granted Bail For Heinous Offence Before Investigation Concluded: Karnataka HC Directs Addl Session Judge To Undergo Training, Learn Judicial Discretion

Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. State By Periyapatana Police Station Case No: Criminal Petition No.4234/2021

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 50

The Karnataka High Court has directed its Registry to post an Additional Session Judge, Mysuru, for training in the Judicial Academy in order to make him learn "judicial discretion", in the interest of the institution and to protect the interest of seekers of justice. A single judge bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh said, "The Registry is directed to seek appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice to post the concerned Judicial Officer to the Judicial Academy for training with regard to applying judicious thought process while exercising judicial discretion before granting bail in heinous offences."

51: No Vicarious Liability For Criminal Offences In Absence Of Statute: Karnataka HC Quashes Defamation Case Against MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar

Case Title: Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. K.Koteswar Rao Case No: Criminal Petition No.101127 Of 2015

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 51

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the defamation proceedings against Member of Parliament, Rajeev Chandrashekhar, initiated in the year 2012, when he was the Managing Director of Suvarna News 24/7 Kannada Television Channel. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the quashing petition filed by Chandrashekhar said "The principle of vicarious liability is not applicable to criminal offences in the absence of any provision laid down in the statute. The Managing Director thus cannot be held to be vicariously liable for the acts committed by the Company or its employees merely because he happens to be the Managing Director of the TV news channel."

52. Properties Given As Dowry To Be Included In Partition Suit Instituted By Daughter Under Hindu Succession Act:Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Hemalatha v. Venkatesh Case No: Writ Petition No.39982 Of 2018

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 52

The Karnataka High Court has held that the properties which had been given as dowry or otherwise at the time of marriage of the daughter, would be amenable for partition and the same will have to be included in a suit for partition, instituted by the daughter.

A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "In a suit for partition, the properties which had been given as dowry or otherwise at the time of marriage of the daughter plaintiff, claiming a right of partition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, would be amenable for partition and the same would have to be included in a suit for partition."

53. Maintenance Awarded To Wife Under Domestic Violence Act Cannot Be Enhanced U/S 127 CrPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Shivanand S/O Karabasappa Gurannavar v. Basavva @ Laxmi W/O Shivanand Gurannavar Case No: Criminal Petition No.101378/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 53

The Karnataka High Court has held that maintenance awarded to an estranged wife under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, cannot be enhanced on an application made by her under section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, "A maintenance that is awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. can be varied in an application filed under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. What is sine qua-non is that an order of maintenance should precede a petition under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., failing which, a petition under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance is not available."

54. Central Govt Can't Upset Tenders On Baseless Allegations Made By Unsuccessful Bidders: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S SAPL-GCC JV v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.11165 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 54

The Karnataka High Court has observed that the decision of awarding tenders of gigantic value, cannot be readily upset by the Central Government on some baseless allegation being made by the unsuccessful bidders. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit, set aside the order dated 15.04.2021, passed by the Central government by which it had constituted a Committee to conduct a detailed investigation into allegation of some irregularities perpetrated in awarding tender to M/S SAPL-GCC JV, by the New Mangalore Port Trust.

55. Prenatal Sex Determination | Magistrate Can't Take Cognizance Of Complaint Unless Filed By 'Appropriate Authority' Notified By Govt: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Dhondiba Anna Jadhav v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.101392/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 55

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the under section 28 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, a Magistrate court cannot take cognizance of a complaint except it being registered by an 'Appropriate Authority' notified by the Central or the State government. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Dhondiba Anna Jadhav and others who run Sri Dhondida Anna Jadhav Memorial Hospital at Gokak, based on a complaint filed by the Taluka Health Officer.

56. Commercial Tax Office One Of The Hubs Of Corruption' :Karnataka High Court Confirms Conviction Of A Tax Officer Charged Under PC Act

Case Title: Padmanabha v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal 200043/2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 56

Observing that, "corruption is a distinct type of offence. It is like cancer to society. It eats the social and economical health every second resulting in unimaginable consequences," the Karnataka High Court recently confirmed the conviction handed down to a Commercial Tax officer under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda dismissed the appeal filed by accused Padmanabha challenging an order of the special court dated April 6, 2015, by which it sentenced the accused to 2 and half years of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh under section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to four years simple imprisonment under section 13 (1) (d) of the Act.

57. Overseas Citizens Of India Can Seek Divorce Before Indian Courts Against OCI Partner : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Michael Graham Prince v. Mrs. Nisha Misra Case No: Writ Petition No.15356 Of 2020

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 57

The Karnataka High Court has held that Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) cardholders can seek matrimonial reliefs before appropriate courts in India, against the estranged partner who is also an OCI cardholder. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "Subsection 2 of section 7B of the Citizenship Act, excludes certain rights from being granted to the OCI Cardholders. However, this exclusion does not cover the right to seek matrimonial reliefs at the hands of the native Courts. The subject statutory notifications do not in so many words vest in them such a right to litigate may be true; but, that per se does not divest them of such a right which otherwise avails even to the OCI Cardholders."

58. Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Permission Granted By Magistrate To Proceed With Investigation Against Tejasvi Surya

Case Title: L.S. Tejasvi Surya v. State Of Karnataka Case no: Criminal Petition No.9961/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 58

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the permission granted by a magistrate court to proceed with the investigation against Member of Parliament, L S Tejasvi Surya, under provisions of the Representation of People Act. A single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav, while relegating the matter back to the magistrate court for fresh consideration said, "In accordance with the mandate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, the informant is to be referred to the Magistrate which is preceded by the officer in-charge of the police station having made out necessary entry of the substance of the information in the book kept as mandated under Section 155. The Magistrate is to examine the informant and the complaint given by him and then proceed further."

59. Karnataka High Court Issues Directions To Ensure Victim Is Given Notice Of All Bail Proceedings Concerning POCSO Cases

Case Title: Bibi Ayesha Khanum v. Union Of India Case No: Writ Petition No.2318 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 59

The Karnataka High Court recently issued directions for the effective implementation of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020, particularly in cases where the accused were to move the Court for grant of bail. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj disposing of a public interest litigation filed by a mother of a survivor, said, "None can have any doubt that offences under the POCSO Act are heinous in nature and are more often than not committed by depraved persons."

60. Civil Court Not Barred By Education Act To Hear Recovery Suit Filed By Teacher 'Discharged' From Service Sans Order On Her Claim:Karnataka HC

Case Title: Rabiya Abdul Hamid Bepari v. The Chairman, School Managing Committee, Volkart Academy Case no: R.F.A.NO.100061/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 60

The Karnataka High Court has held that a civil court has jurisdiction to hear and decide on a suit filed by a teacher claiming arrears in salary, if she is discharged from her duties on account of closure of the school and no order is passed by the school management on her claims seeking arrears in salary. A Division bench of Dr.Justice H.B.Prabhakara Sastry and Justice S. Rachaiah recently set aside the order dated November 9, 2020 passed by the civil court by which it had rejected the plaint filed by an Urdu teacher, on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

61. Gauri Lankesh Murder: Karnataka High Court Directs Jail Superintendent To Provide Treatment To Accused In Private Hospital

Case Title: K T Naveen Kumar And The State of Karnataka Case no: Criminal Petition 10232/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 61

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Superintendent of Jail to shift and provided treatment to K T Naveen Kumar, an accused in the journalist Gauri Lankesh murder case, in a private hospital. A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the petition, set aside the order of Special Court dated December 31, 2021 and said, "The Superintendent of jail is directed to provide treatment to the petitioner in the Columbia Asia hospital HSR Road, Bengaluru which is situated 7.7 kms from Parappana Agrahara Jail. The petitioner is also directed to bear the entire medical expenditures which will be charged by the hospital authority. The jail Superintendent is directed to provide sufficient security forces during the treatment and shifting the petitioner to the hospital and back."

62. Karnataka High Court Directs Mandya University To Continue Guest Lecturers For Another Academic Year Until Recruitment Of Full-Time Lecturers

Case Title: Dr S Srinivasa v. Mandya University Case No: WA 105/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 62

The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Mandya University to continue the services of guest lecturers for another academic year, until the recruitment of full time lecturers as initiated by the University is completed. A Division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj while allowing an intra-court appeal filed by Dr S Srinivasa and others challenging the order of the single judge bench dated December 21, 2021, said, "The Guest Lecturers now working shall be entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated 7.10.2021 for extension of service by one more academic year until the recruitment of lecturers is completed."

63. AO Can't Take Advantage Of Assessee's Ignorance To Collect More Tax: Karnataka High Court Condones Delay Of 6 Years In Filing Revised ITR

Case Title: Devendra Pai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Case No.: Writ Petition No. 52305/2018 (T-IT)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 63

A bench of Karnataka High Court consisting of Justice Sunil S.Yadav has condoned the delay of 6 years in filing revised Income Tax Return (ITR). A single judge bench of Justice Sunil S.Yadav has observed that the intention of Circular No.014 (XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 was not that tax due should not be charged or that any favour should be shown to anybody in the matter of assessment, or where investigations are called for, they should not be made. Whatever the legitimate tax it must be assessed and must be collected. The purpose of the circular is merely to emphasise that the tax officer should not take advantage of an assessee's ignorance to collect more tax out of him than is legitimately due from him.

64. SC /ST Prevention Of Atrocities Act Is Prospective In Nature, Act Committed Prior To Its Enactment Not An Offence: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr Shantha Raj T R v. The State By Sub Inspector of Police Case No: Criminal Petition 7980/2014

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 64

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, is prospective in nature and alleged acts committed before its enactment cannot be an offence. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "The offences allegedly been committed ago i.e., on 18.10.1975; complaint was filed with inordinate delay with no plausible explanation for the same. Ordinarily, the stale claims would not be entertained."

65. District Magistrate Empowered To Attach Property, Not Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s. Prashanthi Affiliates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No.921/2012

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 65

The Karnataka High Court has held that the District Magistrate is empowered to attach the property and not the Commissioner of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner (BBMP). The single bench of Justice S.P.Sandesh has observed that the Commissioner of BBMP, has no authority to attach the property as ordered by the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court and it ought to be enforced under Section 421(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, through the collector of the District.

66. 'John Doe' Injunction Order To Protect Property Possession Can Be Passed If There Is Threat From Unknown Persons : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Meera Ajith v. John Doe Alias Ashok Kumar Case No: MFA 806/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 66

The Karnataka High Court has passed an order of temporary injunction restraining unknown persons (also known as John Doe order) from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property owned by a woman in Bengaluru. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while hearing an appeal filed by one Meera Ajith, said, "Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) CPC states that an order of temporary injunction may be granted against any party to the suit. According to Clauses (b) & (c), injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaint must disclose the names and identity of the parties. But in a situation as has been made out in this case, if there is a threat to the possession of the plaintiff by unknown person/s, is it possible to say that injunction cannot be granted. I do not think that injunction can be denied if circumstances are as such that there is a serious threat to the possession of the plaintiff by unknown persons."

67. Classic Case Of Negligence': Karnataka High Court Orders Sensitization Of Medical Officers Examining Minor Victims Of Sexual Assault

Case Title: Thippeswamy @ Thipeshi v. State By Jagalur P.S Case No: Criminal Petition No.9980/2021

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 67

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Principal Secretary, Health Department to issue a circular and a direction to all Medical officers working in the state, prescribing their duties and responsibilities towards a child victim of sexual assault, who is produced before them.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh also directed the Principal Secretary to take action against a doctor working in the Taluk Government Hospital, Jagalur, Davanagere District, who conducted medical examination of the victim in this case and issued a Sexual Assault certificate in this case, without giving any opinion.

68. Pregnancy May Lead To Depression: Karnataka High Court Permits Minor Rape Victim To Terminate 22.5 Weeks Old Foetus

Case Title: Kumari M. v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.100875/2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 68

The Karnataka High Court recently permitted a minor rape victim to terminate her 22 weeks 3 days old pregnancy, upon noting that continuation of the same can develop anxiety, which could lead to depression effecting her mental health. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "I am of the opinion that, it would be in the interest of the petitioner-victim, that the pregnancy is terminated." Following which it directed the District Civil hospital (Belagavi) to medically terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner by adopting all required safety considerations for such a procedure.

69. KSLU 3 Yrs LLB Students In Second & Fourth Semesters To Get Two Chances To Appear In Exams: High Court Orders

Case Title: Chiranjeevi M. Kulkarni v. Karnataka State Law University Case No: Writ Petition No.100869/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 69

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Law University to conduct offline examinations for students of 3 years LLB Course, studying in the 2nd and 4th semester, twice⁠— once from March 7 onwards and next from May 16 onwards. The direction has been passed as a one time measure, only for this academic year taking into account the various litigations as also the Covid-19 Pandemic.

70. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Appeal Filed By 10 Accused Seeking Default Bail In Gauri Lankesh Murder Case

Case Title: Amol Kale v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal No.537/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 70

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by 10 accused allegedly involved in the murder case of journalist Gauri Lankesh, challenging an order rejecting their application for default bail by the special court.

A single judge of Justice K.S.Mudagal while dismissing the appeal filed by prime accused Amole Kale and others said, "The attack on the impugned order was that the charge sheet was not filed on 23-11-2018, but that was ante-dated. The trial Court rejected the said contentions. The appellants did not seek any administrative action against the Ministerial officer who allegedly interpolated the date 23-11-2018 nor the presiding officer on the ground of judicial impropriety. Under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 illustration (e) there is presumption that judicial acts or official acts have been regularly performed. Except for scandalising the office staff and the Judge, nothing was done to rebut the said presumption."

71. His Future Can't Be Put To Jeopardy': Karnataka HC Permits 19 Yrs Old Rape Accused In Judicial Custody To Physically Appear For Annual Exams

Case Title: Darshan And State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition/ 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 71

The Karnataka High Court recently permitted a 19-years old, who is in judicial custody in connection with the rape of a minor girl, to appear for his annual examination by physically attending the examination centre.

Justice V Srishananda while disposing of the petition filed by the accused said, "Just because, the case is pending against the petitioner herein, which is being investigated in Crime No.8/2022, his future cannot be put to jeopardy."

72. Karnataka High Court Quashes 8 Year Old Case Against BSP Chief Mayavathi

Case Title: Kum. Mayavathi v State of Karnataka Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7626/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 72

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an eight year old criminal case pending against Mayavathi, Former Chief Minister & President Of Bahujan Samaj Party and Sathish Chandra Mishra National General Secretary & Member of Parliament, Bahujan Samaj Party.

A single Judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said "In view of the explanation of the petitioners having been accepted by the Election Commission of India, the continuance of the present proceedings would not secure the ends of justice."

73. Karnataka High Court Orders GST Refund of Rs. 27 Crores Illegally Collected from Swiggy

Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. M/s Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Case no: W.A. No.1274 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 73

The Karnataka High Court has ordered the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department to refund Rs. 27 crore, which was illegally collected from Swiggy. The division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M. G. S. Kamal, while dismissing the appeal of the Central Government, observed, "Article 265 of the Constitution mandates that the collection of tax has to be by the authority of law."

74. Insurance Company Not Liable To Pay Compensation If Heavy Goods Vehicle Is Driven By Person Holding Light Motor Vehicle License:Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mahantesh v. Netharavati Case No: M.F.A. No.100096/2019 (MV)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 74

The Karnataka High Court has said that the insurance company will not be liable to pay compensation, if a heavy goods vehicle is driven by a person holding a light motor vehicle license. A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajit Shetty while partly allowing an appeal filed by one Mahantesh, owner of a tipper lorry said, "The vehicle in question which is categorised as a heavy goods vehicle comes within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the gross vehicle weight undisputedly exceeds 12000 kg. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the offending vehicle was used in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore the insurer of the offending vehicle was not liable to pay the compensation."

75. 'Hijab Not Essential Religious Practice In Islam':Karnataka High Court Dismisses Muslim Girls' Petitions Against Hijab Ban In Classrooms

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

Wearing of hijab is not a part of Essential Religious Practice in Islamic faith and thus, is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court has held today. A Full Bench of the High Court further held that prescription of school uniform by the State is a reasonable restriction the students' rights under Article 25 and thus, the Government Order issued by the Karnataka government dated February 5 is not violative of their rights.

75. Karnataka Education Act Empowers Government To Prescribe Uniform: Karnataka High Court In Hijab Case

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Government order dated February 5, providing for prescription of dress code in educational institutions.

A full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishan S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi said, "Section 133(2) of the (Education) Act which is broadly worded empowers the government to issue any directions to give effect to the purposes of the Act or to any provision of the Act or to any Rule made thereunder."

75. Hijab Ban | Prescription Of Uniform Dress Code For All Students Serves 'Constitutional Secularism': Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, while upholding the ban on wearing hijab in government colleges, observed that prescription of a uniform for all students will promote a sense of "constitutional secularism" within the institution. "The school regulations prescribing dress code for all the students as one homogenous class, serve constitutional secularism", the Court observed.

75. Holy Quran Does Not Mandate Wearing Of Hijab; Islam Does Not Cease To Exist If Hijab Is Not Followed : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court, while declaring that the wearing of hijab by Muslim women is not an 'essential religious practice' in Islamic Faith, said that, "The Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women". The Court also observed that the prescriptions in suras regarding Hijab are not mandatory. "The Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women. Whatever is stated in the above sūras, we say, is only directory , because of absence of prescription of penalty or penance for not wearing hijab, the linguistic structure of verses supports this view", the Court observed.

75. Hijab Ban| Insistence On Wearing Purdah, Veil Or Headgear In Any Community May Hinder Emancipation Of Women : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court, while upholding the ban on wearing hijab in educational institutions, has said that the insistence on wearing of purdah, veil, or headgear in any community may hinder hinder the process of emancipation of woman in general and Muslim woman in particular. A full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi said, "There is a lot of scope for the argument that insistence on wearing of purdah, veil, or headgear in any community may hinder the process of emancipation of woman in general and Muslim woman in particular. That militates against our constitutional spirit of 'equal opportunity' of 'public participation' and 'positive secularism'."

75. Hijab Issue - Speedy Investigation Needed Against "Unseen Hands" At Work To Create Social Unrest : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court in its judgement upholding the ban on wearing hijab has said it expects a speedy & effective investigation into the matter against 'unseen hands' who are at work to engineer social unrest and disharmony. A full bench led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi said, "From the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent – Pre – University College at Udupi and the material placed on record, we notice that all was well with the dress code since 2004."

76. 'Intermediary Not Liable For Actions Of Vendors': Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against 'Snapdeal' For Sale Of Drugs Without License

Case Title: Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd V State Of Karnataka, Case No: CRL.P.No.102191/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 76.

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act against Snapdeal Private Limited and its directors Kunal Bahl and Rohit Kumar Bansal for allegedly allowing sale of drug - Suhagra tablets, on its online portal without possessing a valid license.

Justice MG Uma said, "Intermediary as defined under Section 2(w) of IT Act or its Directors/Officers would not be liable for any action or inaction on the part of the vendor/seller making use of the facilities provided by the intermediary in terms of a website or a market place and that the Snapdeal/accused No.2 could not be responsible and/or liable for sale of any item not complying with the requirements under the Act on its platform by accused No.1 since the essential ingredients of Section 18(1)(c) of the Act not having been fulfilled neither Snapdeal nor its Directors can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act."

77. Private Complaint Is Maintainable If Forgery Took Place Outside Court Before Producing Document As Evidence: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Narendra Prasad P. V N. Sujatha Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No.692/2019

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 77

The Karnataka High Court has said that a private complaint made before the magistrate court alleging offence under section 191 of Indian Penal Code is maintainable, if the forgery of document took place outside the Court before the document was produced as evidence in the court proceedings. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh set aside the order of the magistrate court dismissing a private complaint and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. It said,

78. Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) Of Karnataka Land Revenue Act Has Power To Determine Boundary Of A Survey Number Or A Holding: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sunil Chajed v State of Karnataka Case No: WA 468/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

The Karnataka High Court has said that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has power to determine the boundary of a survey number or a holding. The aforesaid power can be exercised in respect of a survey number or a holding irrespective of the fact whether the same is situated within the Municipal limits or outside the municipal limits. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while setting aside a single judge bench order dated October 1, 20202 said, "Section 140(2) of the Act provides that if any dispute arises concerning the boundary of survey number or a sub division of a survey number or a holding, the Tahsildar shall decide the dispute having due regard to the land records. Thus, it is evident that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Act has power to determine the boundary of a survey number or a holding."

79. Karnataka High Court Quashes Seat Matrix Of Telugu Linguistic Minority In A Medical College

Case Title: Navodaya Medical College V. The State Of Karnataka Case No: W.P.No.200365/2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 79

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the revised seat matrix issued on January 31, for postgraduate and undergraduate courses in medicine for the academic year 2021-22, by which only Telugu Linguistic minority students residing in Hyderabad-Karnataka region are allowed to apply in a Linguistic minority institution located in that region.

A division bench of Justice K. Somashekar And Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "The impugned communication dated 31.01.2022 and revised seat matrix are quashed in so far as it is applicable to the petitioner's institution (NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE).

80. No Need For Trial Court's Permission To Renew Passport When Criminal Proceedings Are Stayed By Higher Court : Karnataka HC

Case Title: KASTURI RAJUPETA v. UNION OF INDIA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.19203 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 80

The Karnataka High Court has held that the permission from a trial court is not necessary for renewal of passport when the proceedings are stayed by a higher court. The Court directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider a woman's application for renewal of her passport without insisting upon a facilitative order from the concerned Criminal Court before whom a case registered against her is pending.

81. Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Dream11 Co-Founders, Says State's Ban On Online Gaming With Stakes Struck Off

Case Title: Bhavith Sheth V. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 19287/2021

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 81

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against Bhavit Sheth and Harsh Jain, the Founders and Directors of Sporta Technologies Private Limited, which promotes the 'Dream 11' gaming app. The duo had approached the court seeking to quash the FIR registered against them by the police under the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021, which bans online gaming and gambling in the state.

82. Section 143A NI Act - Not Mandatory For Magistrate To Order Payment Of Interim Compensation : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Vijaya v Shekharappa Case No: Criminal Petition No.100261/2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 82

The Karnataka High Court has said that it is not mandatory for Magistrate Courts to pass orders directing interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, if the accused does not plead guilty.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "The Legislature has cautiously worded sub-section (1) of Section 143A not to make it mandatory in all cases where clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) would empower the learned Magistrate before whom proceedings are pending consideration to award interim compensation. It is the discretion conferred, as the word used is "may"."

83. Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Continuation Of Dr. Ishwara Bhat As KSLU Vice Chancellor

Case Title: Law Students Association v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 2125/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 83

The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a non-profit organisation, Law Students Association, questioning the continuation of Prof. (Dr.) P. Ishwara Bhat as the Vice Chancellor of Karnataka State Law University, allegedly beyond the prescribed age limit of 65 years.

84. Caste Of A Person Is Determined By Birth, Married Women Acquire Caste Status Of Husband In Rare Circumstances: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Archana M G v. Abhilasha Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3399 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 84

The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by one Archana M G, a Grama Panchayat Member, challenging the order of the Civil court which unseated her on the ground of lack of social status as a Scheduled Tribe member. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "There is no dispute as to petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe, by birth, although she claims to have acquired the said social status by marriage to a member of scheduled tribe. Ordinarily, caste is determined by birth and caste of a person follows that of his/her father."

85. Work From Home' Under Maternity Benefit Act Can Be Availed Only If Nature Of Work Permits So: Karnataka High Court Denies Relief To Woman

Case Title: Mrs. Prachi Sen v. Ministry Of Defence Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.22979 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 85

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that maternity benefits such as allowing an employee to work from home, under section 5 (5) of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act 2017, could be given only in case where the nature of work assigned to the women is such that it is possible for her to work from home.

86. POCSO Act | Prosecution Can Cross Examine The Victim On Her Turning Hostile : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Somanna Case No:. CRIMINAL PETITION No.8167/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 86

The Karnataka High Court has said that under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the prosecution can cross examine the victim on her turning hostile.

A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, "In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the POCSO Act, the Special Public Prosecutor or as the case would be, the counsel appearing for the accused shall, while recording examination-in-chief, cross-examination or re-examination of the child communicates the questions to be put to the child to the Special Court which shall in turn put those questions to the child. Therefore, the victim is permitted to be cross-examined under the POCSO Act itself on her turning hostile which would also cover the situation under sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the POCSO Act."

87. Court Cannot Impound Passport Under Section 104 CrPC, As It Can Be Done Only By Authority Under Passports Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Praveen Surendiran V. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.1892 Of 2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 87

The Karnataka High Court has said that a court can impound any documents under section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), but not the passport of an accused, as it can be done only under the Passports Act which is a special enactment. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "The power of impounding a document under Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. is available to a Court. This cannot stretch to an extent of impounding the passport. The passport coming within the purview of the Act and it being a special law would prevail over the provisions of Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. The Court can impound any document, but not the passport as it is dealt with under a special enactment. The power of impounding is available only to the Competent Authority under the Act, in terms of Section 10 of the Act."

88. Examiners Of RGUHS Flouting Exam Guidelines, Students Forced To Take Repeat Tests: Karnataka High Court Recommends Disciplinary Action

Case Title: Dasari Chakradhar V The Registrar (Evaluation) Case No: W.P. NO.1120/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 88

The Karnataka High Court has suggested to the Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences to take action against delinquent examiners in-charge of conducting Clinical Examinations for MBBS and MD courses, who are routinely found violating the guidelines issued by the University. A single judge bench of Justice P Krishna Bhat said, "It is necessary to observe that examiners appointed by the respondent- University seem to be routinely violating the guidelines issued by the University for holding the Clinicals examination. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel brought to my notice the order dated 22-12-2020 in Writ Appeal No.615 of 2020 (EDN-RES) (Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences V. Mr. Ramegowda Y. And Others), wherein also this Court had an occasion to notice such malpractice and direct re-conduct of practical examinations."

89.Husband Raping A Wife Is Amenable To Punishment Under Section 376 IPC: Karnataka High Court On Marital Rape

Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 89

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by a husband seeking to drop charges of rape pending against him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code after his wife filed a complaint against him. Justice M Nagaprasanna emphasised that a man who is well acquainted with a woman and performs all the ingredients as is found in pre or post amendment to Section 375 can be proceeded against for offences punishable under Section 376, thereby establishing that a man sexually assaulting or raping a woman is amenable to punishment under Section 376 of IPC.

89. Marital Rape Exception Regressive, Violates Article 14; Husband Not Ruler Of Wife's Body & Mind : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo And State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.48367 Of 2018

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 89

In a significant judgement, the Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a husband seeking to drop charges of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, levelled against him by his wife. The Court did not accept the husband's argument that the charge cannot be framed against him due to the exception to marital rape from the offence of rape as per Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that the exemption cannot be absolute.

89. Man Accused Of Raping Wife & Minor Daughter - Special Court Can Try Offences Under S.376 IPC & POCSO : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo V State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.48367 Of 2018

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 89

The Karnataka High Court has said that the trial against the husband accused of rape and charged under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and also of sexually assaulting his daughter and charged under sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act can be held before the Special POCSO Court. While refusing to quash the charges under Section 376 IPC against the husband ,a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said , "The designated Court hearing cases relating to offences under the POCSO Act can try the offences under the IPC as well, in the facts of the case."

90. Landlord Can't Be Prosecuted Under Immoral Traffic Prevention Act If He's Unaware About Rented Premises Being Used As Brothel: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Prabhuraj V. The State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.415 Of 2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 90

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, on the ground that he was not aware that the premise he had given on rent, was being used for running a brothel. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Prabhuraj, stating, "In the light of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act (Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956) and the police themselves acknowledging that petitioner was not aware as to what was happening in the premises, permitting further proceedings to continue against the petitioner would degenerate into harassment and become an abuse of the process of law."

91. Karnataka Govt To Move Bombay High Court Seeking Permission To Produce Varavara Rao Before A Local Court In Alleged Naxal Attack Case

Case Title: Varavara Rao @ Pendyala V. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.1833 Of 2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 91

The Karnataka government has informed the High Court that it would be moving an application before the Bombay High Court or the National Investigation Agency Court in Mumbai, seeking to relax the bail conditions imposed on Telugu poet P Varavara Rao's to allow him to appear before a court in Karnataka's Tumkuru district, and face a trial pending against him. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was informed by the prosecutor that, "A necessary application before the High Court of Bombay or National Investigation Agency Court, seeking relaxation of the bail conditions with regard to the petitioner not leaving the jurisdiction of National Investigation Agency Court at Bombay would be sought, only to face the trial in S.C.No.5019/2019."

92. Inhuman, Can't Ignore Her Trauma': Karnataka High Court Convicts Father For Sexually Assaulting Minor Daughter

Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi Case No: Crl.A.No.100190/2017

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 92

Observing that, "there is no reason for the victim girl to give false evidence against her own father," the Karnataka High Court recently set aside an acquittal order passed by the trial court and sentenced the accused to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment, for sexually assaulting his daughter when she was a minor. A division bench of Justice H.T.Narendra Prasad and Justice Rajendra Badamikar noted that the victim must have undergone a lot of mental agony and shock by her father's act. It thus allowed the appeal filed by the prosecution and set aside the trial court judgement dated February 3, 2017, acquitting Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi.

93. Karnataka High Court Permits Flying Of Microlight Aircraft In Area Alleged To Be "Eco-Sensitive Zone" Of National Park, Till DGCA Reviews Permissions

Case Title: Muthanna Mapangada vThe State Of Karnataka, Case No: Writ Petition No.12880 Of 2021

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 93

The Karnataka High Court has permitted two aviation enthusiast/ certified pilots to fly microlight aircraft once a week in accordance with law, from the grass airstrip which they have built on their own lands in Kodagu district.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar while disposing of the petition filed by Muthanna Mapangada and Kudimada Somanna Subbayya, said, "Meanwhile, the petitioners shall be entitled to fly the subject Micro-light Aircraft strictly in accordance with law once a week till the matter is decided by the respondent No.6 (Director General Of Civil Aviation)."

94. Mere Filing Of Criminal Case By Wife, Demand For Separate House Not 'Cruelty': Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree

Case Title: S. SHYAMALA @ KATHYAYANI v. B. N. MALLIKARJUNAIAH Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3352/2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 94

The Karnataka High Court has said that merely for the reason that the wife was demanding a separate house and that she was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial house and going to her sister's and parents' house, the same cannot be termed as "cruelty" for the purpose of seeking a decree of divorce by the husband.

95. In Absence Of Specific Pleading By Party About Self Acquired Suit Property, It Is Presumed To Be Joint Family Property: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Tanaji S/O Nayaku Nikam v. Bharati W/O Tanaji Nikam Case No: Regular First Appeal No.100256/2015

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 95

The Karnataka High Court has said that in absence of a specific pleading made by the defendants to a suit before the trial court that properties in the suit were self acquired, it is presumed that such properties acquired subsequently are with the aid of joint family properties and as such they acquire the character of joint family. A division bench of Justice H.T.Narendra Prasad and Justice Rajendra Badamikar said, "When there is no specific plea in the written statement, presumption is that, the properties acquired subsequently are with the aid of the joint family properties and as such, they acquire the character of joint family itself."

96. No Appeal Lies Against Special Court Order Rejecting Transfer Of Case U/S 20 NIA Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Irfan Pasha v State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal no 755/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 96

The Karnataka High Court has said that an order passed by the Special Court on an application filed under section 20 of the National Investigation Agency Act, seeking to transfer the case from the special court, is an interlocutory order and the same cannot be challenged in appeal under section 21 of the Act, before the High Court.

A full bench comprising of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice B Veerappa and Justice P Krishna Bhat while deciding on a reference said, "An interlocutory application rejected by the Special Court vide order dated 22.02.2021 would not give rise to filing of an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008."

97. Only 'Indian Citizens' Can Initiate Proceedings Under Senior Citizens Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MRS DEPHNY GLADYS LOBO v. ASST COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT SENIOR CITIZEN MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6720/2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 97

The Karnataka High Court has held that only 'Indian Citizens' can initiate proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. A Single Judge bench of Justice P. Krishna Bhat said, "It is evident that one of the essential elements for being designated a 'Senior Citizen' for the purposes of the Act is the person being an Indian citizen."