Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: May 06 - May 12, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 210 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 217

Nominal Index:

V S Manjunath AND Chief Election Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 210

Lokesh Kumar AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 211

C Ganesh Narayan & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 212

Surya & CO & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 213

S Santosh Poojari AND State By Mudigere Police. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 214

Stone Hill Education Foundation AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 215.

B T Kumar AND B N Kumar & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 216

B.M.S College Of Law AND Bar Council of India & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 217

Judgments/Orders

Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Rejection Of Nomination By Returning Officer, Election Petition Only Remedy: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: V S Manjunath AND Chief Election Commissioner & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11367 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 210

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a writ petition challenging the rejection of a candidate's nomination by the returning officer is not maintainable and the remedy for such candidate is to file Election Petition.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by one V S Manjunath, who teaches in a college as guest lecturer and had challenged the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the Election Returning Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Chitradurga (SC), Lok Sabha Constituency rejecting his nomination.

Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To POCSO Accused After He Undertakes To Marry Victim Upon Her Attaining Age Of Majority

Case Title: Lokesh Kumar AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 217 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 211

The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to a POCSO rape accused after he and the guardian of the minor victim girl filed an affidavit in court agreeing for the accused to marry the victim immediately upon her attaining the age of majority.

A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar allowed the petition filed by Lokesh Kumar who was charged under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 5(L), 5(n), 5(j)(2), 6, 20 and 21 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Pepper Spray A Dangerous Weapon, Can't Be Used For Private Defense When There's No Imminent Threat Or Danger Caused To Life: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: C Ganesh Narayan & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.10923 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 212

The Karnataka High Court refused to quash a criminal case against C Ganesh Narayan, the Director of C.Krishniah Chetty & Company Private Limited and his wife accused of using pepper spray on the complainant who along with other security personnel is alleged of attempted to interfere with the petitioners' property.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition and said “The 2nd petitioner could not have used pepper spray as private defence, as prima facie there was no imminent threat or danger caused to her life. Therefore, the case at hand would require investigation in the least.”

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Tax Evasion FIR Against Bookies Operating In Bangalore Turf Club

Case Title: Surya & CO & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: CRL.P.NO.795/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 213

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings initiated against licensed and unlicensed bookies operating within the Bangalore Turf Club who allegedly collected GST from the punters and TDS amount from the winning bettors but failed to deposit the same before the competent authority and also failed to maintain proper registers.

A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition seeking to quash FIR registered under Section 78(1)(a)(i) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, Section 12 of Karnataka Race Betting Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

It said,“The allegations against the accused are of very serious nature and the accused amongst other allegations, allegedly have misappropriated crores of money collected by them towards payment of GST and TDS. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioners for quashing the FIR registered against them cannot be granted.”

Road Accident | Letting Off Negligent Ambulance Driver With Only Fine Would Be Unjust To Victims And Whole Society: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: S Santosh Poojari AND State By Mudigere Police

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 600 OF 2017

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 214

The Karnataka High Court has refused to reduce sentence of six month simple imprisonment imposed on an ambulance driver convicted for driving in a rash and negligent manner and causing an accident leading to death of one person and injuring three others in the year 2011.

A single judge bench of Justice Umesh M Adiga dismissed the revision petition filed by S. Santhosh Poojari and said, “Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that due to the negligent driving of the ambulance by the petitioner an accident had taken place resulting in death of the driver of the car and grievous injuries to all the three occupants of the car. It indicates the speed in which the ambulance might be driven by the accused. If such an accused is dealt with by imposing a nominal sentence of fine of a few hundred rupees, then it would be injustice to the society as well as victims of the accident.”

'Unconstitutional': Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Amendment Extending EPF Scheme To 'International Workers' Without Salary Ceiling Limit

Case Title: Stone Hill Education Foundation AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.18486/2012

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 215.

The Karnataka High Court has recently declared as 'unconstitutional' para 83 introduced in the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and para 43A in Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, which covered international workers under the scheme irrespective of the salary drawn by them with effect from 01.10.2008.

A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha noted that the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act prescribes a ceiling amount of Rs.15,000/- per month salary as a threshold for an employee to be a member to the scheme. However, the Scheme had unlimited threshold for international workers while denying the same benefit to Indian workers.

Subsisting Contract With Panchayat Necessary For Disqualification Of Member U/S 12(h) Of Gram Swaraj & Panchayat Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: B T Kumar AND B N Kumar & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 21526 OF 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 216

The Karnataka High Court has held that it is only a subsisting contract with the Panchayat that could lead to a disqualification of a member under Section 12 (h) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and not the previous work done by the member.

A single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav while dismissing the petition filed by B T Kumar challenging the election of B N Kumar as member of the Beeruhalli Gram Panchayat upheld the order of the Election Tribunal which had rejected the election petition.

Provide Current Status Of Affiliation Of Law Universities/Colleges On Website: Karnataka High Court To BCI

Case Title: B.M.S College Of Law AND Bar Council of India & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9698 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 217

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Bar Council of India, to provide details regarding the current status of affiliation of universities, college names etc on its website.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “The Bar Council of India is directed to add the following columns, the date on which an application for extension of affiliation is made, the date on which the payment was made including the details thereof, the initial affiliation letter issued by the Bar Counsel to the particular college with the PDF copy uploaded. The approved intake of the college and such other and further details as the Bar Council may deem fit taking into account the changed circumstances as on today.”