Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: November 2023 [Citation No 418 to Citation No. 456]
Nominal Index: D Venkatesh AND The Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 418Srinivas Sagar B & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 419Dr Uday Mulgund And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 420B Narayana & Others AND State Of Karnataka & Others. 2023 (Kar) LiveLaw 421Manjula @ Manju And The Chief Secretary...
Nominal Index:
D Venkatesh AND The Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
Srinivas Sagar B & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
Dr Uday Mulgund And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 420
B Narayana & Others AND State Of Karnataka & Others. 2023 (Kar) LiveLaw 421
Manjula @ Manju And The Chief Secretary & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 422
Ashok M.S & Others And The Anti Corruption Bureau & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 423
Prof B Shivaraj And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 424
Kavitha R & ANR AND The Assistant Commissioner. 2023 (Kar) LiveLaw 425.
Dr. Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 426
Devaraj P R And Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 427
ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 428
Chandan N V and Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 429.
Ganesh Achar AND United India Insurance Co LTD. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 430
T Savitha & ANR AND B P Muniraju & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 431
Hanumantharayappa AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 432
Karan Singh S Rajpurohit And The City Municipal Council Hosapete & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 433
Lakshmamma AND D R Sudeep and Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 434
Akkamahadevi & Others And Neelambika & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 435
Ranagaswamy B T And Union of India and Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 436
Zameer Ahmed Khan AND The State of Karnataka By Lokayukta P.S. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 437
Ashok D Sanadi And The Chief Secretary & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 438
Sayyad Murtuza Sayyad Kasim Haji AND State of Karnataka & Other. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 439
XXX AND Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 440
Kalavathi And Director General and Inspector General of Police & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 441
Chikkaredappa And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 442
Palaksha S S AND The State By Vidhana Soudha Police Station and Another. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 443
Balaji & Others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 444
R Pramod v Gangadharaiah. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 445
Vijaya Ganapati And M/s Intuit Technology Services Private Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 446
Pandurangabhat & Others And State By Malebennur Police And Another. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 447
Sai Lakshmi And Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 448
Mahalakshmamma And The Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayatraj. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 449
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Other And Mallikarjun Savanur. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 450
The Deputy Director General & FAA Central Public Information Officer & Another AND P Lavanya & Another. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 451
H V Ashok And H N Gopal and Other. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 452
Ganesh V v. State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 453
D. K. Shivakumar And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 454
Dr. C. Vishwanath Reddy & Another v. The Commissioner BBMP & Another. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 455
Manimala @Roopa AND K Satish Kumar. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 456
Judgments/Orders
Wife Cannot Seek Withdrawal Of Resignation Tendered By Husband To Employer: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: D Venkatesh AND The Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Others
Casse No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1312 OF 2022
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
The Karnataka High Court has said that a wife cannot seek withdrawal of resignation submitted by her husband to his employer.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit thus dismissed the appeal calling in question a Single Judge’s order whereby the resolution passed by the employer, permitting the husband to withdraw his resignation, was set at naught.
The bench said, “Admittedly, it is the spouse of the employee who had sought for the withdrawal of resignation of the employee and that too after it was duly accepted by passing the Resolution on 30.11.2021. No Rule or Ruling is brought to our notice which recognizes such a right in the spouse of an employee. Such an idea is alien to Service Law.”
Case Title: Srinivas Sagar B & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7931 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7825 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
The Karnataka High Court has held that an offence under Sections 494, 495 and 496 of the IPC, which pertain to a spouse marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife can be pursued against the erring spouse. However, other members of the family or members of the extended family of the erring spouse, cannot be prosecuted for the offence.
Justice R Nataraj said, “A perusal of Sections 494, 495 and 496 of IPC makes it clear that those offences can be pursued by a spouse against an erring spouse and the other members of the family or members of the extended family cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 or 496 of IPC. Therefore, pursuing the case against the other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 and 496 of IPC is unwarranted.”
Case Title: Dr Uday Mulgund And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No. WRIT PETITION NO. 105637 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 420
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Dr Uday Mulgund questioning an order by which he was repatriated to his original Post of Professor of the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, from the Post of First Director Haveri Institute of Medical Sciences.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The qualification cannot be given a gobye on any circumstance whether it is for the appointment of first Dean cum Director or the subsequent Dean cum Director.”
Karnataka High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL For Naming Of Roads In Consultation With Villagers
Case Title: B Narayana & Others AND State Of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 19391 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 (Kar) LiveLaw 421
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that which road should be named after whom cannot be a subject matter of adjudication in a Public Interest Litigation.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed a petition filed by B Narayan and others. The petitioners had approached the court seeking a direction to the Bettahalasuru Gram Panchayat Grama Soudha to pass appropriate Resolution after taking Representation from the villagers for selecting names to be incorporated on the name plate of each road.
Case Title: Manjula @ Manju And The Chief Secretary & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17758 OF 2022
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 422
The Karnataka High Court has held that a candidate contesting elections to a public office is not permitted to rectify defects in the nomination form at the time of scrutiny, which is done post the last date for filing of nomination.
A single judge bench of Justice Surag Govindaraj dismissed the petition filed by Manjula @ Manju, wherein her nomination for the post of Member of Tumbala Grama Panchayath from Block-II Constituency reserved for BCM-IIA Women Category, came to rejected by the returning officer.
Sting Operations By Media | Karnataka High Court Orders Media Houses To Abide by Cable TV Act
Case Title: Ashok M.S & Others And The Anti Corruption Bureau & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15582 OF 2022 (GM-RES) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7430 OF 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7431 OF 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7473 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO.10313 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10335 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10363 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10549 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10585 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10676 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10825 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 423
The Karnataka High Court has said that sting operations if conducted henceforth by media houses will have to be in strict consonance with provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna upheld the validity of the sting operations carried out by Power TV on 8 Traffic Police Inspectors and 3 Assistant Commissioners of Police, which has recorded them as accepting bribes in return of official favours. It however obliterated the sting carried out where money is thrust upon a public servant of another department.
Case Title: Ashok M.S & Others And The Anti Corruption Bureau & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15582 OF 2022 (GM-RES) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7430 OF 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7431 OF 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7473 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO.10313 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10335 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10363 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10549 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10585 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10676 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.10825 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 423
The Karnataka High Court has allowed the petitions filed by officials of the Commercial Tax Department and quashed proceedings initiated against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act by Karnataka Lokayukta, based on sting operations carried out by media houses. However, it refused to obliterate the proceedings initiated against traffic police personnel who permitted heavy vehicles into areas where they were prohibited to ply during certain hours, on acceptance of money.
Case Title: Prof B Shivaraj And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.21681 OF 2022 C/W WRIT PETITION No.23349 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 424
The Karnataka High Court has said that a petitioner who invokes PIL jurisdiction, more particularly with a prayer for a Writ of Quo Warranto, has to approach the court with ‘clean heart, clean mind and clean objective'.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit made the observation while dismissing two "identical" petitions filed by Professor B Shivraj and Dr. K Mahadev, questioning the appointment of Vidyashankar S, as Vice Chancellor of Visvesvaraya Technological University. The petitioners also sought his removal on the ground that his appointment is violative of UCG regulation of Minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges.
Case Title: Kavitha R & ANR AND The Assistant Commissioner.
Case No. WA 488/2023
Citation No: 2023 (Kar) LiveLaw 425.
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal filed by the daughter of an aged couple seeking to reverse the order of the single judge which had in turn upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur, cancelling the gift deed executed by her father in her favour.
"Which father and mother will come and say? Unless it is unbearable for them...." a division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit remarked based on statements made before it that the parents were subjected to physical assault.
It added, “On the contrary in our society and our culture the tendency is to forgive the children in spite of their misdeeds. Sometimes this forgiving may cost them (parents) at various levels but still it is done. Only when it is unbearable...which father and mother will come and say unless there is some element of truth.”
Case Title: Dr. Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5031 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1230 OF 2023.
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 426
The Karnataka High Court granted bail to pontiff of Murugha Mutt of Chitradurga, Dr. Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru, accused of sexually abusing two minor girls staying in the hostels run by the Mutt. The seer was arrested under POCSO Act after the girls approached a Mysuru-based NGO Odanadi Seva Samsthe seeking help.
A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said bail cannot be denied merely because the accused is an influential person. "It is no doubt true that accused No.1 is the Chief of a Mutt which has a large number of devotees and followers. His position itself cannot be a reason for drawing an inference that he will try to meddle with the evidence. Mere allegation to this effect cannot be considered if a case for a bail is otherwise made out.”
Case Title: Devaraj P R And Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited.
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 708 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 427
The Karnataka High Court recently pulled up the Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited for "shunting" a reserved category candidate to the general seat merely because the Social Status Certificate which he had uploaded with the application was not clearly visible.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said a simple intimation to the candidate of the so called defect would have been made the impugned action compliant with the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: ABC And XYZ
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20801 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 428
The Karnataka High Court has rejected the petition filed by a husband challenging the interim maintenance granted to his estranged wife on the ground that he lost his job.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The submission of the learned counsel that the husband has lost his job and cannot be directed to pay maintenance is noted only to be rejected, as the husband being an able bodied man is expected to work and take care of the wife. Any interference of the order that is impugned would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg And Another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC Online SC 1314.”
Karnataka High Court Dismisses Challenge To Re-Exam For Police Sub-Inspectors Recruitment
Case Title: Chandan N V and Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 15873 of 2022 etc.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 429.
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the re-exam for the recruitment of 545 police sub-inspectors. The court has directed the state government to conduct the re-examination through an independent agency, without charging any fresh fee to the candidates.
A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice T G Shivashaker Gowda dismissed the petitions. It said “The order passed by the State Government, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is just and appropriate and does not call for any interference.”
Case Title: Ganesh Achar AND United India Insurance Co LTD.
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8145 OF 2012 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2731 OF 2012.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 430
The Karnataka High Court has held that when an application is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is for the claimant to prove their case by adducing independent evidence. Mere acceptance of guilt by the owner/driver of the offending vehicle can never be a ground for the tribunal to come to a conclusion, it held.
A single judge bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti thus dismissed the appeal filed by a claimant seeking enhancement of compensation and allowed the appeal filed by United India Insurance to set aside the order of the tribunal granting compensation to the claimant.
Trial Court Can Frame Legal Queries under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC Before Making Final Judgment In The Form Of A Decree
Case Title: T Savitha & ANR AND B P Muniraju & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23015 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 431
The Karnataka High Court has said that under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, the trial court can at any time before passing a decree, frame an additional issue on such terms as it deems fit as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties.
A single judge bench of Justice S G Pandit allowed the petition filed by T Savitha and another questioning the order of the trial court which dismissed their application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 to frame additional issue as to whether the suit for partial partition is maintainable.
Case Title: Hanumantharayappa AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 784 OF 2015
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 432
The Karnataka High Court has confirmed the sentence of six months imprisonment imposed on a youth under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing death of a pedestrian by rash and negligent driving.
A single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed the revision petition filed by Hanumantharayappa who at the time of offence was 21-years-old.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgments in the case of GURU BASAVARAJ @ BENNE SETTAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2012(8) SCC 734 and STATE OF PUNJAB vs SAURABH BAKSHI reported in 2015 (5) SCC 182, the bench observed:
Case Title: Karan Singh S Rajpurohit And The City Municipal Council Hosapete & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 103849 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 433
The Karnataka High Court recently admonished the Hospete Municipal Council for delaying the compensation to a father for the death of his 6-year old son ten years ago after falling into a drain.
The Court pulled up the Council for not acting on the previous Court orders to consider the representation of the father for compensation and chastised its "contumacious conduct" which forced the hapless man to approach the Court on three occasions over ten years.
Karnataka High Court Convicts 10 Persons For Barging Into Harijan Colony & Assaulting Dalits
Case Title: Lakshmamma AND D R Sudeep and Others
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.876 OF 2011
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 434
The Karnataka High Court has convicted and sentenced 10 people who in 2008 had barged into a Harijan Colony in Tumkur district, abused them and assaulted the Dalits residing there by referring to their caste names and assaulted them with clubs, stones and caused bleeding injuries.
A single judge bench of Justice J M Khazi set aside the acquittal order and convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of SC and ST (POA) Act.
Case Title: Akkamahadevi & Others And Neelambika & Others
Case No: Regular First Appeal no. 100221 of 2016 c/w Regular First Appeal No. 100197 of 2016.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 435
The Karnataka High Court has held that daughters abandoning their share only in agricultural properties belonging to a joint family, which is partitioned among the sons of the propositus, cannot be deemed to have abandoned their shares in other joint family properties and they can seek partition of those properties.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Ramchandra D Huddar dismissed the appeals arising out of a partition suit.
Case Title: Ranagaswamy B T And Union of India and Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1140 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 436
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Indian Air Force Personnel questioning his transfer posting order dated 29.12.2022.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the appeal filed by Rangaswamy B T who had challenged the order of the single judge bench which had rejected his petition questioning the posting order.
The appellant argued that the impugned order has brought about an unjust result and a lot of hardship will be occasioned to his client if the same is not set at naught. The appellant had sought an extension of tenure for two years as the criminal case faced by him was yet to be disposed of.
Case Title: Zameer Ahmed Khan AND The State of Karnataka By Lokayukta P.S
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9821 OF 2022
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 437
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Congress party legislator Zameer Ahmed Khan, seeking to quash proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “A perusal at the source information report or the communication under Section 66(2) of the Enforcement Directorate would prima facie bring the petitioner under the ambit of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act.”
Case Title: Ashok D Sanadi And The Chief Secretary & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.25010 OF 2022
Citation NO: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 438
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the decision of the State government in appointing K. Naggana Gowda as the Chairperson of the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights.
Dismissing the petition filed by Ashok S. Sanadi, who was not selected for the post, a Single Judge Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “This Court cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role, over the selection made.”
Case Title: Sayyad Murtuza Sayyad Kasim Haji AND State of Karnataka & Other
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100697 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 439
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that under Section 52-A (3) of the Waqf Act, the trial court can take cognizance only of the complaints made by the Board or any officer duly authorised by the State Government, it cannot take cognizance of offence based on a police report.
A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar said “As per Section 52-A (3) of the Waqf Act, the Court can take cognizance only on complaint made by the Board or any officer duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf.”
Case Title: XXX AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No. 15824 of 2023 etc
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 440
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a batch of petitions and permitted thirteen couples to opt for surrogacy using donor gametes (a person who provides sperm or oocyte). The bench said the new amendment to the Surrogacy Rules which prohibits the use of donor eggs for gestational surrogacy of an intending couple can be diluted on a case to case basis.
Justice M Nagaprasanna however refrained from examining the validity of the amendment, stating that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court.
The petitioners had challenged the amendment dated 14.03.2023 made to Form 2 under Rule 7 of the Surrogacy Rules, which is the form for Consent of the Surrogate Mother and Agreement for Surrogacy.
The amendment substituted paragraph 1(d) in Form 2 to ensure that a couple undergoing surrogacy cannot have donor gametes and both the male and female gamete must come from the intending couple.
Deputy Commissioners Can't Grant License For Storing More Than 600Kgs Firecrackers: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Kalavathi And Director General and Inspector General of Police & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24195 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 441
The Karnataka High Court has directed that Deputy Commissioners henceforth shall not grant licences beyond 600 kgs of storage and selling of fireworks/crackers/sparklers, failing which they would be held accountable for any mishap.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna issued directions in regards to grant of license by authority, storing of fire crackers and safety measures to be adopted by the vendors.
Case Title: Chikkaredappa And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7066 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 442
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a rape case against an accused subject to him solemnizing marriage with the survivor, who claimed they were in a consensual relationship while she was a minor and now having attained majority, intend to marry each other.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Chikkaredappa and directed him to marry the survivor within one month, and register the same before the competent authority. It also quashed the proceedings registered against him under sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Case Title: Palaksha S S AND The State By Vidhana Souda Police Station and Another.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1644 OF 2022
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 443
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a cheating case against an advocate who allegedly suppressed information of previous criminal cases registered by and against him, while submitting his application for selection to the post of District Judge to the High Court.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Palaksha S S and observed “prima facie, the petitioner is guilty of suppressing the fact of him involving in nine cases albeit their closure, just prior to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent.”
Karnataka High Court Dismisses ‘Half-Baked’ PIL To Revoke License Of Bar Allegedly In Close Proximity To ‘Idgah’
Case Title: Balaji & Others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 25270 of 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 444
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking to quash the license issued to a Bar and Restaurant which was allegedly within 100 meters distance of an ‘Idgah,’a place for Muslim worship, in Hussainpura Village in Tumkur district.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the petition filed by residents of the said village. It said “considering all the factual aspects of nature which emerged from the perusal of material on record that is petition and annexures. We are of the clear opinion that petitioners are approaching this court only on their assumptions and presumptions and in a haphazard manner. This court cannot entertain such half-baked petitions under the guise of public interest litigation. As such PIl is dismissed at threshold.”
Case Title: R Pramod v Gangadharaiah
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2000 OF 2022
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 445
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that to rebut the presumption under Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act that cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability, the accused must raise 'probable defence'.
Faced with the accused's mere denial regarding the existence of debt, Justice S Rachaiah remarked, “If the defence taken by the accused is not acceptable obviously the presumption prevails upon the failure of the defence.”
Case Title: Vijaya Ganapati And M/s Intuit Technology Services Private Ltd
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 501 OF 2022 (L-TER) & WRIT APPEAL NO. 1151 OF 2022
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 446
The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that the ‘full faith and credit clause’ under Article 261 of the Constitution of India, was introduced to provide legitimacy and conclusiveness regarding the records of judicial proceedings.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit made the observation while rejecting an appeal filed by one Vijaya Ganapthi, a former employee of M/s Intuit Technology Services Private Ltd against a single bench order which had rejected a plea challenging their termination and subsequent proceedings on the same before the labour court.
Case Title: Pandurangabhat & Others And State By Malebennur Police And Another
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 1723 of 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 447
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the deity in a temple cannot be imagined to be belonging to only a few.
In refusing to quash criminal proceedings against eight persons accused of stopping a family from entering a place of worship and physically as well as verbally abusing the complainant, her husband and her child, a single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held, Worshipping of the deity, by entering into the temple, is to be given to one and all. Any kind of bigotry or discrimination is unacceptable. Although temples are seen to be symbols of unity and inclusivity, denial of rights of temple entry and worship, to persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, still looms large.``
Karnataka High Court Suggests State To Conduct "e-KYC" Before Issuing Death Certificates
Case Title: Sai Lakshmi And Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6605 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 448
The Karnataka High Court has directed Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and Secretary of e-governance to come up with a system of verifying the identification of the person who is dead on the basis of e-KYC like usage of Aadhar etc, so that no error occurs in the details which are entered firstly by the hospital and secondly while issuing the death certificate.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “Whenever a death occurs in a hospital the entries made by the hospital are taken to be sacrosanct and the death certificate issued. I am of the considered opinion that the said process can give rise to several anomalies and can be misused.”
Family Pension Not Payable To Second-Wife When First Marriage Subsists: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Mahalakshmamma And The Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayatraj.
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 449
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the second wife of a deceased State employee, seeking family pension upon the death of her husband.
In dismissing her appeal upon noting that the deceased employee's first marriage was still subsisting when he married her, a division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “Family Pension is payable to the “wife”, and not to those whose marriage is ‘no marriage’ in the eye of law, the limited status of legitimacy of children begotten therefrom, by virtue of Sec.16 1955 Act, notwithstanding.”
Case Title: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Other And Mallikarjun Savanur
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 100422 of 2023.
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 450
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that proceedings instituted by third parties against a government employee under the Prevention of Corruption Act ("PC Act"), cannot be construed to fall within the category of judicial proceedings, permitting the employer to withhold the pension of the retired employee.
In dismissing an appeal by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited ("KPTCL") against an order of a single bench which allowed a plea by a KPTCL employee, seeking disbursal of all of his retirement benefits, a Division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil observed, “The judicial proceedings instituted by third parties under the PC Act cannot be considered to be proceedings instituted under Regulation 171. Proceedings instituted by third parties cannot be construed to fall within the category of judicial proceedings permitting the employer to withhold the pension of the employee.”
Case Title: The Deputy Director General & FAA Central Public Information Officer & Another AND P Lavanya & Another.
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 100406 OF 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 451
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of a single bench which directed the UIDAI to issue notice of hearing to an Aadhar card holder whose wife had filed an RTI application seeking personal Aadhar information, such as his address of service in order to enforce an order of maintenance.
The single bench had directed the Assistant Director General, Central Public Information Officer, UIDAI, to hold a hearing/inquiry and decide whether the husband's Aadhar details could be divulged to his wife.
Case Title: H V Ashok And H N Gopal and Other
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 1249 of 2023
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 452
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Election Commission and other Agencies associated with the election process to implement directions given by the Apex Court pertaining to providing a form in which the contesting candidates are to declare their involvement in pending criminal cases, if any.
The petitioner's election had been annulled by the Election Tribunal on the ground that he had failed to disclose pending criminal cases against him, and such annulment was upheld by a single bench of the High Court.
Case Title: Ganesh V v. State of Karnataka,
Case No: W.P. No. 13600/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 453
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal case initiated against a man (petitioner) for offences punishable u/s 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, taking note of the survivor's plea that she and her child depended on him and the prosecution would not be in the interest of justice.
The survivor had appeared before the court and pleaded that the petitioner was the sole breadwinner of the family. She claimed that if the criminal proceedings were allowed to be continued and the petitioner incarcerated, she and her child would be put to more agony and misery rather than securing the ends of justice.
Case Title: D. K. Shivakumar And State of Karnataka & Others.
Case No: WA 646 of 2023.
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 454
Subsequent to the Karnataka government withdrawing consent accorded to the CBI, the High Court today permitted Deputy CM DK Shivakumar to withdraw his petition and appeal challenging the consent to prosecute him given to CBI in the disproportionate assets case.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice PB Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said in the absence of any challenge to the GO, it cannot comment upon the government's decision to withdraw the consent. Both CBI and counsel appearing for an intervenor had argued that the GO was motivated to protect the interests of the Congress leader.
Case Title: Dr. C. Vishwanath Reddy & Another v. The Commissioner BBMP & Another,
Case No: Writ Petition No. 21639/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 455
Justice Suraj Govindaraj of the Karnataka High Court recently quashed a notice issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to a non-profit organisation providing supportive care, including free lodging services, to children undergoing cancer treatment and their parents.
The notice, which was issued to non-profit organisation "Access Life Assistance Foundation" on the basis of a complaint received from certain neighbours, stated that it was using residential premises as cancer hospital and the same was impermissible without necessary trade license or otherwise.
Case Title: Manimala @Roopa AND K Satish Kumar
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 610 OF 2011
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 456
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal upon noting that the appellant/complainant under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act did not possess any right over the property which had been purchased by the accused using the cheques which were dishonoured.
The Court also found that the appellant had misused the cheques which had been issued by the accused in her grandfather's (H.V.Venkatappa Reddy) name. In upholding the acquittal of the accused, a single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah observed that the property in question was a joint family property and that no right had accrued to the appellant over the property through a partition decree or otherwise.