Nominal IndexNG & others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 190Reeth Abraham And Sunil Abraham. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 191G Jagadish Kumar And K G Murali. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 192Prasad A A And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 193Gurushree High-Tech Multi Speciality Hospital And Commissioner For Health And Family Welfare And Chairman Appellate Authority...
Nominal Index
NG & others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
Reeth Abraham And Sunil Abraham. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
G Jagadish Kumar And K G Murali. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
Prasad A A And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
Gurushree High-Tech Multi Speciality Hospital And Commissioner For Health And Family Welfare And Chairman Appellate Authority & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
N P Amrutesh And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
Karnataka State Level Advocates Clerks Association And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
Rangaraju @ Vajapeyi And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
Jameela And Sullia Afsa & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Shivappa Bellad And Superintendent of Open Air Prison & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
Dr Vinod G Kulkarni And Ministry of Railways & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
M/s Mangalore New Sultan Beedi Works And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: NG & others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P.NO.201257/2019 C/W CRL.P.NO.200660/2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered by a woman alleging cruelty and dowry harassment, against her in-laws and other relatives of the husband.
A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah, sitting at Kalaburagi bench, allowed the petition seeking quashing of the case and said: “The criminal case filed by the wife, alleging cruelty, dowry harassment against the husband and in-laws loses its significance, in case the complaint is made, after receiving the divorce notice from her husband.”
Case Title: Reeth Abraham And Sunil Abraham
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24842 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the trial court dismissing an application filed by a woman to club two pending suits for a common trial and disposal. The suits filed by her and her ex-husband relate to the same property.
Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the woman's petition and requested the trial judge to allow the subject application of the petitioner for clubbing and try both the suits together.
Attornment By Lessee Not Necessary For Transfer Of Property Leased Out To Him: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: G Jagadish Kumar And K G Murali
Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 650 OF 2011
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
The Karnataka High Court has said that attornment by lessee is not necessary for transfer of property leased out to him.
A single judge bench of Justice Ashok S Kinagi allowed the appeal filed by G Jagadish Kumar and directed the tenant K G Murali to vacate and handover the possession of suit property to the plaintiff. It rejected the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff is not the owner of suit schedule property and defendant is not the tenant under the plaintiff, as such, there is no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as the landlord/lessor and the tenant/lessee.
Case Title: Prasad A A And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1294 OF 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings launched under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) against a man who dropped the minor victim at her home on the instructions of main accused.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that Petitioner-accused was neither involved in the planning nor commission of the offence. "The allegation is against accused Nos 1 to 4 who have allegedly been a part of the commission of offence. The petitioner was not even present during the commission of offence or in the scene of alleged crime. The petitioner comes into the picture after everything is over and only for the purpose of driving the victim back to her grand-mother’s house. No other allegation is made against the petitioner," it observed.
Appellate Authority Can't Cure Jurisdictional Defect Of Original Authority: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Gurushree High-Tech Multi Speciality Hospital And Commissioner For Health And Family Welfare And Chairman Appellate Authority & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 729 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that if the original jurisdiction is not exercised by a competent authority, the Appellate authority even though competent cannot cure the jurisdictional defect of the original authority.
“If the original Authority is corum non-judice, the competent Appellate Authority, by considering the appeal cannot breathe life into such original order and make it corum judice,” a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna has observed.
Case Title: N P Amrutesh And Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.21879/2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to strike down as unconstitutional the orders establishing permanent benches of the High Court at Dharwad and Kalaburagi (earlier Gulbarga).
A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice K S Hemalekha observed that the benches had in fact rendered "distributive justice" to all the regions and thus, the petition serves absolutely no public interest.
Case Title: Karnataka State Level Advocates Clerks Association And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 24053 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the State government to formulate a scheme for welfare of the members of State Level Advocates’ Clerks Association, within six months.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “The service rendered by the Advocates’ clerks is not a service to an individual, but to the system, being attached to the Advocates. Therefore, the Advocates’ Clerks play a significant role in the justice delivery system and if they are playing a significant role in the justice delivery system, the system cannot leave them in the lurch, in any eventuality that may ensue in the life of those registered Advocates’ Clerks.”
Rape On Woman's Dead Body Will Not Attract Section 376 IPC: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Rangaraju @ Vajapeyi And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1610/2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
The Karnataka High Court has held that sexual assault on the dead body of woman will not attract the offence of Rape punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. It thus acquitted a man of rape charges for committing sexual assault on the dead body of a 21 years old girl, after murdering her.
A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice Venkatesh Naik T partly allowed the appeal filed by convict Rangaraju @ Vajapeyi, thereby setting aside the conviction under Section 376 of the Code. However, the court upheld his conviction for murder and confirmed the life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court.
Case Title: Jameela And Sullia Afsa & Others
Case No: CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.500 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that in a partnership deed that provides for appointment of Arbitrator, the power of Arbitrator to resolve the dispute flows from the clauses of the partnership deed.
A Single Judge bench of Justice S G Pandit, dismissed a petition filed by one Jameela who claimed to be the second wife of deceased partner Hajee Ibrahim and sought dissolution of the firm and sought share in the assets of the firm of which the deceased was the partner. She sought appointment of sole arbitrator in this regard
Case Title: Shivappa Bellad And Superintendent of Open Air Prison & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 8631 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Superintendent of the Open Air Prison to grant emergency parole of three weeks to a convict to meet his ailing mother.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the petition filed by convict Shivappa Bellad. “This Court, being conscious of the shortness of human life and the irreplaceable position and bond between mother and children, is inclined to grant a restrictive & conditional indulgence in the matter inasmuch as petitioner's mother Smt. Gangavva, aged about 75 years, an inpatient in General hospital Kushtagi, is stated to be suffering from ailments natural to old age,” said the court.
Case Title: Dr Vinod G Kulkarni And Ministry of Railways & Others
Case No: WP 15520/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday refused to grant any relief and permitted the withdrawal of a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Union Government to restore the concession in fare for senior citizens in Railways.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal said “Ultimately what should be the fare, whether the concession should be given to a particular class, all these are policy issues, how a court can enter that arena. Time and again the Supreme Court has said "please don’t do that, it is exclusively in the domain of the executive'. You can make a request to your elected representative.”
Case Title: M/s Mangalore New Sultan Beedi Works And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 10870 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
Observing that the Copyright Act provides for both civil remedy and filing of criminal prosecution, the Karnataka High Court said that merely because a civil dispute is being fought between the parties, the criminal proceedings cannot be halted.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said: “The infringement of a copyright gives rise to a cause of action on which a civil proceeding like an Injunctive Suit can be structured; it also can give rise to a cause of action for the institution of a criminal proceeding; in the former, it is preventive, remedial, compensatory or otherwise, whereas, in the latter, it is primarily punitive. The object, nature & outcome of these proceedings, thus are not the same. That is how the statutory scheme is enacted by the Parliament. Merely because a civil dispute is being fought between the parties, the criminal proceedings cannot be halted, per se, on that ground.”