Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 186 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 201Nominal Index:M/s Radical Works Pvt Ltd AND Padmanabh T G. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 186P Anandan AND The Divisional Controller. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 187R BHARATH AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 188HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 189ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR....
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 186 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
Nominal Index:
M/s Radical Works Pvt Ltd AND Padmanabh T G. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
P Anandan AND The Divisional Controller. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
R BHARATH AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 190.
Iranna & ANR AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
Vijayraj Surana AND CBI & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
Raju Naik & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
M/s Sujal Pharma AND Karnataka State Medical Supplies Corporation Limited. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
Rojamani & Others AND Union Bank of India. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
KIKKERI KRISHNA MURTHY And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
B G Uday AND H G Prashanth. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
Smt. N. Bhuvaneshwari vs The Management of M/s Ambuthirtha Power Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Shashanka J Sreedhara AND B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Divisional Controller (South), N.W.K.R.T.C. vs Vasant B Jogi. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
Shivaraj Kamshetty v. The Managing Director Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: M/s Radical Works Pvt Ltd AND Padmanabh T G
Case No: CRL.P.NO. 1291/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
The Karnataka High Court has held that while exercising power under Section 410 CrPC, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cannot transfer two cases pending before two different courts presided by Additional Metropolitan Magistrate to one court presided by the same rank judicial officer.
A single judge bench Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by M/s RadicaL Works Pvt Ltd and quashed the order dated 13-01-2023 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by which it transferred CC No.17424/2020 on the file of XXVIII Additional Chief 3 Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru and CC No.12667/2021 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, were transferred to the Court of XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, for disposal in accordance with law.
Industrial Tribunals Bound To Give Proper And Cogent Reasons For Their Orders: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: P Anandan AND The Divisional Controller
Case No: Writ Petition No 22673 OF 2015
Citation no: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
The Karnataka High Court has observed that Industrial Tribunals must give proper and cogent reasons for their orders. If the tribunals give reasons for an order, it will be an effective restraint on the abuse of power, as the order, if it discloses extraneous or irrelevant consideration, will be subject to judicial scrutiny and correction.
A Single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha said, “The Tribunal, while rejecting the claim statement, must assign proper and cogent reasons, giving reasons introduces clarity and excludes or, at any rate, minimises arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made, and it also enables the Appellate or the Supervisory Courts to keep the Tribunal within bounds. A reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial disposal.”
Case Title: R BHARATH AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 4461/2024 & others
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
The Karnataka High Court on Monday rejected a batch of petitions challenging a government notification banning the sale, consumption, storage, advertisement and promotion of all types of hookah products within the State. In doing so, the Court upheld the ban on all types of hookah products in Karnataka.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna had reserved the judgment on March 11, after hearing both sides. As per the notification, hookah bar is a cause of fire hazards and violates state fire control and fire safety laws. Consumption of hookah in hotels, bars and restaurants makes food items unsafe for public consumption and may adversely affect public health, the notification further states.
Belgavi Stripping Incident: Karnataka High Court Directs Completion Of Trial Against Accused Within A Year
Case Title: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
Case No: Writ Petition No 27927/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
The Karnataka High Court has directed that trial against the accused in Belgavi stripping incident, where an elderly woman was assaulted, paraded naked and tied to an electric pole, be completed within a year.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “The trial against the accused persons shall be completed by the competent Court where it is pending, expeditiously within an outer limit of one year. The Registry of this Court shall issue intimation to the Competent Court where the criminal case is pending in this regard.”
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2020/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 190.
The Karnataka High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a national-level hockey player who is charged with offences punishable under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), on the allegation of rape on false pretext of marriage.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar allowed the application filed by the accused and said, “Right of Freedom is a fundamental right and merely on the basis of allegations, the Fundamental Right cannot be curtailed and the matter requires a detailed trial and if the petitioner is found guilty during the course of the trial, then the law will take its own course. However, the pre-trial detention is unwarranted as it will be a serious stigma on the character of a person.”
Case Title: Iranna & ANR AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 5201 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking directions to stop further process for construction of a bypass road connected to National Highway- 367.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “Not only the project of laying roads cannot be arrested as it would be against the public interest, the directions of the kind and nature prayed for by the petitioners are not liable to be granted since they are the functions falling within the realm of the Executive.”
Case Title: Vijayraj Surana AND CBI & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5333 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5354 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
The Karnataka High Court has quashed two cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation against Vijayraj Surana, Promoter Director of Surana Power Limited, registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petitions filed by Surana and said, “Although the CBI has invoked Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is no allegation in the first information report that the accused in connivance with the Bank Officials who come under the ambit of public servants as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act misused funds, source of capital, manipulation in project award, accounting manipulation, and diversion of funds. In the absence of essential elements to constitute the offences under PC Act, the contention of the learned counsel for the CBI that the SFIO cannot investigate the offences under the PC Act is not acceptable, when there is no allegation to investigate the offence under PC Act."
Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Eleven Persons Accused In Belagavi Stripping Incident
Case Title: Raju Naik & Others AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101015 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to 11 accused arrested in the Belgavi incident, where an elderly woman was assaulted, paraded naked and tied to an electric pole, last year.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty sitting at Dharwad bench allowed the petition filed by Raju Naik and others, stating:
“From a perusal of the allegations found in the first information as well as in the charge sheet, it appears that the accused had no motive or ill will against the victim. It is only after the daughter of accused No.1 had eloped with the son of the victim, the alleged incident had taken place. Investigation in the case is complete and a charge sheet has already been filed.”
Case Title: M/s Sujal Pharma AND Karnataka State Medical Supplies Corporation Limited.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20520 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Karnataka State Medical Supplies Corporation Limited, blacklisting a firm for having supplied hand sanitisers during the Covid-19 period which were not of standard quality.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M/s. Sujal Pharma, and said, “I deem it appropriate to give a quietus to the issue and not remit the matter back to the hands of the respondent as the Hand Sanitizers that were supplied have naturally dried up by efflux of time.”
Case Title: Rojamani & Others AND Union Bank of India
Case No: MFA No 3651 of 2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
The Karnataka High Court has held that if a bonafide passenger dies while alighting from a moving train which he/she wrongly boarded, the Railway is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh allowed the appeal filed by Rojamani and others and set aside the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, dated 28-04-2016 and said “The impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. Consequently, the claim application is allowed. The appellants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a., from the date of filing the claim application till its realisation.”
Case Title: KIKKERI KRISHNA MURTHY And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WP 19801/2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition questioning the State government's order prescribing that the State Anthem—Jayabharatha Jananiya Thanujathe be sung for two and half minutes, in a tune composed by Mysore Ananthaswamy.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while rejecting the petition filed by Kikkeri Krishna Murthy, held “Government has done it in executive power, as long as it does not affect you (petitioner) it is always open for the government to do it. As far as students are concerned there are provisions in the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 which I have construed as empowering the government to prescribe a particular raga. Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.”
Case Title: B G Uday AND H G Prashanth
Case No: CRL.RP.NO.1157 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that not every criminal case launched against a candidate contesting elections either by way of registering the FIR or by moving private complaint has to be disclosed in the affidavit accompanying the nomination papers.
Court said cases where charges have not been framed or cognizance of the offences alleged has not been taken need not be disclosed in the affidavit.
Case Title: Smt. N. Bhuvaneshwari vs The Management of M/s Ambuthirtha Power Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 49982/2018 (L-TER) C/W Writ Petition No.6531/2019 (L-RES)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
The High Court of Karnataka single bench of Mrs Justice K.S Hemalekha held that persons carrying managerial and supervisory responsibilities do not fall within the scope of 'workman', as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Once it is determined that the person is not a 'workman' under the Act, the labour court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate whether their termination was proper or not.
[Elections] Party's Declaration, Promise Of Policies They Intend To Implement Can't Be Considered Corrupt Practise Under RP Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Shashanka J Sreedhara AND B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan
Case No: ELECTION PETITION NO.15 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Karnataka High Court has held that a declaration by a party as to the policy that they intend to bring about cannot be considered a corrupt practice for the purpose of Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M I Arun dismissed an election petition filed by a voter Shashanka J Sreedhara from Chamrajpet Assembly Constituency challenging the selection of the successful candidate B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan, from the said constituency in the 2023 Elections conducted to the Karnataka State Legislature.
Case Title: The Divisional Controller (South), N.W.K.R.T.C. vs Vasant B Jogi
Case Number: WP No. 105424 of 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
The Karnataka High Court single-judge bench of Justice Shivshankar Amarannavar held that when an industrial dispute is pending in an adjudicatory body, the employer must seek approval from the Tribunal for the dismissal of the worker, as mandated by Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. If any approval is not sought and granted, such dismissal would be deemed void.
The Issue Of Limitation Is Also Part And Parcel Of The Arbitrable Point: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Shivaraj Kamshetty v. The Managing Director Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board,
Case No: Civil Misc Petition No. 20003 of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
The bench of Justice C.M. Joshi of Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi Bench) has held that the issue of limitation of claims is a part and parcel of the arbitrable point which can be decided by the arbitrator.
The Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in BSNL v. Nortel Neworks, LL 2021 SC 153 wherein the Apex Court held that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which should be decided by the arbitral tribunal. Further, the Court had held that the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act can refuse arbitration only when the claims are ex-facie barred by limitation.