Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 10 To April 16, 2023

Nominal Index [Citations 144 - 151]:Ramamurthy N And Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 144Isthiyak Ahmed And Election Commission of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 145K. Shankarlal v. Post Master, India Post & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 146Roopa D And Rohini Sindhuri &ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 147ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 148Coolulu Sports Private Limited And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 149Kanchan Srinivasan And Bangalore Cyber Crime Police Station & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 150THE SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT AND MONITORING COMMITTEE And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 151Judgments/Orders. Be Careful Of Complaints Filed By Parties To Judicial Proceedings To Settle Personal Scores: Karnataka High Court To BBMP Case Title: Ramamurthy N And Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 22305 OF 2016Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 144The Karnataka High Court has advised the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to be careful with complaints made by a party to a civil proceedings against its opponent, and initiate action only in accordance with law.A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by one Ramamurthy N and quashed the order passed by the corporation issued under Section 321 (3) of the Municipal Corporation act against him on the complaint made by his brother.Election Officials Have No Authority To Search And Seize Material Before Announcement Of Election: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Isthiyak Ahmed And Election Commission of India & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6865 OF 2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 145The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that Returning Officer or the election officials would not get any jurisdiction to search or seize any material before announcement of elections.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “The Returning Officer or the election officials would not get any jurisdiction to search or seize any material before the announcement of elections. Merely because they are appointed as Officers for conduct of elections, they cannot use the said power before the declaration of elections. After the declaration of elections, the entire domain would be open, but not till then.”Karnataka High Court Raps Postal Officials For Opening HUF PPF Account After Withdrawal Of Scheme, Orders Payment Of Interest Case Title: K. Shankarlal v. Post Master, India Post & Ors.Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 2042 OF 2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 146The Karnataka High Court recently came to the rescue of a 48 years old Bengaluru resident who was denied interest on PPF deposits, stating that his HUF PPF account was opened irregularly after the scheme was amended.Stating that it was for the authorities to detect such irregular accounts and inform the investors immediately, a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna cautioned the Postmaster and the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices that failure to do so will lead to the Officers who manage such accounts being held responsible for dereliction of duty.Karnataka High Court Vacates Temporary Injunction Restraining IPS Officer Roopa Moudgil From Circulating Defamatory Content Against IAS Rohini Sindhuri Caset Title: Roopa D And Rohini Sindhuri &ANRCase No: WP 5814/2023.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 147The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday vacated the temporary injuction order passed by a Civil court in Bengaluru, restraining IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil from publishing any defamatory content against IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri.A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar allowed the petition filed by Moudgil questioning the order dated March 7, by which the trial court had extended the life of injunction order.No Rebuttal To Desertion Allegations Despite Entering Appearance: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Wife's Appeal Against Divorce Decree Case Title: ABC And XYZCase No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4290 OF 2016Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 148The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a woman challenging an order of the family court granting divorce on the grounds of desertion as the wife failed to counter the averments made by the husband in the petition.A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil said “It is trite law that if a witness is not subjected to cross-examination by the other side, his testimony is deemed to have been accepted.”Lulu Mall v. Coolulu Sports Trademark Dispute: Karnataka High Court Directs Centre To Pass Reasoned Orders U/S 16 Companies Act Case Title: Coolulu Sports Private Limited And Union of India & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION No.15087 OF 2022Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 149The Karnataka High Court has directed the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs to consider afresh whether the word “lulu” in the title of Coolulu Sports Private Limited company is identical to Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited a well...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 10 To April 16, 2023

Mustafa Plumber

Tags