- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Karnataka High Court
- /
- Karnataka High Court Half Yearly...
Karnataka High Court Half Yearly Digest [July 2024 To December 2024]
Mustafa Plumber
11 Jan 2025 6:05 PM IST
![Karnataka High Court Half Yearly Digest [July 2024 To December 2024]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/07/08/750x450_548408-karnataka-high-court-half-yearly-digest-2024.webp "Karnataka High Court Half Yearly Digest [July 2024 To December 2024]")
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 291 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 532Nominal Index:ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 291A Ramesh Babu & Others AND Dharani S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 292Justice B Padmaraj AND Union of India & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 293G Devaraje Gowda AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 294M/S POWER SMART MEDIA PVT LTD & ANR AND Union of...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 291 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 532
Nominal Index:
ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 291
A Ramesh Babu & Others AND Dharani S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
Justice B Padmaraj AND Union of India & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
G Devaraje Gowda AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
M/S POWER SMART MEDIA PVT LTD & ANR AND Union of India & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-3 Versus Transways India Transport. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
Admar Mutt Kaliya Mardana Krishna Devaru v Vishalakshmi & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
C V Mahalingaiah & Others AND The State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
M/S Hitachi Energy India Limited Versus State Of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
ABC AND XYZ & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
Bennett Coleman And Co Ltd & Others AND M/s Bid And Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
ABC & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
Shyamal Mukherjee Vs Pricewaterhousecoopers Services LLP. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
GENERAL ATLANTIC SINGAPORE TL PTE LTD v. BYJU RAVEENDRAN. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
R Shankar AND E Ramamohan Chowdary. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Roopesha & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
UNION OF INDIA & Others AND L. KRISHNAMURTHY & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
Hu Xiaolin AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
P B D'Sa & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
Mohammed Khaleelulla AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
Shreekrishan Ramesh @Sreeki AND State of Karnataka & Other. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
Vanitha & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR . 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
C Niranjan Yadav AND D Ravi Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
M K Thammaiah & Others AND A Mohan Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
Vaibhavaraj Utsav AND State By Chandra Layout P.S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
Union of India & ANR AND B Arulappa. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
Vinod Kumar K AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
Nandini AND The DG & IGP of Police, Bengaluru & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
Thanmay U AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
Inayathulla N AND State By Police Sub Inspector. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
XXX AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
Manjunatha M S AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
S Muniraju And State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
Bylamurthy AND M.G Gangalakshmamma & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
Informatica Business Solutions Private Limited Versus Acit. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 325
State of Karnataka & Others AND Umadevi Hundekar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 326
ABC AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 327
Dhariyappagouda Patil AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
Zaheda Inamdhar AND Dr Fatima Hassina Sayyedha. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
Canara Bank AND Commissioner of Customs & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
Dr. Amrithalakshmi R AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
Thanmay U AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 Live Law (Kar) 332
Dr. Sabeel Ahmed @ Motu Doctor AND National Investigating Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 333
Dhananje Gowda & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 334
Shahrukh Ayub Khan & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 335
Dhanush B N & Others AND Karnataka State Law University & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 336
Siri Srikanth AND The Karnataka Examination Authority & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
Ajay Kumar Behra AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
State By Karnataka Lokayuktha Police AND T Manjunath & ANR. 2024 Live Law (Kar) 339
The Income Tax Department Versus M/S. Jenious Clothing Private Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
Nayamat Ali Khan & ANR AND M Sadananda & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
Byju Raveendran And Think and Learn Pvt Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
Karnataka State Road Corporation & Others AND Mallaiah & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
M/S Akshaya Private Limited Vs M/S S P Sai Technologies. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
THE BANGALORE, BANGALORE RURAL AND RAMANAGARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND Assistant Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
ABC AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
Nagamma & Others AND Rudrayya & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 350
Principal Additional Director General Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence Versus M/S Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 351
PARITOSH CHANDRASHEKAR KULKARNI AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 352
Bashirahmed AND Surayya & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 353
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND SUPREETH S. @ SUPREETH & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 354
Dr Anil Khurana AND Dr Amargouda L Patil & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 355
DR. AMIRTHALAKSHMI R AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 Live Law (Kar) 356
Francis Zavier W AND MM Mathew. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 357
S Nagarajan & ANR AND Nadoja Dr Mahesh Joshi. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 358
Debhashish Sinha & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 359
Satyalaxmi Rao & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 Live Law (Kar) 360
Life Insurance Corporation AND Sourabh. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 361
Dr. Namratha NR and Karnataka Medical Council & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 362
Santhosh Shet AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 363
PCIT Versus Smt. Umah Agarwal. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 364
Stanly Kirthiraj AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 365
Kawal Jeet Kaur AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
Kumara C AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 367
Alok Kumar v. Mamatha Singh. 2024 Live Law (Kar) 368
Shankar Naik G K AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
Shanthalakshmi AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
GUDDAPPA NINGAPPA KOLAJI AND THE MANAGEMENT OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
M/S Three 1st Enterprises Versus The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
Sreeramu V and ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 373
Chennamma AND The Regional Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
Shobha AND Dr Anil P Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar). 375
Mohammed Shahid & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 376
Rafiq Bepari AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 377
Dr Subhalakshmi N & ANR v. State By District Appropriate Authority PC AND PNDT District Health and Family Welfare Office & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 378
Sadat Ali Khan AND Noor Ahmed Sayyed & ANR2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 379
Mahathma Gandhiji Grama Hitha Mandali AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 380
Mayukh Mukherjee AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 381
Chaithanya Reddy S V AND Nayana & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 382
Chidanandaya & ANR AND Shivalingappa Mallappa Biradar & Others for Respondents. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 383
Gajendra K M & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 384
State of Karnataka AND H D Revanna. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 385
BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 386
Mohammed Dastagir AND Telecom Regulatory Authority of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 387
State By Mahadevapura Police Station AND Padmavathamma C. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 388
Santhosh K S AND Dilip Kumar H & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 389
Deepa Darshan H P & ANR AND Police Inspector & ANR . 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
R Gopal Reddy AND Mohammed Mukaram. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 391
Abdul Rehman & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 392
M/S ZIM LABORATORIES LTD & Others AND Union of India. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 393
Santhosh K S AND Dilip Kumar H & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
B.M Venkatappa AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
B S Suresh & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
H Mahadev AND K N Rajamma & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
ABC AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
Priyanka Halamani AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
Muniyappa AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 400
Disha Bhat AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
V Sunil Kumar AND Pramod Mutalik. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 402
Hanumantha & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 403
T N Kumara AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 404
Bharat Jaywant Kurane AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
Lingesh K S & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 406.
PRIYANK KANOONGO AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 407.
M/s.Shangrila Flat Owners Association AND Capt Mohan Prabhu. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 408
SHOBHA KARANDLAJE AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
Abin Thomas Sebastian AND Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 410
Dr Kalyan C Kankanala AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 411
Arptia J AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 412
Siddaramaiah AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 413
Keshavamurthy AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 414
Suresha & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 415
Vishal Raghu & Others AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 416
BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) AND Shivananda S Patil
2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING AND ORS vs. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS CONTRACT WORKERS ASSOCIATION. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
ABC AND XYZ. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
ABC AND Internal Complaints Committee & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 420
Arafath Ali @ Arafath AND National Investigation Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 421
Sanjana Raghunath AND Karnataka Examination Authority & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 422
Roshan A AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 423
Vishwanath Koraga Shetty AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 424
Reserve Bank of India & ANR AND Sanjukumar & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 425
M/S Patanjali Foods Limited (Formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Limted) vs. Commissioner of Customs. 2024 LiveLaw (kar) 426
Kesar Colour Chem Industries vs. Intelligence Officer. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 427
B J Rajni & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 428
The Legal Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited AND Nagamma & Others and Smt Nagamma and Others AND Sri P Penkatesh and others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 429
M S Praveen Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 430
S Bsavaraj AND Bar Council of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 431
Arunkumar AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 432
Pradosh S Rao AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 433
Vishwanath Basappa Batti AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 434
Nagabhushana B AND Registrar General & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 435
Bangalore Development Authority & Anr and Sachin Nagarajappa and another matter. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 436
Vishal Khatwani AND State of Karnataka.2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 437
Keerthan Kumar & Anr AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 438
Veermachaneni Raghavendra Prasad AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 439XXX AND Azim Premji University & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 440
Canara Bank AND Subramanya Rao K & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 441
State of Karnataka & Others AND H S Kanthi. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 442
Saikat Bhatacharyya AND Union of India.2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 443
ALL INDIA DALIT ACTION COMMITTEE ® AND Rahul Gandhi & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 444
Prajwal Revanna v. State of Karnataka and other petitions. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 445
M/s Steel Rocks INC & ANR AND M/S. BANGALORE ELEVATED TOLLWAY PVT. LTD & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 446
B Gopal Krishna & ANR AND District Commissioner, District Appropriate Authority & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 447
Krishna Naik AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 448
BHIMAPPA GUNDAPPA GADAD AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 449.
Lalji Kesha Vaid AND Dayanand R. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 450
G V Prasad & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 451
Mohammed Shiyab AND National Investigating Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 452
Akash Jaiswal AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 453
Mahantesh S Nagur AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 454
Siji Malayil & ANR And Union of India & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 455
B. SATHYANARAYANACHAR AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 456
Raja Yogi Nirmalnathji Maharaj AND KADRI JOGI (YOGISHWAR) MUTT & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 457
XXX AND STATE BY WOMEN POLICE STATION & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 458
The Taj West End Hotel AND K Venkatesh. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 459
J P Nadda AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 460
R.K.BHAT AND SHANTHI ROACHE & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 461
Manoj Mittal & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 462
Prema & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 463
B C Hanumantharaju AND Kavyashree & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 464
Khaja Hussain AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 465
Nagaraj G K AND THE HON'BLE ADDL. LABOUR COMMISSIONER & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 466
Nagaraj G K AND THE HON'BLE ADDL. LABOUR COMMISSIONER & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 466
UNION BANK OF INDIA AND State of Karnataka. Citation no: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 467
Master Shamant P & Others AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 468
Karan Dhanajaya AND Bar Council of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 469
N Shreyas & ANR AND The Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 470
Jabir Ali Khan alias Shuja AND Karnataka State Board of Wakfs & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 471
Satish AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 472
State of Karnataka & Others AND Latha H N. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 473
Parvati & ANR AND State of Karnataka & anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar). 474
Ramesh N R AND Chief Secretary & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 475
Mandara AND State of Karnataka and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 476
South Canara District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 477
M/S KARNATAKA STATE CERTIFIED SEED PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION & Others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 478
Rajanna R & Others AND Karnataka State Bar Council & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 479
Prajwal Revanna v/s State by CID Police. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 480
Krishnappa M T & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 481
National Institute of Mental Health And Neuroscience AND S Anitha Joseph. 2024
LiveLaw (Kar) 482
K Ramakrishna AND Assistant Director 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 483
M/S COMPASSION UNLIMITED PLUS ACTION (CUPA AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 484
B Y Vijayendra & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 485
S Purushothama AND The Chairman & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 486
Shumita Deb & ANR AND Gautam Bhattacharya & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 487
Ashwith Kumar And State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 488
R. Nataraj vs. Smt. R. Punitha & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 489
Union of India & Others AND Government of Karnataka & Others. 2024LiveLaw (Kar) 490
DODDABALLAPUR SPINNING MILLS AND THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 491
Sourish Bose & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 492
Naleen Kumar Kateel v State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 493
State of Karnataka & ANR AND Dr Madhu Kumar M H. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 494
Chandra AND Chief Superintendent & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 495
KANAKA LAKSHMI B M AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 496
M V Srinivas Gowda AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 497
Vinay Kulkarni And Central Bureau of Investigation & Others and batch. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 498
Sudha Bai & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 499
Akhil Thomas AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 500
K Raja AND V Prabhakar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 501
Axis Bank Ltd AND Assistant Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 502
UnIon of India AND A Mohan & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 503
A J James AND Karnataka State Law University & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 504
Mohammed Aamir Raza AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 505.
Ananda Reddy AND Radhamma & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 506
Ejas PP AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 507
Indiramma & Others AND HAMPAMMA and others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 508
L S Tejasvi Surya AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 509
Basangouda Patil (Yatnal) And State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 510
Darshan v. State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 511
N. Rajgopal Hebbar vs. Mrs. Padmavathi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 512
Satish Jarkiholi AND Dilip Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 513
ACTION FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION, REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 514
Syed Ajaz Ahmed AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 515
SHIVAPRASAD AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 516
B Y Vijayendra AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 517
State of Karnataka & Kalandar Shafi & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 518
Principal Secretary To Government & ANR AND Mahaveen Oswal and Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 519-
Prakash Ramachandra Hegde. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 520
Charulata Somal AND Shriya Muddanna Shetty. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 521
State of Karnataka AND G Ramachari. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 522
Karnataka Employers Association & Others AND All India Trade Union Congress & OThers. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 523
Sachin R & ANR AND Karnataka State Law University & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 524
ABC And State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 525
M Manjula & Others AND Deputy Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 526
Union Bank of India & ANR AND V Harsih D Kamath & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 527
G Swamy AND B Devendrappa. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 528
Ms X AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 529
Chandra @Chandrashekhara Bhat AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 530
SRI.THANGAVELU. R v. SHRI. SANTHOSH. J. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 531
Dr Mohankumar M AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 532
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1803 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 291
The Karnataka High Court has granted liberty to a husband to initiate criminal proceedings for malicious prosecution, under Section 211 of the IPC (Falsely accuse others of committing an offence) against his estranged wife.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a husband and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against him by the wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The wife had claimed that the husband was suffering from Human Papilloma-Virus (HPV), which is a sexually transmitted disease (STD).
Case Title: A Ramesh Babu & Others AND Dharani S
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3578 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
The Karnataka High Court has held that a petition calling in question the entire proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would be maintainable before the High Court, not the Sessions Court.
However, if any particular order is passed on any application filed under Sections 18, 19, 20 or 22 of the Act, those specific orders are to be agitated before the Court of Sessions invoking Section 29 of the Act.
Case Title: Justice B Padmaraj AND Union of India & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.13125 OF 2012
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Union of India to calculate and disburse the leave encashment amount due to a former Judge of the High Court, who on retiring was appointed as Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal and served in the position for over two years.
A Single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum partly allowed the petition filed by Justice B Padmaraj (retired) and said “This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for grant of leave encashment in respect of the earned leave standing to his credit during his tenure as Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal.”
Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Whistleblower Advocate G Devarajegowda In Alleged Rape Case
Case Title: G Devaraje Gowda AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5449 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
The Karnataka High Court on Monday granted bail to Advocate G Devarajegowda in a rape case registered against him at the Holenarasipura Police Station.
A single-judge bench of Justice M G Uma allowed the petition filed by the accused. Gowda is reported to be the whistle-blower of the alleged obscene video scandal involving former JD(S) MP Prajwal Revanna
Case Title: M/S POWER SMART MEDIA PVT LTD & ANR AND Union of India & ANR
Case NO: WA 949/2024 c/w WA 951/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
The Karnataka High Court has denied an appeal filed by M/s Power Smart Media Private Limited which operates Kannada news channel 'Power TV' challenging the interim order passed by a single judge bench, restraining it from broadcasting.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind had earlier heard the parties and reserved the order.
The Bench took into consideration that since 2021 there the channel is operating without a valid licence and several notices alleging violation have been issued to it, and said “Temporary prohibition of broadcast in light of the facts and situation and further in view that competent authorities are to try and deal with on merits the show cause notice could not be said to be violating the right of broadcast.”
Case Title: The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-3 Versus Transways India Transport
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 854 Of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
The Karnataka High Court has held that undervaluation cannot be a ground for seizure of goods in transit by the inspecting authority.
The bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar upheld the single bench order in which the obligation to pay tax and penalty has been quashed coupled with a direction to release the vehicle.
No Law Prohibits Alteration Of Travel Route In Transporting Goods: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & ANR AND M/s Transways India Transport.
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
The Karnataka High Court has held that no law, rule or ruling mandates conveyance of goods from one point to its destination following a particular route only or prohibits alteration of travel route qua the one impressed in the consignment documents.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar dismissed the appeal filed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and said “What is required by law is the furnishing of consignment documents and specified particulars of consignor, consignee, goods, route maps & destinations. Requirement of furnishing particulars of route map, etc., is one thing, compulsive adherence to the impressed route is another. There is law with regard to the former, is true; but latter is non liquet i.e., an area where there is no binding rule.”
Case Title: Admar Mutt Kaliya Mardana Krishna Devaru v Vishalakshmi & Others
Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.12 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
The Karnataka High Court has held that a written statement is not required to be filed by a defendant in a suit to contend that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper and that the defendant's application under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of suit, cannot be dismissed on that ground.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition Shri Admar Mutt Kaliya Mardana Krishna Devaru and said “The filing of a written statement is not a condition precedent for considering an application under Rule 11 of Order VII.”
Case Title: C V Mahalingaiah & Others AND The State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
The Karnataka High Court has observed that delay in conducting elections to the Board of Tumkur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies, due to conduct of Parliamentary Elections (Lok Sabha), is justified.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind made the observation while disposing of an appeal filed by incumbent President of the Milk Society, challenging a single bench order which had disposed of their plea seeking direction to the Co-operative Election Commissioner to conduct elections to the Society.
GST Appeal Filed Online Is Within Time, Karnataka High Court Condones Delay In Physical Filing
Case Title: M/S Hitachi Energy India Limited Versus State Of Karnataka
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 14881 Of 2024 (T-Res)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
The Karnataka High Court has condoned delay in the physical filing of the appeal as the appeal was filed via online mode within time.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav observed that Rule 108(3) was amended to the extent that the date of appeal would be the date of issuance of acknowledgment, which was on June 3, 2022, and the change is in contradistinction to the earlier requirement, which provided that the date of appeal would be the date of furnishing a certified copy of the order if submitted after seven days. If that were to be so, the date of physical filing of the certified copy ought not to have been taken note of.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4710 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
The Karnataka High Court has said that an application made by a woman under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, cannot be dismissed by the trial court without issuing notice to the respondents or carrying out an enquiry.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a woman and set aside the order dated 18-03-2024, passed by the trial which had on going through the application dismissed it by observing that the case does not project any domestic violence.
Case Title: Bennett Coleman And Co Ltd & Others AND M/s Bid And Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3829 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a defamation case registered against Jaideep Bose, Editorial Director of Bennett Coleman and Co Ltd, which publishes the newspaper Times of India.
A single-judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda, however, quashed the proceedings initiated under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the company.
Case Title: ABC & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4308 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case of criminal intimidation registered against two daughters by their father after they undertook before the court that they would not do any such act which would constitute an offence against their father.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda allowed the petition filed by the daughters and quashed the proceedings initiated by their father under sections 506, 504, 448 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Mr. Shyamal Mukherjee Vs Pricewaterhousecoopers Services LLP
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLEANEOUS PETITION NO.96 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice R. Devdas has held that prior involvement as an arbitrator in a dispute or multiple appointments by one of the parties or its affiliate does not automatically disqualify an individual from serving as an arbitrator in subsequent cases. The crucial factor lies in the arbitrator's ability to demonstrate independence and impartiality in past proceedings.
Therefore, the bench dismissed the contention that an arbitrator engaged in a dispute concerning a party and an affiliate of another party is ineligible for appointment.
Karnataka High Court Restricts Byju's Share Allotment Till NCLT Decision On Rights Issue
Case Title: GENERAL ATLANTIC SINGAPORE TL PTE LTD v. BYJU RAVEENDRAN
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 969 OF 2024 A/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 972 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
The Karnataka High Court on Friday restrained edutech company Byju's, MD Byju Raveendrana and parent company Think and Learn Private Limited from making allotment of shares till the proceedings against it pending before the National Company Tribunal is decided.
Byju's investors had approached the NCLT to restrain the company from launching second rights issue, fearing it will dilute their holding.
The Tribunal had in its interim order restrained the company from allotting the shares. The interim order was challenged before the High Court, which set aside the NCLT order as being non-speaking and cryptic.
Case Title: R Shankar AND E Ramamohan Chowdary
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 100487 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
The Karnataka High Court has held that Order XIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which pertains to the return of documents produced during a trial, is not to be strictly limited to the party that physically submits the documents in court, instead, it is to ensure rightful ownership and fair administration of justice.
Case Title: Roopesha & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4941 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings of abetment to suicide of a minor initiated against two school teachers. The girl student committed suicide following the alleged harassment and threats issued by them on the ground that she was talking to a boy studying in the same school.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Roopesha and Sadananda said “Boys and girls are in the same classroom, if they talk to each other or become friends, it is ununderstandable as to how such acts could become subversive of discipline, as the entire projection by the petitioner is that they only wanted to discipline the children, particularly, the victim.”
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & Others AND L. KRISHNAMURTHY & Others
Case No: WA 1556/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging a single bench order permitting a former State Information Commissioner to avail medical treatment and Hospital facilities as provided in the Central Government Health Scheme.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the appeal saying, “The appeal is dismissed.We have concurred with the view taken by the Ld Single judge.” The detailed order will be made available in due course.
Case Title: Hu Xiaolin AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.455 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Chinese national accused in the infamous Power Bank Scam seeking permission to travel back to China pending trial on the grounds of meeting her ailing father.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by HU Xiaolin while doing so took note that under the Chinese Criminal Code once a person becomes an accused, he or she will never be permitted to move out of the Chinese shores till the trial gets completed.
After Former Judge Apologises, Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Defamation Case Against Him
Case Title: P B D'Sa & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5242 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against former High Court judge, Justice Michael Francis Saldhana, after he tendered an unconditional apology.
The proceedings were initiated under sections 384/385/389 (extortion), 500/501 (defamation) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC on a complaint filed by Advocate MP Noronha.
Case Title: Mohammed Khaleelulla AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 7545/2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
The Karnataka High Court today dismissed a PIL filed by a civil contractor, seeking action against several state BJP leaders including MP Renukacharya, CT Ravi, Tejasvi Surya and Prathap Simha for allegedly making Hate speeches.
Petitioner Mohammed Khaleeulla claimed he came across the alleged speeches through social media platforms.
However, division bench headed by Chief Justice NV Anjaria found the allegations were too general, lacking authentication and said the PIL appeared to be "politically motivated".
"Why are you misusing the platform of High Court by filing such petitions? Why are you wasting time of courts by filing such petitions with omnibus prayers?" the Judge sternly remarked while dismissing the plea.
Karnataka High Court Quashes KCOCA Charges Against Bitcoin Scam Accused Sirkrishna
Case Title: Shreekrishan Ramesh @Sreeki AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15943 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 15622 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the addition of stringent charges under the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 against accused Sirkrishna and Robin Khandelwal, in connection with the Bitcoin scam case.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar said “The filing of two charge sheets and taking of cognizance of two offences within a period of 10 years prior to and preceding the date of commission of the offence under KCOCA is a sine qua non for invocation of the offence and in the absence of the same, the very invocation of KCOCA would be without jurisdiction or authority of law and deserves to be quashed.”
Case Title: Vanitha & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5522 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a case of cheating registered against a mother and son who are alleged of fabricating documents in order to acquire title in a property.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Vanitha and Venkatesh M and said, “It is no law that merely because an issue brought before the Court appears to be civil and is standing on the heels of crime, it should be obliterated.”
Case Title: C Niranjan Yadav AND D Ravi Kumar
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.814 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
The Karnataka High Court has held that a legal notice regarding dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if sent by registered post to the address of the accused which is known to the complainant, would be deemed to have been served and it is for the accused to say as to why he could not receive the cover.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda held thus while dismissing the petition filed by C Niranjan Yadav challenging an order by the trial court which had held him guilty under the Act and imposed a fine of Rs.75,000.
Case Title: M K Thammaiah & Others AND A Mohan Kumar
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5232 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a trial court order taking cognizance of a private complaint filed against seven police officers under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code, as no sanction for prosecution was granted by the government.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed ADGP Seemanthkumar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) MK Thammaiah, Inspector SR Veerendra Prasad, DySP Prakash R, Inspector Manjunath H Hugar, DySPs Vijay H and Uma Prashant, who were attached to the now-disbanded Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).
Imposing Condition To Furnish Bank Guarantee While Granting Bail Illegal: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Vaibhavaraj Utsav AND State By Chandra Layout P.S
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5847 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that imposing a condition that the accused should furnish a bank guarantee of any quantum for grant of bail by the trial court is on the face of it illegal.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that it has come across a plethora of cases where the concerned courts while granting bail are imposing conditions of furnishing bank guarantee.
It said, “I deem it appropriate to observe that the concerned Court shall not insist on furnishing of bank guarantee for release of the accused on grant of bail. Except this, the concerned Court would be free to impose any other legally tenable conditions.”
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
Case Title: Union of India & ANR AND B Arulappa
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.25744 OF 2023
The Karnataka High Court has said that directions passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to consider the representation for voluntary retirement made by an employee are binding and authorities cannot instead direct compulsory retirement without considering the plea for voluntary retirement.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, said thus while dismissing a petition filed by Union of India challenging an order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the compulsory retirement order passed against B Arulappa, Commissioner of Income Tax and directing the authority to consider his application for voluntary retirement.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar K AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
Observing that “Forty four years is too long a time to maintain legal action. With passage of such protracted time, the right to relief is lost,” the Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal filed by an appellant questioning the land acquisition proceedings initiated and completed in the year 1978.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the appeal filed by Vinod Kumar K. The appellant had challenged a single judge bench order dismissing his petition praying to call for records pertaining to the proceedings initiated by the Special Land Acquisition officer. Further, direct the authorities to initiate proceedings and pass an award under Section 11 of the Right to Fair, Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Case Title: Nandini AND The DG & IGP of Police, Bengaluru & Others
Case No: WPHC NO.55 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the wife of a detenu questioning his detention under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas (Immoral Traffic Offencers, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates) Act, 1985.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar noted that the man is involved in 45 criminal cases registered at different police stations. It said, “The criminal antecedents of detenue galore on record and they lend credence to the contention of learned SPP that his detention is inevitably ordered after exploring all alternatives.”
Case Title: Thanmay U AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16700 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
The Karnataka High Court has refused to look into the validity of the State government's decision to set up a committee to examine 'out of syllabus' questions asked in the Karnataka CET 2024 exams held in April and its finding to exclude around 50 questions which were out of syllabus.
A single judge bench of Justice S Suni Dutt Yadav while disposing of a petition filed by 18-year-old, Thanmay U who argued the case in person said, “The Court cannot enter into the aspect of validity of decision taken by the Government based on the applicable syllabus which is the decision of the experts.”
Watching Child Pornography Online Will Not Attract Offence U/S 67B Of IT Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Inayathulla N AND State By Police Sub Inspector
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13141 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
The Karnataka High Court has held that a person watching child pornography material online cannot be charged for an offence under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed proceedings initiated against one Inayathulla N and said, “The allegation against the petitioner is that he has watched a pornographic website. This, in the considered view of the Court, would not become publishing or transmitting of material, as is necessary under Section 67B of the IT Act.”
Case Title: Inayathulla N AND State By Police Sub Inspector
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13141 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
The Karnataka High Court on Friday recalled its order passed on July 10, wherein it had held that a person watching child pornography online cannot be charged for an offence under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “This court had passed the order without noticing section 67B (b), it is an error.”
The court had quashed the proceedings initiated against one Inayathulla N stating that watching pornographic website would not amount to "publishing or transmitting of material", as is necessary under Section 67B of the IT Act.
Case Title: XXX AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7704 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that consensual acts between two adults who were in love over a long period of six years will not attract the offence of rape.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a man and quashed the case registered for offences punishable under sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Manjunatha M S AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1620 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
The Karnataka High Court has held that non-compliance with Subsection (4) of Section 115 of the Trade Mark Act, which mandates taking opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks, before carrying out search and seizure is an irregularity for which the infringement proceedings cannot be quashed.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Manjunatha M S who had approached the court questioning the prosecution initiated against him for offences punishable under Sections 482, 483 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 102, 103 and 104 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999.
Case Title: S Muniraju And State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 16180/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Dasarahalli Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) S Muniraju, belonging to Bharatiya Janata Party, seeking a direction to the state government to release an amount of Rs 78 crore for carrying out the developmental work in his constituency.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind said “Petitioner herein is an elected representative, he is an MLA, it is always open for petitioner to flag such issues before the house or before the Government and its competent authorities. Filing a writ petition in the nature of a PIL and seeking relief on such scores would not be said to be justified, no such PIL can be entertained.”
Case Title: Bylamurthy AND M.G Gangalakshmamma & Others
Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1457 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
The Karnataka High Court has said that continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff (purchaser) is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance by the court.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh held thus while dismissing the appeal filed by one Bylamurthy challenging an order of the trial court and the first appellate court rejecting his prayer for specific relief.
Reassessment Notice To Non-Existing Entity Is Not Legally Tenable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Informatica Business Solutions Private Limited Versus Acit
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 17300 OF 2024 (T-IT)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 325
The Karnataka High Court has held that the reassessment notice to a non-existing entity is not legally tenable.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav has observed that the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued on February 28, 2024, with respect to the assessment year 2020–21. The scheme of amalgamation has fixed the appointed date as April 1, 2019, and the entity to which notice is issued is deemed not to be in existence.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others AND Umadevi HundekarCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102121 OF 2024 (S-KAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 102119 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 326
The Karnataka High Court has observed that whenever a beneficial provision is incorporated in a statute, it has to be given effect in favour of the beneficiaries by authorities irrespective of whether the beneficiary has made an application in that regard or not.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice S G Pandit made the observation while dismissing petitions filed by the State Government questioning the order passed by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) setting aside the transfer order passed against Umadevi Hundekar (55) and Prabhavati Ronad (58), as they were found to be surplus teachers.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Rape Proceedings Against POCSO Accused After He Marries Victim
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 4658/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 327
The Karnataka High Court has quashed rape proceedings against an accused who during the pendency of the petition seeking quashing of offence was released on interim bail to allow him to marry the victim, who turned major and gave birth to a child.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the proceedings initiated under sections 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC and Sections 5(L), 5(J)(II), 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused.
Case Title: Dhariyappagouda Patil AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 101705 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on an Assistant Commissioner of the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizen Protection Tribunal, for exceeding his jurisdiction, entertaining a frivolous application under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act and nullifying a sale deed entered into by parties.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, directed the Assistant Commissioner of Savanur Sub-Division to pay the cost with the Advocate Clerks Welfare Fund, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad.
Case Title: Zaheda Inamdhar AND Dr Fatima Hassina Sayyedha
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.3519 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused has no right to tender his evidence by way of an affidavit in a proceedings initiated against him under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the complainant Zaheeda Inamdhar and set aside an order of the trial court permitting the filing of an affidavit by the accused Dr Fatima Hassina Sayeedha and rejecting Inamdhar's application filed under Section 311 of CrPC to cross-examine the accused.
Recovery Of Debt Of Bank Under SARFAESI Act Prevails Over Debts Under FEMA: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Canara Bank AND Commissioner of Customs & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 10895 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
The Karnataka High Court recently held that provisions of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI) will override the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act,(FEMA) which is a subsequent enactment, the debt of a secured creditor–Bank, would have priority and prevail over all other debts.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar held thus while allowing the petition filed by Canara Bank and directed the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate to release a property which was mortgaged to the Bank by one Iqbal Ahmed. ED had seized the property under the provisions of the FEMA and passed the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 directing the seizure of the scheduled property and other properties of Ahmed.
Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging ₹2 Price Hike On Nandini Milk Variants
Case Title: Dr. Amrithalakshmi R AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 18596/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation, questioning the price increase across all variants of Nandini Milk by Rs 2, which came into effect on June 26.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by Dr Amrithalakshmi R and said “Pricing policy is essential in the policy domain and judicial power would not be generally exercised unless shown decision is palpably wrong. What price is to be fixed and determined for products including milk is to be guided by a host of considerations which are commercial in nature. The commercial wisdom of R2 (KMF) in taking a decision to raise price, will not be a consideration before this court in public interest jurisdiction.”
Case Title: Thanmay U AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WA 1070/2024
Citation No: 2024 Live Law (Kar) 332
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal challenging a single judge bench order which refused to look into the validity of the State government's decision to set up a committee to examine 'out of syllabus' questions asked in the Karnataka CET 2024 exams, held in April and its finding to exclude 50 questions which were out of syllabus.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the appeal filed by 18-year-old, Thanmay U. A detailed order would be made available later.
Case Title: Dr. Sabeel Ahmed @ Motu Doctor AND National Investigating Agency
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20806 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 333
The Karnataka High Court has refused to discharge an alleged member of the banned terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), who was charged for conspiring to kill Hindu leaders and government officials in 2012.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice JM Khazi dismissed the petition filed by Dr. Sabeel Ahmed @ Motu Doctor, who challenged the Sessions court order, rejecting his application for discharge which was filed on the ground that he was acquitted in a similar case tried by a court in Delhi.
Case Title: Dhananje Gowda & Others AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6091 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5099 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 334
The Karnataka High Court has observed that instances of persons inducing pregnant ladies to undergo scanning and to abort the female foetus at various medical centres are very rampant in various parts of the state, especially Mysuru and Mandya districts.
A single judge bench Justice M G Uma observed thus while dismissing the anticipatory bail application filed by Dhananje Gowda and two others, who are charged for offences punishable under Sections 312, 314, 315, 316 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, on the complaint filed by the District Health and Welfare officer.
Case Title: Shahrukh Ayub Khan & ANR AND State of KarnatakaCase No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200230 OF 2023 (374) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200147 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 335
The Karnataka High Court has said that it is mandatory for authorities to prepare an inventory of seized contraband material and get it certified before the jurisdictional Magistrate before sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory, for chemical examination.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the appeal filed by two accused Shahrukh Khan and another and acquitted the accused who were charged under sections 20(b)(ii), 20(B) and 20(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Case Title: Dhanush B N & Others AND Karnataka State Law University & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14591 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 17235 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 336
The Karnataka High Court has rejected petitions filed by 9th-semester law students seeking directions on the Karnataka State Law University to permit them to write their examinations, which they were not allowed to do since they did not meet the required attendance criteria.
A single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav dismissed the petitions filed by Dhanush B N and others.
The students are pursuing a Five Year (Semester Scheme) LL.B. Course and had contended that they were promoted to 5th year and attended the classes for the 9th Semester, but they were not permitted to write the examination due to their attendance being below the required 70%.
Case Title: Siri Srikanth AND The Karnataka Examination Authority & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24645 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a student who was illegally denied admission to MBBS course in the academic year 2022-23, against sports quota. The court has directed authorities to admit her to the course this year.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind allowed the petition filed by Siri Srikanth and said “The respondent authorities are directed to admit the petitioner to the MBBS course on a seat in the quota reserved for sports for the academic year 2024-25 without applying any seniority among the candidates eligible for admission under the Sports Quota in the CET/NEET Examination conducted for the academic year 2024-25.”
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Behra AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4074 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
The Karnataka High Court has urged the Central Government to amend Section 184 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to provide that adult victims of rape be examined in hospitals by only female doctors, so as to protect their right to privacy.
A single judge bench of Justice MG Uma directed the Central and State governments to ensure that till the amendment is brought, medical examination of rape victims is conducted only by or under the supervision of a female registered medical practitioner.
Case Title: State By Karnataka Lokayuktha Police AND T Manjunath & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.422/2018 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.599/2018
Citation No: 2024 Live Law (Kar) 339
The Karnataka High Court has held that when a government employee is accused of criminal misconduct for demanding and accepting a bribe, he will have to come out clean in a trial and even if he is exonerated in a departmental enquiry, the same would not come in the way of continuing the criminal trial against him.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh held thus while rejecting the petition filed by T Manjunath who was arrested under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Dept's Appeal Against Inadequate Sentence Lies Before Sessions Court: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The Income Tax Department Versus M/S. Jenious Clothing Private Ltd
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.2104/2023 C/W Crl.A. Nos.1339/2020, 925/2021, 950/2021, 954/2021, 1207/2021, 1222/2021, 1223/2021, 1224/2021, 1229/2021, 1319/2021, 1326/2021, 1330/2021, 1337/2021, 672/2022, 810/2022, 898/2022, 2233/2022, 2245/2022 And 1913/2023.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by the Income Tax Department under Section 377 of Cr.P.C.
The bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar has observed that on a reading of Section 418 of the Bhartiya Nyayik Suraksha Sahita (BNSS), it is in pari materia with Section 377 of Cr.P.C. Even under the BNSS, no provision has been introduced for filing an appeal before the High Court if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate. Sub-Section (3) of Section 415 of BNSS provides for filing an appeal to the Court of Sessions against judgement of conviction on a trial held by the Magistrate. The reasons noted supra will also apply to the appeals filed or to be filed under Section 418 of BNSS.
Case Title: Nayamat Ali Khan & ANR AND M Sadananda & Others
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 557 OF 2016 C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
The Karnataka High Court has held that purchasers of a property from the auction purchaser can make an application before the executing court for obtaining possession of the properties from the owners/occupants.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice J M Khazi held thus while allowing an appeal filed by Nayamat Ali Khan and others. The Court set aside the order of the trial court and allowed their applications made under Order 21 Rule 95 of CPC, directing the executing court to issue delivery warrants.
Case Title: M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2978 OF 2024 (AA)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that an individual who acquires property that is the subject of a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is subject to the principle of lis pendens.
The issue before the High Court was whether the transaction was affected by the principle of lis pendens as outlined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Case Title: Byju Raveendran And Think and Learn Pvt Ltd
Case No: WP 19938/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday disposed of the petition filed by Byju Raveendran seeking to suspend the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order, which admitted his parent company Think and Learn Private Limited (TLPL), into the insolvency resolution process.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar disposed of the matter after it was informed that a special bench is constituted by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and which heard the matter today and further hearing is to continue on Wednesday. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition if the occasion arises.
Case Title: Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15125 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
The Karnataka High Court has said that in the event a notice issued by the police summoning a citizen under Section 35 of the BNSS does not contain the crime number, the offence alleged or the appending of the FIR, subject to just exceptions, the noticee is not obliged to appear before the officer who has directed him to appear and no coercive action can be taken against him.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “Summoning to the Police Station is not summoning a person to a happy place. A citizen must know as to why he is being summoned.”
Case Title: Karnataka State Road Corporation & Others AND Mallaiah & Others
Case No: R.F.A. NO.1653 OF 2011
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the trial court which decreed a suit in favour of private persons, declaring them to be owners of the land, which was notified by the then Mysore Maharaja in 1929 for the formation of a State Reserve Forest.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by the State government and Karnataka State Road Corporation and set aside the order of the trial court dated 29-08-2011, passed in favour of Mallaiah and others.
Case Title: M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2978 OF 2024 (AA)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that a person who is not a party to the arbitration agreement but buys property from someone who is a party to the agreement is still bound by the arbitration clause that applies to their vendors.
The High Court noted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decision in Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP India Private Limited and Another was primarily concerned with whether the phrase "claiming through or under" in Section 8 of the Arbitration Act includes the "Group of Companies" doctrine and whether this doctrine, as previously outlined in Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., constitutes valid law.
Case Title: M/S Akshaya Private Limited Vs M/S S P Sai Technologies
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
The Karnataka High Court division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that the right to enforce the settlement has to be through arbitration as the alleged settlement is in respect of a transaction arising from the contract which contained an arbitration clause.
Case Title: THE BANGALORE, BANGALORE RURAL AND RAMANAGARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND Assistant Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29196 OF 2014 (SCST) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 17857 OF 2015 (SCST) WRIT PETITION NO. 17858 OF 2015
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
The Karnataka High Court has held that a bank cannot enforce a decree for attachment of property against a land grantee under Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, for loan default made by the Cooperative Society holding the general power of attorney for such land.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "When a grantee has not received any benefit of the loan, the question of there being any privity of contract between the Bank and the grantee would not arise...The Society not having any right in the property has mortgaged the property to the Bank and the Bank has accepted the said mortgage knowing fully well that the Society is not the owner and does not have any right, title or interest."
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102394 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
The Karnataka High court has held that a father cannot be charged for kidnapping his minor child from the custody of his wife, so long as there is no prohibition order passed by a competent court against him.
A single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T allowed the petition filed by the husband and quashed the proceedings initiated against him by his wife for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC.
Case Title: Nagamma & Others AND Rudrayya & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 105278 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 350
The Karnataka High Court has held that once a sale deed has been duly executed and stamped, the agreement of sale can no longer be independently subject to stamp duty as it has merged into the sale deed.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed a petition filed by Nagamma and others and set aside the order of the trial court which in a partition suit, had impounded the agreement of sale dated 11.12.2002, produced by them and directed to pay the deficit stamp duty along with penalty.
University Income From Rentals, Not Exempted From Service Tax: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Principal Additional Director General Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence Versus M/S Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences
Case No.: Writ Appeal No.856 Of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 351
The Karnataka High Court has held that the university is liable to pay service tax on the income earned from the rentals of buildings leased or licensed for banking facilities.
The bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar has observed that when the university rents out its property for running a bank, the profit motive is abundant. It is not the case of the university that the banking services are agreed to be provided on a 'no profit, no loss basis' by prescribing a license fee as contradistinguished from rentals. However, providing banking facilities by no stretch of imagination can be held to be incidental to education. The term 'educational services' has been employed in these exemption notifications in a reasonable sense, if not restrictive.
Case Title: PARITOSH CHANDRASHEKAR KULKARNI AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1850 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 352
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated under provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act against a student who is pursuing higher studies at Columbia University, USA.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The petitioner, who is a student pursuing his Masters elsewhere, beyond the shores of the nation, should not be made to suffer for the voluntary/confessional statements of the co-accused.”
Case Title: Bashirahmed AND Surayya & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101005 OF 2015
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 353
The Karnataka High Court has said that a suit filed by a wife before the family court to seek a declaration of share in property of her divorced husband as agreed in the terms of divorce, is maintainable.
A division bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed an appeal filed by the ex-husband questioning the jurisdiction of the family court to declare that the divorced wife was entitled to 1/4th share in his suit house property, by way of partition as per Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure and restraining him from permanently alienating the property.
Case Title: THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND SUPREETH S. @ SUPREETH & Others
Case No: M.F.A. NO. 511 OF 2020 (MV-D) C/W M.F.A. CROB. NO. 40 OF 2022.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 354
The Karnataka High Court has held that in case of motor accidents, insurance companies are liable to pay the awarded amount under the head of future prospects, together with the banking rate of interest which is prevalent during the relevant time.
A division bench of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha held thus while deciding the appeal filed by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, challenging the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, which allowed the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Supreet. The tribunal had awarded interest over the amount that was fixed toward the loss of future prospects.
Case Title: Dr Anil Khurana AND Dr Amargouda L Patil & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.242/2024 (S-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL No.366/2024 (S-RES) WRIT APPEAL CROB. No.2/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 355
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order passed by the single judge bench which set aside the appointment of Dr. Anil Khurana, to the post of Chairperson, National Commission for Homoeopathy.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind allowed the appeal filed by Khurana questioning the order dated 10.01.2024, made on the petition filed by DR. Amargouda L Patil.
Case Title: DR. AMIRTHALAKSHMI R AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 19644/2024
Citation No: 2024 Live Law (Kar) 356
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the draft bill approved by the State cabinet for providing 50% reservation in management and 70% in non-management posts for Kannadigas in private industries and other organisations of the state.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by Dr Amirthalakshmi R. The petition had prayed for withdrawal of the bill till the constitutional challenges had been resolved and for staying the implementation of the same.
Case Title: Francis Zavier W AND MM Mathew
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1414 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 357
The Karnataka High Court has said that special reasons are to be assigned by the trial court while imposing double the cheque amount as fine on holding the accused guilty for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda held thus while partly allowing a petition filed by one Francis Zavier W, challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court on 15.10.2018 which came to be confirmed in appeal. The court had directed him to pay a fine of Rs 3 lakh, which is double the cheque amount.
Case Title: S Nagarajan & ANR AND Nadoja Dr Mahesh Joshi
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100812 OF 202
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 358
The Karnataka High Court has said that a defamation case against a co-accused cannot be quashed because of a compromise entered between the main accused and the complainant. The court has to take note of the allegation made against each of the accused while deciding the plea.
A single judge bench of Justice H.P Sandesh held thus while dismissing the petition filed by S Nagarajan and another accused who are employees of Doordarshan and were charged under sections 499 and 500 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Debhashish Sinha & Others AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15958 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 359
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the Association members of Prestige LakeSide Habitat Home Owners Association, where a minor child had slipped into the swimming pool in the apartment complex and died by drowning. Instead, the court charged them under Section 304A of the IPC.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition filed by Debashish Sinha who is the President of the association and other members and quashed the charges levelled against them under Section 304 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC the court charged them with Section 304A of the IPC (causing death by negligence).
Change Of Name Of City Or Ward Cannot Be Subject Matter Of PIL: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Satyalaxmi Rao & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 17145/2024
Citation No: 2024 Live Law (Kar) 360
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation filed questioning the government notification changing the name of corporation ward Basavanagudi to Doddaganapathi.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by Satyalaxmi Rao and others. It said, “Subject matter of change of name of ward or City cannot be formed part of agitation in a public interest litigation, no public interest is made out to grant any relief to petitioner.”
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation AND Sourabh
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.100105 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 361
The Karnataka High Court has said that recruitment process has to be undertaken periodically with a fair degree of regularity in public undertakings to fill up permanent posts which fall vacant because of death, disablement, retirement or removal of employees.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijay Kumar A Patil said, “When accumulated vacancies are continued indefinitely, that would not only affect the efficacy of public administration but render many qualified & eligible job aspirants age barred.”
Case Title:Dr. Namratha NR and Karnataka Medical Council & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal No 1017/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 362
The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by an estranged wife challenging a single bench order which refused to direct the appointment of an Expert Committee of neurosurgeons to examine her doctor husband who is alleged of suffering from a porencephalic cyst (missing brain).
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the appeal filed by the estranged wife challenging the order of the single judge bench dated June 4. It said “The entire petition clearly smacked that the petitioner was grinding a family dispute as per her own case, to file a complaint and seek prayer against R2 (husband) who is practising doctor. Petitioner did not file any complaint for 26 years against her husband's practice. At such a stage she brought the petition when divorce proceedings are pending, the prayers made are outrightly misconceived.”
Case Title: Santhosh Shet AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.18372 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 363
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that non-filing of a certificate under section 65-B of the Evidence Act at the time of production of electronic evidence, would not vitiate the court proceedings.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Santhosh Shet, a teacher who is charged under provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) for raping a minor girl.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Smt. Umah Agarwal
Case No.: Writ Petition No.11153 Of 2020 (T-IT)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 364
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Settlement Commission, by accepting the explanation 'in the spirit of settlement', cannot be faulted for calling for interference in exercise of the limited jurisdiction.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav has observed that the Settlement Commission has taken note of the declaration made under Rule 8 of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules and has accepted the assertion of cash gifts. If indeed the applicant had disclosed the cash gifts as 'cash in hand' in the wealth tax returns, the alleged unaccounted cash would have stood explained as noticed in the search, and there would have been no occasion for disclosure as made before the Settlement Commission. The Commission deemed the additional income offered for tax of Rs. 2,20,00,000 as being fair and reasonable and proceeded to dispose of the application.
Case Title: Stanly Kirthiraj AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6269 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 365
The Karnataka High Court has held that an application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) cannot be allowed in cases where such applications are filed only to drag the proceedings/trial.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by one Stanly Kirthiraj challenging the order of the trial court rejecting his application seeking to recall the witnesses six years after their evidence was recorded.
Case Title: Kawal Jeet Kaur AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200895 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the trial court has the power to release the vehicle from interim custody, under Section 451, 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, till disposal of the main case registered under provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act (NDPS).
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan held thus while allowing a petition filed by Kawal Jeet Kaur the RC holder of a vehicle which was seized by the Excise Range Office after arresting its drivers who were found in possession of contraband.
Case Title: Kumara C AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13157 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 367
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused who sought to quash the prosecution initiated against him after a woman with whom he was in a relationship, committed suicide by hanging herself after he refused to marry her.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by Kumar C who is charged under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It said “Once a statement were given in respect of the love affairs, death note and CDR prior to the suicide were all a presumption available to the prosecution and the accused is required to face the trial and rebut the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the Court of law. Therefore, the accused is required to take the trial.”
Case Title: Alok Kumar v. Mamatha Singh
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.28964 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 Live Law (Kar) 368
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case initiated against Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) Alok Kumar, accused of causing hurt and criminal intimidation to a woman in 2019, when he was the incharge police commissioner of Bengaluru.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the proceedings which were initiated under sections 34, 120A, 166A, 323, 325, 351 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on a private complaint filed by Mamatha Singh.
It said, “The complainant need not/should not have waited for three long years i.e., 36 months, to register a complaint, that she had been bruised and intimated by the petitioner three years ago. A perusal at the complaint, would clearly indicate not even a speck of explanation is rendered for the delay of three years in registering the complaint. Therefore, permitting even the complaint to be alive would become contrary to law, as it is shrouded with complete improbability. Delay in such cases defeats acts of setting the criminal law in motion.
Case Title: Shankar Naik G K AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.26231 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a complaint lodged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against a police inspector who did not deposit with the state treasury the seized money which was received while investigating a cheating case.
A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Shankar Naik G K and said “In the light of seriously disputed maze of facts which prima facie depict a crime thriller, it would amaze this Court for entertaining the subject petition, as it does require investigation in the least.
Case Title: Shanthalakshmi AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.40204/2012 [S-REG] C/W WRIT PETITION NO.54553/2014
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed an endorsement issued by the Horticulture and Sericulture department and declared that the petitioners who have been working as daily wage workers for over 10 years without a sanctioned post are entitled to regularisation of service.
A single judge bench of Justice B M Shyam Prasad allowed the petition filed by Shanthalakshmi and others and said “The petitions are allowed quashing the impugned Endorsements dated 14.06.2010 and 15.06.2012, and declared that the petitioners are entitled for regularisation in terms of 2002/2005 Schemes. Respondents in these petitions are directed to issue appropriate Orders in view of this Court's declaration within a period of three [3] months.”
Case Title: GUDDAPPA NINGAPPA KOLAJI AND THE MANAGEMENT OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES
Case No. : W.P. No. 146666 of 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
A single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court, comprising Justice M.G.S. Kamal, while deciding writ petition emphasized that an employee cannot seek a change in the recorded date of birth after a considerable lapse of time.
Case Title: M/S Three 1st Enterprises Versus The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 102550 Of 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the appeal against endorsement seeking production of account books lies before the joint commissioner of appeals.
The bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani has observed that there is an alternative efficacious statutory remedy under Section 62 of the KVAT Act, 2003.
Case Title: Sreeramu V and ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.16281 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 373
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a criminal case registered against BESCOM officials who were charged after a mother and her nine-month-old child died due to electric shock caused because of a live wire which was broken and lying on a public street.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Sreeramu V and another who were charged under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (causing death by negligence).
Case Title: Chennamma AND The Regional Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 202162 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
The Karnataka High Court has said that on the mere deletion of the name of a private owner in revenue records by the Tahsildar and inserting the name of the Wakf board, without carrying out an inquiry for determination of title, the property cannot be said to be a wakf property.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by one Chennamma and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 14-02-2022 and directed the Tashildar to delete the entry of Board in the record of rights in respect of the land of the petitioner and reinstate the name of the petitioner in the said revenue records within sixty days.
Case Title: Shobha AND Dr Anil P Kumar
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 202832 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar). 375
The Karnataka High Court has said that when parents transfer property by way of gift, a reasonable expectation that their offspring would take care of their requirements in their old age can imputed from the pleadings made in the application filed under Section 23 of the Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, even if not so mentioned in the gift deed.
Section 23 pertains to transfer of property to be void in certain circumstances.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while setting aside an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which had rejected the application made by one Shobha seeking to void the gift deed executed in favour of her son Dr Anil P Kumar after he showed disinterest in ensuring her and her husband's welfare and did not provide basic amenities and tend to physical needs during old age.
Case Title: Mohammed Shahid & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9653 OF 2023 C/W WRIT PETITION No.19687 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.23864 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 376
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a complaint registered by a husband against his wife claiming she wanted to murder him and his mother using Black Magic.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the wife and quashed the order of reference made for further investigation by the Magistrate court on the private complaint filed by the husband under sections 380, 411, 506, 307, 511 and 34 of the IPC and Section 3 of Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act, 2017.
Case Title: Rafiq Bepari AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100296 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 377
The Karnataka High Court recently rejected a bail plea filed by one Rafiq Bepari who is accused of inducing a married woman, sexually assaulting her and forcing her to convert to Islam for marriage with him.
A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah said “In the present case, the act of inducing innocent and poor women and forcibly converting to Islam is a serious development and therefore, in order to avoid such bad development, it is necessary to give message to society that Courts are vigilant to regulate such activities and also guarding the innocent and underprivileged women and children of the society.”
Case Title: Dr Subhalakshmi N & ANR v. State By District Appropriate Authority PC AND PNDT District Health and Family Welfare Office & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3002 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 378
The Karnataka High Court has said that the State's object to check female foeticide cases due to "illegal" sex determination at diagnostic centres is "laudable", but there must be compliance of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (PCPNDT) as every centre cannot be "painted with the same brush".
A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna made the observation while allowing a petition–filed by Dr Subhalakshmi N and another doctor–set aside the criminal proceedings initiated against them pursuant to a complaint by the District Appropriate Authority alleging offences under Sections 20(1),(2),(3) and 23(1) and (2) of the PCPNDT Act. The first petitioner is the proprietor of a diagnostic centre named 'Medizone Medical Centre' and the second petitioner is a certified registered operator of the ultrasound machine at the centre.
Case Title: Sadat Ali Khan AND Noor Ahmed Sayyed & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3459 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 379
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that failure to wear protective headgear as required by Section 129(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, though constitutes a contributory negligence, will not drastically affect the compensation awarded to a claimant who has suffered.
A division bench of Justice K Somashekhar and Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha said this while deciding an appeal filed by Sadath Ali Khan seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. The tribunal had awarded Rs 5,61,600 as compensation and in doing so considered that the claimant was found travelling without wearing a helmet and thereby violated the Notification issued by the Transport Authority under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Rules.
Case Title: Mahathma Gandhiji Grama Hitha Mandali AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.202758 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 380
The Karnataka High Court has said that the object and purpose of establishing a fair price shop is to enable the citizens of the country to have easy access to fair price shops, more so, when the ration card holders belong to the impoverished class of society and many of them are below the poverty line.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition filed by Mahatma Gandhiji Grama Hitha Mandali, a fair price shop questioning the government's decision to start another shop in the same village.
Case Title: Mayukh Mukherjee AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9707 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 381
The Karnataka High Court has held instigation or otherwise by a husband for the commission of suicide of the wife can only be deciphered in a full-blown trial after recording evidence.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while refusing the quash the abatement to suicide charge against Mayukh Mukherjee said “In the life of husband and wife it cannot be said that there should be minimum proximity. The wife being driven to the wall to an extent of commission of suicide cannot happen at the spur of the moment. It is a collection of agony that has resulted in the fateful incident. It is akin to the explosion of a dormant volcano. Instigation or otherwise of a husband for commission of suicide of the wife can only be deciphered in a full blown trial.”
Case Title: Chaithanya Reddy S V AND Nayana & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4463 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 382
The Karnataka High Court has said that payment of child's school fees by a father would not mean that he would not pay maintenance amount to the child on account of him living separately with his mother.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected the petition filed by a husband challenging an order of the trial court directing him to pay Rs 5,000 each to wife and child as interim maintenance.
Case Title: Chidanandaya & ANR AND Shivalingappa Mallappa Biradar & Others for Respondents.
Case No: MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200721 OF 2019 (MV-D) C/W MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200722 OF 2019(MV-D) MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200038 OF 2020(MV-D) MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200039 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 383
The Karnataka High Court has said that a person holding a light motor vehicle driving licence is permitted to drive a tractor as the unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kg and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants in case the driver of the tractor causes an accident.
A Single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan held thus while dismissing the appeal filed by the Branch Manager of M/s United India Insurance Co Ltd, which had challenged the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal questioning the fastening of liability on it as well as the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants.
Case Title: Gajendra K M & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6248 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 384
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to ensure that one investigating officer probes cases registered against each other by parties to the same incident.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna has directed the registry to send its order to the Department of Home Affairs, Deputy General of Police and the Law Minister, suggesting to bring about an amendment to the Karnataka Police Manual and issuance of a circular clearly indicating that any violation by different Investigating Officers conducting investigation in a case and a counter case would become open to Departmental Action.
Karnataka High Court Refuses To Cancel HD Revanna's Bail In Abduction Case
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND H D Revanna
Case No: CRL.P 4914/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 385
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) seeking cancellation of bail granted to Janata Dal (Secular) leader HD Revanna, accused of abducting a woman.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna had reserved the order on August 01 after hearing the parties. Revanna was granted bail by the special court on May 13.
The High Court today also granted bail to Satish Babanna and others who are co-accused in the case. Copy of detailed judgment is awaited.
Case Title: BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 27220/2023 c/w WP 670/2024.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 386
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petitions filed by CBI & BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal challenging the State government's decision to withdraw consent for a CBI probe into corruption allegations against Congress leader and Deputy CM DK Shivakumar.
A division bench of Justice K Somashekhar and Justice Umesh M Adiga had on August 12, reserved its order on the petitions filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation and BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal challenging the State government's decision to withdraw consent for CBI probe into corruption allegations against Congress leader and Karnataka's Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar.
Case Title: Mohammed Dastagir AND Telecom Regulatory Authority of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 45162 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 387
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by one Mohammed Dastagir, seeking direction on the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to take urgent steps to prevent telemarketers from creating fake records and include names of telecom subscribers in the list of numbers to whom they send pesky calls and also provide for stringent punishment for such fraudulent practices.
A single judge bench of Justice M G S Kamal dismissed the petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to seek adjudication of his grievances.
Case Title: State By Mahadevapura Police Station AND Padmavathamma C
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7813 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 388
The Karnataka High Court has held that the trial court cannot direct further investigation to be done in a murder case by a different agency, its power is restricted only to order further investigation by the same investigating agency.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing the petition filed by the State Government and set aside the order of the special court directing further investigation to be carried out by CID.
Case Title: Gaurav Dahake AND Union of India
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2926 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 389
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated under the Railways Act against an IIT Graduate and startup founder, who developed a software tool using which Railway Tatkal tickets would be generated within 45 seconds instead of the usual 5 to 7 minutes it would take on the railway website.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Gaurav Dhake who was charged under Section 143 of the Railways act, alleging that he had illegally procured and distributed railway tickets.
Case Title: Deepa Darshan H P & ANR AND Police Inspector & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2585 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings initiated against an astrologer who outraged a woman's modesty by inappropriately touching her under the guise of performing puja to set right her kundali. The Court also declined to quash charges against the woman's husband who took her to the astrologer and threatened her to not reveal her ordeal to anyone else.
A single judge bench of Justice MG Uma dismissed the petition filed by Deepa Darshan H P and Mohandas @Shivaramu who had approached the court seeking to quash the prosecution registered against them under Sections 498A, 354, 354A, 508 R/W 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: R Gopal Reddy AND Mohammed Mukaram
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13943 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 391
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the owner or occupier of a premise only if he knowingly permits it to be used for commission of the offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), would he become punishable.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one R Gopal Reddy and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 22(C), 22(A), 27(B), 25, 27 of the Act.
It said, “There should be more than prima facie material to hold that the owner or occupier of the premises was in complete knowledge of what was happening in the premises, as Section 25 creates a vicarious liability against the person who is the owner who has knowingly permitted usage of premises, knowledge pervades the provision of law.”
Case Title: Abdul Rehman & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 759/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 392
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday orally said that offences under the Wildlife Protection Act should not be kept pending for long and trials against the accused should be completed expeditiously.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by accused Abdul Rehman and others who were booked in 2008, for killing a spotted deer in Bandipur forest under sections 2(36),9,31,34,35(6,8) 48(a)R/W 51 and trial of which is still pending.
Case Title: M/S ZIM LABORATORIES LTD & Others AND Union of India
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8341 OF 2018
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 393
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Drugs Controller General (India) to ensure that an efficient online system is created, whereby the drug samples which are sent for test/analysis are expeditiously tested and analysed by the Government Analyst within sixty days, and the reports sent by them are available online on a real-time basis.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda issued the directions while quashing the prosecution initiated against M/s Zim Laboratories Ltd and its Chairman and Managing Direction and others, under Section 27D of the Act.
Case Title: Santhosh K S AND Dilip Kumar H & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5265 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
The Karnataka High Court has said that compensation under the head of future prospects is provided to claimants even in injury cases.
A single judge bench of Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha held thus while partly allowing the appeal filed by Santhosh K S who had challenged the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which had awarded Rs 4,97,732 instead of Rs 25 lakh which was sought for.
The appellant was 22 years old and working as a coolie. He had sustained type B open fracture distal 3rd of the right femur and injury over the right thumb. The said injuries were noted as laceration over the right knee, exposure of the right knee and fracture of the right supra condyle femur in the wound certificate.
Case Title: B.M Venkatappa AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 861 OF 2014
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the conviction handed down to a storekeeper working in the office of ESI for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 1,000 for supplying the required injection prescribed by a Doctor of NIMHANS hospital to the complainant.
A single-judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D Huddar partly allowed the appeal filed by B M Venkatappa and upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence imposed by the trial court on him.
Case Title: B S Suresh & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12339 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
The Karnataka High Court has said that in a complaint where the offence is punishable with a maximum sentence of three years, the limitation for filing the complaint u/s 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is one year from the date of occurrence of the cause of action and any complaint filed beyond that period is not maintainable.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by MLA B S Suresh and another and quashed the offences registered against them in 2019 under Section 285 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Karnataka Fire Force Act.
Case Title: H Mahadev AND K N Rajamma & others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.24 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
The Karnataka High Court has said that a beneficiary of a gift deed has to prove his title over the property received under such a deed by examining witnesses. It held that a presumption in his favour under Section 90 of the Evidence Act cannot be drawn based on producing certified copies of the deed.
Section 90 of the Evidence Act reads thus: Presumption as to documents thirty years old. Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 1364/2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police to communicate to all the state's police stations, the details of a woman complainant who had registered nine complaints/FIRs, against different persons alleging sexual harassment, criminal intimidation and also for offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The details of the woman complainant be available on the database of the police stations, so that they could be cautious when the complainant would want to register a crime against any other man.”
Case Title: Priyanka Halamani AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.105264 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a daughter-in-law, claiming compassionate appointment in the state's rural drinking water and sanitation department.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the plea filed by Priyanka Halamani, who had challenged the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which had rejected her application seeking a direction to the government to appoint her.
Case Title: Muniyappa AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2418 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 400
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash prosecution initiated against a drawing teacher of a private school, accused of recording videos and clicking photographs of minor girl students in the residential school when they were changing their dresses.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Muniyappa who is charged under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
Case Title: Disha Bhat AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.104218 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
The Karnataka High Court has refused relief to a 19-year-old girl who claimed to be visually impaired beyond 40% and sought a direction to the Karnataka Examination Authority to accept her candidature under the visually impaired quota.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the petition filed by Disha Bhat who had sought to void the Ocular Examination Report and accept the Report furnished by the Government Hospital, Dharwad. The Ocular examination report stated that the petitioner's Visual Disability is 0% (Zero Percent) in view of 6/18 Vision in both eyes.
Case Title: V Sunil Kumar AND Pramod Mutalik
Case No: WP 19821/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 402
The Karnataka High Court on Friday refused to quash criminal defamation proceedings initiated against Bharatiya Janata Party leader V Sunil Kumar, on the complaint made by Founder President of Sri Ram Sene, Pramod Muthalik.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition and orally said “This mudslinging should stop, elections are fought on making speeches against each other, not on what the party has done, what the government has done.”
Case Title: Hanumantha & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11994 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 403.
The Karnataka High Court has directed initiation of Disciplinary proceedings/departmental inquiry against three policemen for having filed a false charge sheet against two persons claiming they consumed Ganja, even when the FSL report clearly opined no presence of any form of contraband in their body.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Hanumantha and another and quashed the prosecution lodged against them under Section 27 of the Narcotics Drug And Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).
Case Title: T N Kumara AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2013
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 404
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the conviction handed down to a man 14 years after the accused committed the offence of being in possession of counterfeit currency.
A single judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D Huddar convicted T N Kumara, dismissed the appeal filed by him challenging the conviction under Section 489B and C of the Indian Penal Code in the year 2013.
The court said “The Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.1.2013 passed is hereby confirmed. The accused shall surrender before the trial Court forthwith to undergo sentence (five years). The Trial Court shall take steps to secure his presence in accordance with law and commit him to the prison to undergo sentence.”
Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Four Accused Allegedly Involved In Gauri Lankesh Murder Case
Case Title: Bharat Jaywant Kurane AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7787 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7811/2024, 7809/2024, 7805/2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to four accused allegedly involved in the murder case of journalist Gauri Lankesh.
A single Judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty granted bail to Bharat Kurane, Srikanth Pangarkar, Sujith Kumar and Sudhanva Gondhalekar, on them executing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh each, with two sureties of like amount.
The petitioners are charged under Sections 302, 120B, 118, 203, 35 IPC, Sections 25(1) & 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) & 3(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000.
Case Title: Lingesh K S & Others AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5030 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 406.
The Karnataka High Court refused to quash a cheating and criminal conspiracy case lodged against former MLA Lingesh K S–who was the Chairman of a committee for regularisation of land between 2016-2023, after "prima facie" observing that the committee had bartered away government land as if it was its personal property.
It had been alleged that the committee–Bagair Hukum Saguvali Samithi had created records and bartered away Government lands to an extent of 2750 acres to 1430 bogus beneficiaries, valued at more than 750 crores in Lingesh's constituency at Belur, who was the then Chairman. The plea before the high court, for quashing of the case was moved by Lingesh as well as other members of the committee.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Lingesh and others in its order said, “...I hold that Bagair Hukum Committee has acted Bagair Kanoon, albeit, prima facie”.
Case Title: PRIYANK KANOONGO AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 5840/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 407.
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed the prosecution initiated against National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) chief Priyank Kanoongo, for allegedly trespassing into a Muslim orphanage and comparing the living conditions there with life under Taliban rule.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed Kanoongo's quashing petition. Detailed order is awaited.
Kanoongo and his team had visited the orphanage on November 19, 2023, following which a complaint was filed by Darul Uloom Sayideeya orphanage secretary, Ashraf Khan. The police had registered a case under sections 447, 448, 295A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on November 21, 2023.
Case Title: M/s.Shangrila Flat Owners Association AND Capt Mohan Prabhu
Case No: R.S.A.NO.722 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 408
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a trial court order decreeing a suit filed by an Apartment Owners Association, seeking to recover the outstanding maintenance dues from one of its defaulting members.
A single judge bench of Justice M G S Kamal allowed the appeal filed by M/s.Shangrila Flat Owners Association challenged the order of the first appellate court which had allowed the appeal filed by 70-year-old Capt Mohan Prabhu, and reversed the trial court order.
Case Title: SHOBHA KARANDLAJE AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 2758/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday quashed the criminal case registered against Member of Parliament, Shobha Karandlaje, after she had made a statement during a protest in Bengaluru, linking the suspect in the Rameshwaram cafe blast with Tamil Nadu.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings registered with the Cottenpet Police station under sections 123(3),123(3A), and 125 of the Representation of People Act.
Case Title: Abin Thomas Sebastian AND Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 8912 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 1916 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 8989 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9017 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9029 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9094 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9228 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9333 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9357 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9412 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9459 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9462 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9716 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9718 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9722 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 9975 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 10509 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 11801 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 11844 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 14344 OF 2024 (EDN-RES).
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 410
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by undergraduate medical students seeking a grant of five grace marks for the exams conducted in January, which would help them pass their examination.
The primary contention of the students was that under the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2019, provision for grace was available and the benefit of the same should be extended to them.
However, the Guidelines issued by the Undergraduate Medical Education Board, (UGMEB) formed under the National Medical Council Act, on 01.08.2023 did away with the award of grace marks. The students claimed the benefit under the 2019 Regulations ought to prevail and the students ought to be given grace marks as the regulations framed will have precedence over the Guidelines.
Case Title: Dr Kalyan C Kankanala AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.21978 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 411
The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks told the Karnataka High Court recently that it is taking steps to ensure that its websites are made accessible to Persons with Disabilities (PwD), in line with prevailing Guidelines issued by the Union of India.
Taking note of the submission, the high court disposed of a plea seeking that websites of the patent, designs and trademarks authority is made accessible to persons with disabilities.
Case Title: Arptia J AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 21704/2024, WP 21452/2024, WP 25149/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 412
The Karnataka High Court on Monday allowed a batch of petitions filed by law students and directed Karnataka State Law University, to grant them full marks which they had obtained in revaluation of their marksheets, which would help them pass in the examination.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petitions filed by Arpita J and others and said “Though several contentions are being urged by both sides in respect of their claims in the light of the disputed facts that if the marks obtained by the petitioner in the revaluation which is the entire full marks are taken into account the petitioner would successfully pass and complete the said examination. Thus without going into the merit or demerits of the rival contention, as regards the validity, legality or correctness of the Regulation 1.3.6 of the impugned notification. I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petitions directing the respondents to grant full marks obtained by petitioners in revaluation, within two weeks.”
Case title: Siddaramaiah AND State of Karnataka & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.22356 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 413
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (September 24) dismissed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's plea against the Governor's decision granting sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for investigation/prosecution against the Chief Minister in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the complainants were justified in registering the complaint or seeking approval from the Governor. The bench further said that it is the duty of complainant to seek approval under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act and the Governor can take independent decision.
"The facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require investigation, in the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all the acts is not anybody outside but the family of the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed," said Justice Nagaprasanna.
Case Title: Keshavamurthy AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9353 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 414
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to one of the accused allegedly involved in the Renukaswamy murder case, in which Kannada actor Darshan Thoogdeep Srinivas is also an accused.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty granted bail to Keshavamurthy on him executing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties of like sum.
The petitioner is accused no 16 in the case, it is alleged that the accused had tried to destroy the evidence after the murder was committed and he had voluntarily surrendered in the place of the actual assailants by receiving a certain amount.
Case Title: Suresha & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5694 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 415
"Sloganeering Bharath Matha Ki Jai would only lead to harmony and never a discord", said the Karnataka High Court while allowing a plea by five men for quashing an FIR lodged against them for allegedly promoting enmity between different groups and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.
The petitioners had claimed that on June 9 after they were coming back from celebrating the oath ceremony of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, they were attacked by 25 persons. The petitioners' alleged that they were questioned by the group as to how the former could raise "slogans of Bharath Matha Ki Jai"; one of those 25 persons allegedly stabbed two of the petitioners. The petitioners' said that the same night they lodged a complaint and an FIR was registered.
Case Title: Vishal Raghu & Others AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 3666/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 416
The Karnataka High Court has rejected the plea filed by Chairman of the State Bar Council Vishal Raghu, Vice Chairman Vinay Mangalekar and another, for quashing a FIR lodged against them for allegedly misappropriating official funds to the tune of several lakhs.
The trio is booked under Sections 37,34,120B,403,406,409,420,465,468,471,477A of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint by a Member of the Council, Senior Advocate Basavaraj S.
Case Title: BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) AND Shivananda S Patil
Case No: CRL.P 7526/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
Clarifying the procedure to be followed by magisterial courts on issuance of notice on complaints under Section 223 BNSS, the Karnataka High Court Friday underlined that the opportunity of hearing to be provided to the accused in the provision is not an empty formality, without which cognizance cannot be taken.
Section 223 BNSS pertains to examination of complaints and states that a magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. It adds that the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses as well as by the Magistrate. The first proviso states that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
Case Title: HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING AND ORS vs. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS CONTRACT WORKERS ASSOCIATION
Case No:WRIT APPEAL NO.1122 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
The Bengaluru Bench of Karnataka High Court has directed Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, (appellant in the writ appeal) to revise the “Comprehensive Contract” in a manner accepted by law and to communicate it to the HAL Contract Workers' Association (respondents in the writ appeal).
HAL was instructed to issue a preliminary notification to consider objections from people who might be affected because of the Contract, review those objections, and then make a final decision.
A Division Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and G Basavaraja held that the order of the Single Judge was reasonable. However, modifying the order, the Bench directed that an authorized representative of the contract workers or the respondent Union must be notified and given a chance to speak before finalizing the Revised Comprehensive Contract.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11721 OF 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that courts can stay the divorce proceedings instituted by the husband until he pays arrears of maintenance amount to the wife as ordered by the court.
The observations were made, while the high court allowed a petition filed by an estranged wife and set aside the order of the trial court which had dismissed her application seeking stay on the divorce proceedings initiated by the husband for non payment of the arrears of interim maintenance.
Case Title: ABC AND Internal Complaints Committee & Others
Case No: WP 8127/2019
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 420
The Karnataka High Court today directed ANI technologies, which owns and operates OLA Cabs, to pay a sum of Rs 5 lakh towards compensation to a woman who allegedly faced sexual harassment at the hands of their driver, during a trip in 2019.
A single judge bench of Justice M G S Kamal also directed the Internal Complaints Committee of the company to hold an inquiry into the complaint in accordance with provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Woman At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [POSH Act]. The process is to be completed within 90 days and a report is to be submitted to the District Officer.
Case Title: Arafath Ali @ Arafath AND National Investigation Agency
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 704 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 421
The Karnataka High Court has observed that whenever national interest is involved or a challenge is posed to unity, sovereignty and integrity of the nation, individual liberty recedes to background, as an individual is not greater than the Nation where he has taken birth.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice J M Khazi made the observation while rejecting the bail petition filed by accused Arafath Ali @ Arafath, who is charged under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and IPC, for allegedly radicalising the youth and promoting the ideology of Islamic State (ISIS).
Case Title: Sanjana Raghunath AND Karnataka Examination Authority & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.18327 of 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 422
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to pay Rs 10 lakhs as compensation to an MBBS student and chess player, who was wrongly denied a seat under sports quota even though she had represented India abroad in Chess Competitions, compelling her to take admission in a private college on a private seat.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind while disposing of a petition by one Sanjana Raghunath in its order said, “The participation of the petitioner in Asian Youth Chess Championship 2018 is while representing India. Further, the winning in Asian Youth Chess Championship 2018 is in a Super-A game under Schedule–II to Rule 2006. The petitioner is therefore declared to be eligible to be categorised as P-I, and the categorization of the petitioner as P-V was wrong in view of the Rules and the same is unsustainable.”
Case Title: Roshan A AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 7897 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 423
The Karnataka High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Central Government to hand over the investigation in the alleged murder case of one Harsha at Shivamogga, to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice J M
Khazi, dismissed the petition filed by one Roshan A who is an accused in the case. The court said, “If according to the petitioner, the sanction order was issued without applying mind or is invalid for any other reason, the same has to be thrashed out by the trial court after recording evidence.”
Case Title: Vishwanath Koraga Shetty AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9746 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 424
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a murder case against an accused after the co-accused in the case who were tried while the accused was absconding, came to be acquitted by the trial court.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Vishwanath Koraga Shetty and quashed the proceedings pending against him for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 120B, 302, 201 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
Case Title: Reserve Bank of India & ANR AND Sanjukumar & ANR
Case No: WA 200185 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 425
The Karnataka High Court has asked trial courts, before whom demonetized banknotes have been produced by investigating agencies on or before December 30, 2016, to follow the procedure for releasing the notes mentioned in Centre's 2017 notification, so that concerned persons can exchange it for legal tender.
A division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar in its order said “Unless there is adherence to the requirements of the notification strictly, parties to the litigation would be prejudiced irreparably without any lapse on their part. Accordingly, the investigating agencies and the Courts are to adhere to the requirements of the notification dated 12.05.2017 strictly.”
Case Title: M/S Patanjali Foods Limited (Formerly Ruchi Soya Industries Limted) vs. Commissioner of Customs
Case No.: CSTA No. 4 of 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (kar) 426
The Karnataka High Court division bench comprising Mr. Justice S.G. Pandit and Mr. Justice C.M. Poonacha has held that once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), claims which are not included in the resolution plan are extinguished, and no further proceedings can be initiated against the corporate debtor in respect of such claims. The Court also clarified that Rule 22 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which deals with abatement of appeal upon death, adjudication as insolvent or winding-up, does not apply when a resolution plan has been approved as the objective of a resolution plan is to continue the business of the company as “a going concern.”
Case Title: Kesar Colour Chem Industries vs. Intelligence Officer
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 17853 of 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 427
The Karnataka High Court held that voluntary determination by the assessee himself as regards the liability of tax, is sine qua non for 'self-ascertainment of tax' under CGST Act.
The High Court therefore clarified that when notice sought to be issued u/s 74(1) indicate a fresh and complete adjudication and does not refer to short fall of actual tax required to be paid as contemplated u/s 74(7), the State itself is estopped from contending that there was self-ascertainment by the assessee.
Case Title: B J Rajni & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12683 OF 2023 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 12691 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 428
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of Ten Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) working on contractual basis for over 20 years in Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research, by directing that their services be regularised from the date they completed 10 years of service.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda allowed the petitions filed by B J Rani and others and said “Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have worked for more than 20 years, it would be just and necessary to direct the respondents to regularise the services of petitioners from the date they completed 10 years of service. The respondents shall not take into consideration the renewal break of a day or two while computing this period of 10 years.”
Case Title: The Legal Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited AND Nagamma & Others and Smt Nagamma and Others AND Sri P Penkatesh and others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7089 OF 2016 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6824 OF 2016.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 429
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that even though the vehicle which causes an accident does not hold a valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount due to the claimants and recover it from the vehicle's owner.
A single judge bench of Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda refused to accept the contention of Shriram General Insurance Company Limited that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was plying on the road without valid permit and fitness certificate. The court rejected the company's argument that since a "fundamental breach" on vehicle owner's part is "demonstrated", so the Insurance Company can avoid its "liability completely" and its for the owner to pay the compensate the claimant.
Case Title: M S Praveen Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1713 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 430
The Karnataka High Court has said that parties cannot be permitted to mount a fresh challenge to a land grant order which has been duly upheld by the coordinate Bench, under the guise of a review petition.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed a petition filed by one M S Praveen Kumar and said, “Allowing such a challenge would not only undermine the established legal tenets but also threaten the stability of property rights that rely on judicial finality.”
Case Title: S Bsavaraj AND Bar Council of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.11480 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 431
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) does not have the power to issue gag orders restraining the speech of Advocates or even the members of the Bar Council.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The Chairman of the Bar Council of India ostensibly cannot pass any such gag order which takes away the fundamental right of any Advocate. The power of the Courts either competent civil court or the constitutional Court, cannot be permitted to be usurped by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, as is done in the case at hand.”
Case Title: Arunkumar AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200913 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 432
The Karnataka High Court has held that from July 1, 2024 onwards when the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) came into force, the police registering an FIR under the repealed Criminal Procedure Code, is incorrect.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan, sitting at Kalaburagi bench, allowed the petition filed by Arunkumar and quashed the FIR registered against him under Section 376, 323, 506 and 420 of Indian Penal Code on July 1.
The court said “The FIR registered by the Lingasugur police in Crime No.180/2024 under Section 154 of Cr.P.C is hereby quashed. However, the complaint filed by the de-facto complainant is retained and remitted back to the police to register the FIR under Section 173 of BNSS and proceed to investigate the matter under BNSS and file a final report under Section 193 of BNSS.”
Case Title: Pradosh S Rao AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23848 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 433
The Karnataka High Court has directed the prison authorities to re-shift one of the accused involved in the Renukaswamy murder case in which Kannada actor Darshan Thoogdeep Srinivas is also an accused, to the Central Prison, Bengaluru from Belagavi Central Prison.
Accused Darshan was recently spotted sitting along with other prisoners inside the prison and sipping coffee and smoking. His photographs went viral on social media. Following which a requisition came to be made before the Magistrate for shifting all the accused involved in the case.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Pradosh S Rao who is accused no. 14 in the case and set aside the order of the Magistrate court permitting his transfer.
Case Title: Vishwanath Basappa Batti AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 202681 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 434
The Karnataka High Court has said that only an appeal can be filed against an order refusing interim injunction if the order is passed after hearing all the parties to the proceedings and a writ petition challenging the same is not maintainable.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Vishwanath Baati.
The petitioner had sought for issuance of writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned order passed by the trial court on the application made under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and allow his application.
Case Title: Nagabhushana B AND Registrar General & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17956 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 435
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that government servants are entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at non-empanelled private hospitals provided they were referred there by a recognized government hospital.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Nagabhushana B, an Assistant Court officer, who had questioned the order rejecting his application seeking reimbursement of the amount.
Case Title: Bangalore Development Authority & Anr and Sachin Nagarajappa and another matter
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 593 OF 2024 (BDA) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 883 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 436
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the power of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to accept or reject the bid made by a successful bidder for sites auctioned by it, without assigning any reasons.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice G Basavaraja said, “The act and conduct of the BDA appears to be bona fide and in the interest of public and also to the benefit of BDA, which in turn, is for the benefit of the general public.”
Case Title: Vishal Khatwani AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.RP No.210/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 437
The Karnataka High court has issued model guidelines to be followed by the trial courts while dealing with release of the seized properties either under Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., or under Section 497 of BNSS, till the State Government issues directions in this regard.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda in its order said, “State Government is required to frame necessary rules which would be in consonance with the power of the Court for disposal of all the seized properties including the electronic devices, digital devices, seized medical samples, food items, adulterated petroleum products which are highly inflammable in nature, perishable objects, precious metals like gold and silver etc.”
Case Title: Keerthan Kumar & Anr AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 25591 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 438
Quashing a case against two men accused of an offence under IPC Section 295A for allegedly shouting 'Jai Sriram' in a mosque, the Karnataka High Court said it was not understandable how the slogan would outrage the religious feelings of any class.
This the high court said after noting that the complainant in the case had himself said that Hindus and Muslims were living in harmony in the concerned area. It further said that as no ingredients of the offences alleged were made out, permitting further proceedings against the petitioners would become an abuse of process of law. The two men were booked under various IPC offences including Sections 447(Punishment for criminal trespass), 505(Statements conducing to public mischief), 506(Punishment for criminal intimidation), 34 (common intention) and 295A.
Case Title: Veermachaneni Raghavendra Prasad AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 25025/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 439
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to the Central Government to make it compulsory for all manufacturers of Agricultural equipments and of Tractors, to mention the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of their products and to display the same in the showroom and website and on the government managed agricultural portal.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by one Veramachaneni Raghavendra Prasad, saying “By the very nature of the subject matter of grievance and prayer made it is evident that the subject matter travels in the realm of executive action for enforcement of rule or law by enacting them by competent law making authority. The court would not like to enter into the area of executive functions.”
Case Title: XXX AND Azim Premji University & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14743 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 440
The Karnataka High Court has suggested Universities and Colleges, private or government, to formulate Mental Health Policy and Anti-discrimination policy, so as to prevent and address the serious and deleterious effects these sensitive issues may have on the lives of students.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj appreciated the steps taken by Azim Premji University in formulating and implementing the policies and said, “This action on part of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 would also be required to be emulated by all other Universities and Colleges private or government, so as to prevent and address the serious and deleterious effects these sensitive issues may have on the lives of students, many a time resulting in suicides and other socially abnormal behaviour which impacts not only students, and their immediate family, but also the community as a whole, including the teacher and student community thus requiring to be handled with the care and sensitivity that it deserves.”
Case Title: Canara Bank AND Subramanya Rao K & ANR
Case No: WA 349/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 441
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that when an auction purchaser fails to deposit the balance amount within the statutory period prescribed under the SARFAESI Act, despite having been granted an extension, the forfeiture of his earnest money deposit is a statutory consequence.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while allowing an appeal filed by Canara Bank and set aside the single judge bench's January 12 order by which it had directed the Bank to return the earnest money amount of Rs.3.25 crores to the respondents (original petitioners before the single judge bench).
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others AND H S Kanthi
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1647/2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 442
The Karnataka High Court has held that unless a finding is recorded that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on a government employee is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal will not get jurisdiction to substitute the punishment.
A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice C M Poonacha allowed the petition filed by the State of Karnataka and set aside an order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, modifying the punishment of dismissal imposed on one H S Kanti, a former Typist to compulsory retirement.
Case Title: Saikat Bhatacharyya AND Union of India.
Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 443
The Karnataka High Court recently allowed a petition filed by a 25-year-old and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act (NDPS), after a parcel containing ganja was seized from a courier company having his mobile number on it.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Saikat Bhatacharyya and quashed the proceedings under section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(A), 23(a), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of the Act.
The court said “The proceedings against the petitioner cannot be permitted to be continued, as there is not an iota of corroboration that would pin down the petitioner to the offences, except the voluntary/confessional statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 67 of the Act, which is clearly hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.”
Case Title: Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manyata Realty & Ors.
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.498 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 443
The Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and K.V. Aravind, held that the role of the Registrar while registering the application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is not adjudicatory in nature and this duty of the Registrar, NCLT was in no way adjudicatory trapping. Application of judicial mind towards merits has no place in discharge of a ministerial or clerical function.
Case Title: ALL INDIA DALIT ACTION COMMITTEE ® AND Rahul Gandhi & Others
Case No: WP 20712/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 444
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (October 21) dismissed a public interest litigation seeking action against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for making alleged objectionable comments during a public speech, stating that "mass rape" had been committed by former Hassan MP Prajwal Revanna.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by All India Dalit Action Committee which had also sought a direction to Gandhi to tender an unconditional apology to the women for the said "unconstitutional speeches".
Case Title: Prajwal Revanna v. State of Karnataka and other petitions
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 6401/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 445
The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed the bail and anticipatory pleas of suspended Janta Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna who has been arrested on the allegations of rape and sexual assault.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna had reserved the order in the bail pleas, after hearing the parties.
On September 19, had reserved its order on the bail application (first case) filed by suspended Janta Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna who has been arrested on the allegations of rape and sexual assault. On September 26, the court had reserved its order on the two anticipatory bail applications filed by Revanna.
Case Title: M/s Steel Rocks INC & ANR AND M/S. BANGALORE ELEVATED TOLLWAY PVT. LTD & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4877 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 446
While hearing a matter concerning cheque bouncing, the Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that a mere change of counsel cannot be a ground to recall the witness for further cross examination under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
For context, Section 311 grants a court the power to summon material witnesses, or examine persons present. The high court further observed that a plea moved under Section 311 can't be permitted as a matter of course, as recalling of witnesses cannot be permitted at the very end of a trial.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna in its October 21 order said,
“On a coalesce of the law elucidated by the Apex Court what would unmistakably emerge is that, it is not a matter of course that an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., should be permitted. Mere change of counsel cannot be a ground to recall the witness. The application must contain details as to why the witness is required to be recalled. Recalling of witnesses should not be permitted at the fag end of the trial".
Case Title: B Gopal Krishna & ANR AND District Commissioner, District Appropriate Authority & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6934 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 447
The Karnataka High Court has set a deadline of one month for the competent authority to dispose of the application filed seeking renewal of a clinical laboratory under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 failing which registration of crime for the offence of non-registration cannot become an offence, against those clinics.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by B Gopala Krishna & Another and quashed the offence registered against them under 23, 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2), 20(3) of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act.
Case Title: Krishna Naik AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6159 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 448
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a cheating case registered against Krishna Naik, accused of unscientifically erecting a 33-foot statue of Parashurama inside a theme park in Udupi district, which had to be brought down after a few months of erection.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition and said, “Though the petitioner was entrusted with the work of sculpting the statue scientifically according to specifications and within time frame, in the theme park before the inauguration day, he has done a shoddy job, prima facie.”
'Misconceived': Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL Seeking 'Separate Flag' For The State
Case Title: BHIMAPPA GUNDAPPA GADAD AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 26739/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 449.
The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a separate flag for the State. A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed observed, “Matters of grievance of such nature would hardly fall within the domain of the court jurisdiction, much less in the realm of public interest jurisdiction. The petition is misconceived and dismissed.”
Case Title: Lalji Kesha Vaid AND Dayanand R
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.331 OF 2022.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 450
The Karnataka High Court has held that a complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be maintainable, notwithstanding the civil suit filed for recovery of the money.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus white dismissing a petition filed by one Lalji Kesha Vaid. It said “The complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act would be maintainable, notwithstanding recovery proceedings initiated by institution of a civil Suit, though both spring from the same cause of action.”
Case Title: G V Prasad & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200662 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 451
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that initiating prosecution under Section 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code, against the owners/manager of a factory is impermissible when already prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, has been initiated.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the petitioner filed by G. V Prasad and another and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Section 304-A of IPC.
The court said, “This Court is of the considered view that prosecution under Section 304-A of IPC against the petitioners while prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, is initiated, is not permissible, as there cannot be a parallel or simultaneous prosecution in respect of the very same incident, in view of the punishment provided under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.”
Case Title: Mohammed Shiyab AND National Investigating Agency
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 452
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order which dismissed the plea of a murder accused seeking a direction to the trial courts to affix their signature or initials on every page of the case diary maintained by the investigation agencies when produced before it, to prevent any tampering and fabrication.
In doing so the court said it can only interpret the law and not enact it in the guise of interpretation, when no such provision for signing the case diary was provided in the relevant law.
Case Title: Akash Jaiswal AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9224 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 453
The Karnataka High Court has said that an offence under Section 11 of the Aircraft Act is not maintainable unless a complaint is filed with prior sanction to prosecute from the competent authority.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus and allowed the petition filed by a pilot Akash Jaiswal against and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Section 11A.
As per the prosecution Jaiswal was flying an aircraft at Jakkur Aerodrome in 2020 and at the time of take off, the flight veered to the left side and due to such veering, toppled. However, no injuries to any person nor to the petitioner were recorded.
Case Title: Mahantesh S Nagur AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6647 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 454
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal prosecution initiated against a Junior Engineer in BESCOM, after a father and her daughter died by electrocution due to a transformer burst on a road.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Mahanthesh S Nagur and said, “There are several complaints, before the fateful day, to rectify the defect in the transformer. The Police, on investigation, have appended those complaints to the charge sheet. These are undisputed facts. Prima facie negligence is writ large qua the petitioner, or other accused in the case at hand. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with the on-going trial against the petitioner.”
Case Title: Siji Malayil & ANR And Union of India & ANR
Case No: WP 19409/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 455
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (November 4) disposed of a public interest litigation petition seeking deployment of Indian Army personnel for rescuing the victims of of the July 16 landslide on National Highway 66 in Uttara Kannada district, after it was informed that the situation was back to normal.
Case Title: B. SATHYANARAYANACHAR AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.21760 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 456
While hearing a plea pertaining to the acquisition of a land claimed to be used as a nursery, the Karnataka High Court has said that the reliance on a 1987 government order exempting Nurseries (Plant nursery) from land acquisition must stop forthwith.
In doing so the high court further said, that if the acquiring authorities want to exempt nurseries from land acquisition, it can do it only after bringing in a regulatory regime for recognition of such nurseries. The high court emphasized that a government order–which in this case exempted nurseries from land acquisition–cannot override a statue.
Case Title: Raja Yogi Nirmalnathji Maharaj AND KADRI JOGI (YOGISHWAR) MUTT & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26894 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 457
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a plea moved by the Matadhipathi (religious head) of Kadri Shri Jogi Mutt (Yogishwara Mutt) who had sought appointment of a Commissioner to record his evidence in a suit before the trial court seeking a declaration that the Mutt (monastery) belongs to the Jogi community.
The petitioner defendant–Raja Yogi Nirmalnathji Maharaj had sought this appointment on the ground that he is unable to attend the trial court to lead evidence, as he has to perform daily rituals at the Mutt. He had also contended that his ill-health was not permitting him to attend court. The trial court had rejected his request against which he moved the high court.
Case Title: XXX AND STATE BY WOMEN POLICE STATION & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9582 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 458
The Karnataka High Court has said that even if a child in conflict with law is ordered to be tried as an adult, as provided under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, his bail application is to be considered under Section 12 of the Act, it cannot be considered under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty held thus while allowing a bail petition filed by a minor who is accused of sexually assaulting her minor sister and causing her to become pregnant and who is directed to be tried before a Special Court as an adult.
The court said, “Section 12(1) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law for the time being in force, a child, who is produced before the Board, shall be released on bail subject to proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015. Therefore, it is very clear that even if the child is ordered to be tried as an adult, as provided under Section 18(3) of the Act of 2015, for the purpose of his bail application, Section 12 of the Act of 2015 would be applicable and his bail application cannot be considered under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Case Title: The Taj West End Hotel AND K Venkatesh
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.1474/2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 459
The Karnataka High Court has said that the Labour Court cannot on the ground of sympathy alone direct reinstatement of a workman, when he is involved in a serious case of theft.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha held thus while allowing a petition filed by The Taj West End Hotel and set aside the order of the tribunal directing reinstatement and payment of back wages to an employee, K Venkatesh.
Case Title: J P Nadda AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 22933/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 460
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (November 7) quashed a criminal case registered against BJP national president J P Nadda relating to certain remarks made at an election rally in April, 2023 for allegedly unduly influencing voters.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and quashed the offence registered under Sections 171F(Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election), 171C (Undue influence at elections) of the IPC and Section 123(2) (Undue influence) of the Representation of the People Act at the Shiggaon police station. On October 12, 2023 the high court had stayed further investigation in the case.
Case Title: R.K.BHAT AND SHANTHI ROACHE & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8700 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 461
The Karnataka High Court has said that an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973, which provides to bring in another person accused in the case cannot be exercised at a pre-trial stage.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by one R K Bhat who is the complainant in the case seeking to implead one Shanthi Roache as a co-accused in a case registered against her husband Norbert D'Souza for offences punishable under provisions of Karnataka Excise Act.
Case Title: Manoj Mittal & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 19489/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 462
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (November 8) quashed the prosecution initiated against two Enforcement Directorate officers who are investigating Valmiki Corporation case and were alleged of coercing a witness to make statements against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a petition filed by Deputy Director and Assistant Director of ED, Manoj Mittal and Murali Kannan, after the complainant in the case Kallesh B filed a memo in the court, stating that he did not want to pursue the complaint further.
Case Title: Prema & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 54 OF 2013
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 463
The Karnataka High Court has said that a husband committing suicide allegedly due to his wife having an illicit relationship with another man cannot be a ground to convict the wife for charges of abetment to suicide.
A single-judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar allowed the appeal filed by Prema and Basavalinge Gowda and set aside the conviction order passed by the trial court.
Court noted that as per the definition of abutment, there should be instigation to do that thing and then it amounts to abetment. A person is said to have instigated another to an act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to act by means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement.
Case Title: B C Hanumantharaju AND Kavyashree & ANR
Case No: REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 313 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 464
While dismissing a man's plea challenging an order to maintain his daughters including a minor, the Karnataka High Court underscored that the father is "legally bound to maintain the daughters" and provide them with an "excellent education"even if they are living separately with his ex-wife.
A single judge bench of Justice Ashok S Kinagi held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one B C Hanumantharaju challenging an order of maintenance issued by the trial court. The trial court vide its order dated 07-03-2023, directed him to pay Rs.6,000 per month to each of his daughters including a minor till they get married. It had further directed him to pay Rs.1,04,000 to the respondents towards educational expenses incurred during the current academic year.
Case Title: Khaja Hussain AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200109 OF 2014
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 465
The Karnataka High Court has said that there is no duty on the accused to prove a defence of consent in a matter of rape, and his exercise of his right to remain silent would be sufficient where the prosecution itself is unable to prove its case.
The court said that as the right of the accused to remain silent would fasten the burden on the prosecution to prove absence of consent during sexual intercourse; if it fails to discharge such burden, the case of the prosecution would fall on its own weight. If prosecution does not discharge the burden beyond reasonable doubt it would make the accused entitled to acquittal, it added.
Case Title: Nagaraj G K AND THE HON'BLE ADDL. LABOUR COMMISSIONER & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 28361 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 466
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no express bar under provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and Rules, for the appellate authority to consider an application for stay in appeal against the final report of the Internal Complaints Committee.
A single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav said “The appellate authority despite the absence of specific provision for granting of interim order would have the power to consider the interim application.”
Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea To Transfer Probe In Valmiki Corporation "Scam" To CBI
Case Title: UNION BANK OF INDIA AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 17274/2024
Citation no: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 467
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (November 13) dismissed a petition filed by Union Bank of India seeking a direction to the government to transfer the probe being carried out in the alleged scam regarding the Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Ltd, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the verdict orally said, "I have not accepted the interpretation of Section 35A (Banking Regulation Act) to become a ground for reference to CBI. If I permit that every banking institution may ask. DSP Act may become redundant"
Case Title: Master Shamant P & Others AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No. 1305 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 468
The Karnataka High Court has said that priority in admission to school cannot be construed to be a vested right and priority provided in the previous academic year cannot be enforced as a legal right for continuation of such quota.
A Division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by grandchildren of serving/retired employees of Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru.
Case Title: Karan Dhanajaya AND Bar Council of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No: 29996 of 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 469
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Bar Council to enrol a law degree holder from foreign university who has completed 2 years of Bridge Course, on its rolls on the basis of the results of the Bridge Course without insisting for any other qualifying examinations other than AIBE.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed petition filed by Karan Dhananjaya and said “I am of the considered opinion that in terms of the notification dated 21.3.2023, (issued by Bar Council of India) such degree holder is not required to take up any other qualifying examination other than the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). The Respondent No.3 (KSBC) is directed to enrol the petitioner as its rolls on the basis of the results of the Bridge Course without insisting for any other qualifying examination.”
Case Title: N Shreyas & ANR AND The Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation & Others.
Case NO: WP 10744/2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 470
Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) informed the Karnataka High Court on Friday (November 15) that an audio announcement system has been installed in 928 buses for the aid of physically challenged and visually impaired persons, to know the stops or the destinations.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind accepted the statement made by the counsel for BMTC and disposed of a public interest litigation filed by N Shreyas, a visually impaired person, seeking restoration of audio announcement service in State and Corporation buses and Metro railways.
Case Title: Jabir Ali Khan alias Shuja AND Karnataka State Board of Wakfs & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24600 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 471
The Karnataka High Court recently has set aside an order passed by the Karnataka State Waqf Board, constituting a Law Committee to review and recall an order passed in the year 1976, by then Administrator of the Board which held that a portion of a property situated in Kumbarpete area of Bengaluru was private property and not Waqf Property.
A single judge bench of Justice M G S Kamal allowed the petition filed by one Jabir Ali Khan @ Shuja who had questioned the constitution of the law committee. It directed the Board to approach Karnataka Waqf Tribunal by instituting the proceedings as contemplated under the Waqf Act.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Rape Charges Against Live-In Partner After 22-Year-Long Relationship
Case Title: Satish AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 6419/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 472
The Karnataka High Court has quashed rape charges against a man in a live-in relationship, by his partner of 22 years.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Satish and quashed the case registered against him for sections 323,376,417,420,504,506 of the Indian Penal Code. While granting interim relief and staying all further proceedings qua the petitioner earlier the court had observed, “This case forms a classic illustration, as to what can become an abuse process of law. The petitioner and the complainant are said to have been in a relationship for 22 years. After 22 years of relationship, when the relationship turns sour, it is said to have become an offence of rape. It is on the face of it is an abuse of process of law to permit any proceedings, any further, in the case at hand.”
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others AND Latha H N
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 19994 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 473
Quoting examples of visually impaired persons who have achieved great things in life such as Homer, Helen Keller and Louise Braille among others, the Karnataka High Court has observed that blindness would not come in the way of discharging duties of a teacher.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice C M Joshi held thus while upholding an order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal favouring the application made by Latha H N, a member of Scheduled caste and who is 100% blind and directed the authorities to consider her application along with low vision applicants for the post of Graduate Primary Teacher' (Social Studies, teaching Kannada).
Sworn Affidavit Compulsory Along With Private Complaint: Karnataka High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Parvati & ANR AND State of Karnataka & anr
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200120 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar). 474
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a person filing a private complaint before the Magistrate court has to file a sworn affidavit in support of the complaint.
A Single judge, Justice Mohammad Nawaz, held thus while allowing a petition filed by Parvati Sharanappa and another person and quashed the FIR and private complaint initiated by Rayappa Jangali against them on charges of cheating.
In the complaint it was alleged that two cheques which were issued by the complainant towards security, were misused by the petitioners by filing a false case against him for offence punishable under Section 138 (cheque dishonour) of Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.
Case Title: Ramesh N R AND Chief Secretary & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 25078 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 475
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a PIL filed by a former municipal corporator and BJP leader NR Ramesh, who had claimed that grant of developmental rights to private persons in lieu of land, for establishing a garbage wastage plant, had resulted in corrupt practice.
In doing so the court noted that the plea was filed after over a decade since the order concerning the transferable development rights was passed. Terming it a "yawning gap of eleven years" the court said that it points to lack of bona fides on the petitioner's part and also imposed cost of Rs 10,000.
Case Title: Mandara AND State of Karnataka and Anr.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11370 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 476
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a woman booked for human trafficking, who allegedly sold her minor daughter for Rs 15,000 to a couple in Maharashtra as she was unable to maintain herself and her child.
In doing so the court noted that the woman had a "bonafide intention" to get the child adopted, even though the procedure was not followed adding that ingredients of the offence of trafficking were not made out.
Justice K Natarajan allowed the petition filed by one Mandara and quashed the proceedings registered under Section 370 (Trafficking of a Person) read with Section 34 (common intention) IPC and Section 81 (Sale and procurement of children for any purpose) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Case Title: South Canara District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.25040 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 477
The Karnataka High Court has held that once the state government allows land granted to be mortgaged to raise a loan for the construction of a house, in case of default of repayment of the loan, the bank cannot be restrained from selling the property to enforce the mortgage, citing the non-alienation clause in the grant.
A Single Judge M I Arun held thus while quashing an endorsement dated 18-07-2023 issued by the authorities to South Canara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, refusing to grant permission to enforce the mortgage by bringing the property mortgaged for sale. The endorsement was issued in light of the restriction in the grant that lands should not be alienated for a period of 25 years.
Case Title: M/S KARNATAKA STATE CERTIFIED SEED PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION & Others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 31329/2017.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 478
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging a Government Order directing purchase of certified and truthfully labelled seeds (TL) only from government agencies.
A single judge K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by M/s Karnataka State Certified Seed Producers Association and others stating, “Having regard to the object and the reasons stated in the Government Order to achieve the qualitative, quantitative and affordable certified seeds and the object of attaining timely supply of seeds to the farmers, the Court is not convinced to hold that the exemption provided in the Government Order is impermissible in law.”
Case Title: Rajanna R & Others AND Karnataka State Bar Council & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29591 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 479
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an October 28 notification issued by Chairman and Vice Chairman of State Bar Council to reconstitute committees of the Council, observing that the same was in violation of the State Bar Council (Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules.
Observing that rules are meant to ensure transparency, the court said that the action of reconstitution of the council's committees would set a precedent undermining the mandatory nature of the rules rendering regulatory framework redundant.
Case title: Prajwal Revanna v/s State by CID Police
Case NO: CRL.P 6409/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 480
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (November 22) dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Suspended Janta Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna who has been arrested on the allegations of rape and sexual assault.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprassana while pronouncing the order said, "Dismissed".
The petition prayed that in the event of his arrest, Revanna be released on bail.
Revanna is charged for various offences including IPC Sections 376(2)n (commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, 376(2)k (rape while being in a position of control or dominance over a woman), 506 (criminal intimidation), 354(a) (Sexual harassment), 354b (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 354c (Voyeurism) and Section 66E (Punishment for violation of privacy) of Information Technology Act.
Case Title: Krishnappa M T & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13215 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 481
The Karnataka High Court has said that Magistrate courts, while passing an order on a request made by the police to investigate a non-cognizable offence, should not merely pass lengthy orders only to fill up the pages, without applying their mind.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by one Krishnappa M T and another quashed the proceedings initiated against them under sections 34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: National Institute of Mental Health And Neuroscience AND S Anitha Joseph
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11915 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 482
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which directed National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) to "consider grant" of Child Care Leave (CCL) to a nurse for a period of 120 days and extend CCL benefits' within eight weeks.
In doing so the court underscored that NIMHANS as State's instrumentality has to be considerate whilst treating the claims of women employees for Maternity and Child Care Leave. The court further underlined that a lactating mother has a Fundamental Right to breastfeed her baby and to spend reasonable time with it and the baby too has a Fundamental Right to be breastfed.
Case Title: K Ramakrishna AND Assistant Director
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9930/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 483
The Karnataka High Court has rejected the bail plea of 73-year-old K Ramakrishna, former Chairman of Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha and Sri Guru Sarvabhauma Souhanda Credit Co-operative Ltd, booked under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, for allegedly de-frauding the bank to the tune of Rs.1,553 Crores by creating fictitious documents and granting loan in favour of fictitious persons.
Ramakrishna–the petitioner, had approached the Trial Court seeking the relief of bail invoking Section 479(1) of BNSS, 2023, and also on the ground that there is a delay in trial and trial has not yet commenced and he has been in custody from two years seven months. He subsequently approached the high court in a third bail plea.
Case Title: M/S COMPASSION UNLIMITED PLUS ACTION (CUPA AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17443 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 484
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state authorities to increase the penalty amount to be imposed on dog owners, who or whose dogs, are found to be conducting themselves irresponsibly in treating and cleaning of the excrement of their pets in public parks.
This penalty amount the court said would be higher than that which is imposed on the "other class of people" who breach cleanliness norms. In doing so the court emphasized that while the pet owners may have the liberty to take their dogs to the parks to roam around, the other section of the society and the class of the people who visit the parks also have a right to "enjoy clean environment".
Case Title: B Y Vijayendra & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 5478/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 485
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (November 27) quashed proceedings initiated against Karnataka State BJP President B Y Vijayendra in connection with an FIR registered over an allegedly offensive post made on X (formerly Twitter), by the party's Karnataka Unit on alleged Muslim appeasement by the State Congress.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and quashed the proceeding against Vijayendra and one Prashant Makanur. The two were charged for offences punishable under sections 505(2) (Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) and 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) of IPC and section 125 (Promoting enmity between classes in connection with election) of Representation of People Act.
Case Title: S Purushothama AND The Chairman & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26318 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 486
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed with cost a petition filed by a delinquent employee of the State Administrative Tribunal, questioning the order passed by the Tribunal whereby his two annual increments with cumulative effect were withheld on charges of disobeying instruction of the Chairman, and employing rude language.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the petition filed by S Purushothama and said, “In-subordination is a contagious malady in any employment and more particularly in public service. It spreads in an exponential way affecting the hierarchy of positions and disbanding the chain of command, which eventually result in maladministration. Therefore, it cannot be viewed leniently at all.”
Case Title: Shumita Deb & ANR AND Gautam Bhattacharya & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6128 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 487
Karnataka High Court has held that a competent court in Bengaluru will have jurisdiction to hear the defamation suit filed by late singer Manna Dey's kin, for restraining certain entities from circulating a Bengali language book on the late singer.
Justice H P Sandesh pointed that though the book is published in West Bengal, it is available in Bengaluru.
The High Court held thus while setting aside an order of the trial court which had dismissed the suit filed by Shumita Deb–the daughter of late music director and singer Manna Dey–and her husband against Gautam Bhattacharya and others.
Case Title: Ashwith Kumar And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 19500 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 488
The Karnataka High Court has directed its registry not to raise office objections to the effect that the signature of the petitioner is not forthcoming in the memo of withdrawal if the petition is sought to be withdrawn by the advocate appearing for the petitioner.
In doing so the court observed that such office objections discredits the authority of the counsel who appear on behalf of their clients.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav in its order said, “Accordingly, the Registry is directed not to raise office objections to the effect signature of the petitioner is not forthcoming in the memo for withdrawal. Learned counsel is fully authorised to take action on behalf of the clients. Such office objection raised discredits the authority vested on the counsel".
Case Title: Sri R. Nataraj vs. Smt. R. Punitha & Ors.
Case Number: M.F.A. No.6586 of 2024 (AA)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 489
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh has held that if an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is filed before submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute, the party cannot be deemed to have waived its right to invoke the arbitration clause. The court observed that the filing of the written statement and application for reference under Section 8 simultaneously cannot lead to an inference that the Appellant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and had waived its right to seek reference to arbitration.
Case Title: Union of India & Others AND Government of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26954 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024LiveLaw (Kar) 490
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone) directing Madras Engineering Group, a training Unit of the Indian Army, to pay an environmental compensation of Rs Rs.2,94,63,000 for polluting Ulsoor Lake in Bengaluru.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind said “This Court is inclined to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in limited context and in respect of specific area which is non compliance of principles of natural justice, in as much as the order against the petitioners came to be passed by the NGT imposing the liability of payment of environment compensation without affording hearing to the petitioners.”
Case Title: DODDABALLAPUR SPINNING MILLS AND THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 41048 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 491
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to issue necessary guidelines to be followed by Banks in cases where a demand draft is not presented for clearance during its validity period and whether in such cases the amount covered can be automatically credited to the account of the customer on expiry.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “Reserve Bank of India to issue necessary guidelines as regards the status of a demand draft not presented for clearance during its validity and amongst other things, if the amount covered under the demand draft can be automatically credited to the account of the customer on expiry if the demand draft has purchased the same through her bank account.”
Case Title: Sourish Bose & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10546 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 492
Dismissing a plea filed by two persons seeking quashing of an FIR registered against them for allegedly defrauding Amazon Seller Services Limited to the tune of Rs 69,91,940, the Karnataka High Court said that the facts in the case are "so seriously disputed" that they are like a "maze" and would require a full blown trial.
Dismissing the petition filed by Sourish Bose and Deepanvita Ghosh Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order said, “The Apex Court holds that, when the case is shrouded with seriously disputed questions of fact, the High Court should not interfere.The questions of fact are so seriously disputed in the case at hand; they are maze and it would amaze this Court to interfere on such facts”.
Case title: Naleen Kumar Kateel v State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No: 10321 of 2024.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 493
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 3) quashed proceedings pertaining to an FIR registered against former BJP State president Naleen Kumar Kateel for allegedly extorting money under the guise of electoral bonds
The high court in its order said that the complainant in the case was alien to the alleged transaction and an alien cannot complain of extortion. It further said in its order that the complaint suffers from want of locus to register the complaint. The court further observed in its order that "not even a modicum" of ingredients of the alleged offence have made out even in its "prima facie sense", and what the complainant had projected is a "huge hocus-pocus", but he in fact has "no locus".
Case Title: State of Karnataka & ANR AND Dr Madhu Kumar M H
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 31104 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 494
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of the State Administrative Tribunal which directed the State government to consider representation of Dr Madhu Kumar M H, Specialist (Physician), KR Hospital in Mysuru for permission to go on deputation for higher studies.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice C M Joshi said, “The petitioners are not justified in keeping employee's claim for educational deputation, especially when admission to courses of the kind are time bound and liable to lapse if not availed. Expeditious decision therefore is eminently warranted in matters of the kind. No such expeditiousness nor seriousness warranted in the matter having been shown, the Tribunal is more than justified in granting relief to the respondent – employee.”
Case Title: Chandra AND Chief Superintendent & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29234 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 495
The Karnataka High Court has granted 90-day parole leave to a murder convict to oversee the agricultural activities of the land, which is standing in the name of his father.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by one Chandra who has been in judicial custody for over 11 years and undergoing sentence of life imprisonment for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Case Title: KANAKA LAKSHMI B M AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 12695 of 2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 496
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (December 4) rejected a plea for transfer of investigation to CBI in an abetment to suicide case–concerning the death of an advocate–registered against a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
It however constituted an SIT to investigate into the alleged crime, to be headed by IPS Vinay Verma, Superintendent of police, CBI, ACB Bengaluru and the SIT is to complete the investigation within three months.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while dictating his order said, "Application of the Association to refer matter to CBI stands rejected. However, i deem it appropriate to constitute a SIT to investigate into the crime".
Case Title: M V Srinivas Gowda AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.27154 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 497
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by M V Srinivasa Gowda, challenging an order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, directing initiation of proceedings against him to recover the entire amount paid as honorarium to him under the Karnataka State Freedom Fighters Welfare Rules, 1969.
In doing so the court underscored that the object of the scheme is to provide pension to the genuine freedom fighters who deserve to be treated with reverence, and if applications without proof are entertained the "scheme would be converted into a bounty".
A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar said “All care has to be taken to see that real freedom fighters do not suffer and their claims are accepted, but, at the same time, fictitious claims have to be sternly dealt with on merits.”
Case Title: Vinay Kulkarni And Central Bureau of Investigation & Others and batch
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.12176 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.12188 OF 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION No.12479 OF 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION No.12492 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 498
The Karnataka High Court quashed an order of a special court which had directed a magisterial court to record an accused's statement under Section 164 CrPC in a murder case, pursuant to which he was granted pardon and made an approver, noting that such an order was on the face of it illegal and against the law.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by Congress leader Vinay Kulkarni and others challenging an order passed by the Special Court granting pardon to accused no 1 in the case, Basavaraj Shivappa Muttagi. The accused are charged in the Dharwad Zilla Panchayat member Yogesh Goudar murder case of 2016. The challenge considered by the high court was that the special court's order had now transposed accused No.1 as a witness by and had granted him the status of an approver under Section 306 (Tender of pardon to accomplice) of the Cr.P.C.
Case Title: Sudha Bai & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7090 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 499
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered by a woman against her brother-in-law and others alleging them of causing mental harassment to her when they after she had a feud with her husband called her to the matrimonial home for conciliation.
Single judge Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Sudha Bai and others and quashed the proceedings initiated against them under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case Title: Akhil Thomas AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5952 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 500
Observing that “there cannot be promise of marriage held on to a lady, who was already married,” the Karnataka High Court quashed a rape case registered against a man by a woman whom he met on 'bumble app' where the woman had in her profile projected herself to be a divorced lady.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Akhil Thomas and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner had contended that acts from the date they met till the date of registration of the crime were all consensual, but never on a promise of marriage. The complainant was already married and had projected herself to be a divorced lady in the Bumble app, therefore, when the petitioner came to know the fact that she was not yet divorced, had breached the said promise.
Case Title: K Raja AND V Prabhakar
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7207 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 501
The Karnataka High Court has held that the procedure of affixing a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the housein which the defendant ordinarily resides under Order V Rule 17 CPC, if he is not available to receive it, is a mandatory procedure and not a directory procedure.
Justice H P Sandesh held thus while allowing an appeal filed by one K Raja and set aside the decree passed by the trial court in a suit filed for recovery of money by V Prabhakar, after placing the appellant ex-parte. For context the provision pertains to the procedure to be followed when the defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found.
Case Title Axis Bank Ltd AND Assistant Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.52158 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 502
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan made under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, cancelling the gift deed executed by an aged father in favour of his children.
The order came to be passed on the petition filed by a Bank from whom the children had taken a loan by mortgaging the property received as gift, and subsequently defaulted in repayment.
Justice M G S Kamal said, “This Court under the peculiar facts situation of the case, is of the considered view that the petitioner-bank is entitled to maintain the writ petition, more so when it is required to recover the loan amount advanced by it in the larger public interest.”
Case Title: UnIon of India AND A Mohan & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2556/2011
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 503
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order of the Railway Tribunal granting compensation to the claimants of a deceased passenger who had fallen from the train after mistakenly travelling beyond his destination station.
Justice H P Sandesh dismissed an appeal filed by South Western Railways, challenging the order dated December 28, 2010, granting compensation of Rs 4 lakh along with interest to A Mohan.
He said, "The deceased might have fallen while trying to get down and in that process he could have received injuries, which the fact is in line with the statement of witnesses and also the post mortem report. The fact that the deceased was travelling in the train is not in dispute, but only mistakenly he traveled beyond destiny and also the Apex Court in the Prabhakaran's case also held that principles of strict liability applies, the defendant has to pay damages for injury caused to the plaintiff, even though the defendant may not have been at any fault"
Case Title: A J James AND Karnataka State Law University & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.257 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 504
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a Law student challenging an order of the single judge which rejected his petition questioning the re-valuation standards adopted by the Karnataka State Law University.
In doing so the court underscored that in absence of any provision under the University's regulations which provide for revaluation beyond the process already undertaken, the University cannot be directed to conduct revaluation at the student's instance.
Case Title: Mohammed Aamir Raza AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12392 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 505.
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash case registered against founder trustee of a Madarasa who did not report to the police about the alleged incident of unnatural sexual assault committed by two Madarasa teachers on a minor boy.
The court observed that the offences alleged against the accused was "so horrendous" that the petitioner should have reported it immediately when it came to his knowledge adding that he "failed" to report the alleged offence.
Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Mohammed Aamir Raza who is the trustee of Manik Mastan Madarasa and charged for offences punishable under Sections 17(Punishment for abetment) and 21 (Punishment for failure to report or record a case) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Ananda Reddy AND Radhamma & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8803/2013
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 506
The Karnataka High Court has set aside one month's civil imprisonment term imposed on a cancer patient for the willful disobedience of the Court, instead it directed him to pay Rs 3 lakh fine.
A single judge, Justice H P Sandesh partly allowed the appeal filed by Reddy and modified the trial court order. It said, “since the appellant is suffering from cancer and taking note of mental agony on the plaintiffs, it is appropriate to award a fine of Rs.3 lakhs instead of punishment for the willful disobedience of the Court order.”
Case Title: Ejas PP AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12157 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 507
The Karnataka High Court quashed a rape case registered by a woman against her fiance–who had absconded post their engagement after he was booked in a case under the NDPS Act–noting that the complainant's statement that she did not want to pursue the case further.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and quashed the case registered against him under Sections 354(A)(Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment), 376(rape), 493 (Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage) of the Indian Penal Code.
The court after going through the records said, "After the registration of the crime in Crime No.191/2021, it transpires that the jurisdictional Police at Andhra Pradesh filed a 'B report' in the case that was registered in Crime No.87/2021.The realization dawned on both of them that they have to get married and they got married after filing of the 'B report' as aforesaid. By then, the complainant had registered the crime...In these circumstances where the offences are not even met to its remotest sense, permitting the husband now to undergo trial would leave the child and complainant in the lurch. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance of marriage between the petitioner and the complainant, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the crime against the petitioner.”
Case Title: Indiramma & Others AND HAMPAMMA and others.
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100008 OF 2019
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 508
The Karnataka High Court has suggested for use of technology in documenting Wills by suitably amending the process of registration and facilitating video recording of the statement of the testator and attesting witnesses.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, “There is a need to embrace the technology to ensure that there is an unambiguous, credible, and clinching record relating to proof of execution of documents, more particularly the documents such as Will where the author of the instrument will not be available to admit or prove its execution when its execution is disputed.”
Case Title: L S Tejasvi Surya AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 12667 of 2024
Citation no: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 509
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (December 12) quashed a case registered against BJP Member of Parliament Tejasvi Surya for allegedly spreading 'fake news' regarding the suicide of a farmer in Haveri district.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while dictating the order said, "Allowed quashed". The court had reserved its order on December 5 after hearing the parties. During the hearing the senior counsel appearing for Surya said that the allegation is that he has made certain tweets based on certain news items. "Even if it is taken as true there is no ingredient of Section 353 (BNS) made out. As a matter of fact he has deleted the tweet. Criminal proceedings against this petitioner will not survive," he said. He further said that the next day the father of the deceased had also given an interview to the media.
Case Title: Basangouda Patil (Yatnal) And State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 10076/2024
Citation no: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 510
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (December 12) quashed an FIR registered against BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal for making allegedly derogatory remarks against Congress Leader and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said, "Allowed quashed". The court had reserved it order after hearing the parties on November 28.
Patil had told the court that he merely responded to certain statements made by Gandhi when the Congress MP went overseas. Further, no ingredients of the alleged offences registered against him in the FIR are made out and if the Congress leader is "so aggrieved", he may file a defamation complaint which the BJP leader said he will defend.
Case Title: Darshan v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 11096/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 511
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (December 13) granted bail to actor Darshan, Pavitra Gowda and other co accused in Renukaswamy Murder Case.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while pronouncing the order said, "Petitions allowed". A detailed copy of the order is awaited. The court had reserved its verdict earlier this week after hearing detailed arguments from all the parties.
Accused Darshan, Pavitra, Anu Kumar, Lakshman M, V Vinay, Jagadeesh, Pradoosh S Rao and Nagaraju R had moved the high court seeking bail after the sessions court had rejected it. Earlier, the court had granted bail to Keshavamurthy. During the hearing the high court released Darshan on interim medical bail to undergo surgery.
Case Title: Mr. N. Rajgopal Hebbar vs. Mrs. Padmavathi & Ors.
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5460/2016 (AA) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5461/2016 (AA) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5462/2016 (AA) IN M.F.A.NO.5462/2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 512
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh has reiterated that when a reasoned order has been passed by the Arbitrator, the same cannot be interfered with. In the case, the court found that the District Court had properly considered sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, as well as relevant provisions of the Sale of Goods Act in modifying the arbitral award. The court, therefore, refused to interfere with the award under section 37(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Satish Jarkiholi AND Dilip Kumar
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.8574 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 513
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a defamation case registered against Congress Leader and Member of Legislative Assembly Satish Jarikholi, who was charged under Section 500 and 153 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging to have hurt the sentiments of Hindus as he made a statement that the word “Hindu” has a dirty meaning.
A single judge Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Jarkiholi and said, “This is a case where 'not' a definite class of people is alleged to be defamed but an indefinite class. The very concept of defaming an indefinite class cannot lead to the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, as the purport of Section 499 and the Explanation is that it should be against a definite class of people.”
Case Title: ACTION FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION, REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT AND Union of India & Others
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 833 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 514
The Karnataka High Court has said that an order rejecting an NGO's application for renewal of license under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) is to be challenged in revision before the appellate authority and an appeal questioning the order before high court is not maintainable.
Justice K Natarajan held thus while dismissing an appeal filed Action for Community Organisation, Rehabilitation and Development under Section 31/31(2) of the Act appealing against a March 30 order by which the Union dismissed its FCRA certificate renewal.
Case Title: Syed Ajaz Ahmed AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 33213/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 515
Dismissing a PIL for setting aside a government circular which suspended mutation of farmers and private khata properties to the waqf board after complaints were received regarding the same, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 17) said that directions were issued in public interest.
The court was hearing a PIL by one Syed Ajaz Ahmed which prayed for setting aside the directions issued by the State government vide its letter dated November 9, withdrawing the notices issued to change the khata as waqf properties. It further sought directions to the respondents including the State to conduct a judicial enquiry into encroachments of the wakf properties in the state by appointing a retired high court judge of Karnataka to oversee the enquiry pertaining to the encroachments by the government bodies and private individuals and the disposals of properties under the Karnataka Inams Abolition Act and Karnataka land reforms act.
Case Title: SHIVAPRASAD AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 19700/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 516
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 17) quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man booked for allegedly printing a message on his own wedding invite which read 'the gift that you would give me in the marriage is vote for Narendra Modi'.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order on a petition filed by one Shivaprasad. It said “Allowed and quashed.”
The detailed order is awaited. Earlier, the court had while issuing notice to the respondents said, “There shall be an interim order of stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.238/2024, qua the petitioners, till the next date of hearing”
Case Title: B Y Vijayendra AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 13192/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 517
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 17) allowed the petition filed by then Vice President and now BJP State President BY Vijayendra and quashed proceedings pertaining to an FIR registered against him for allegedly extorting money under the guise of electoral bonds.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition following its judgment passed on December 3 in the petition filed by former BJP State president Naleen Kumar Kateel who was a co-accused in the case. Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman is also an accused in the FIR.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Kalandar Shafi & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.13459 OF 2024 C/W WRIT PETITION No.33526 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 518
The Karnataka High Court has held that as per Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the 15-day police custody must be sought within the first forty days in cases of offences which are punishable upto ten years of imprisonment
It clarified that the phraseology used in Section 187 BNSS is an offence punishable "for ten years or more", explaining that 10 years or more would mean that the threshold punishment is 10 years and not a punishment up to 10 years. The court said that if the punishment term is between 1-10 years then Section 187(3) BNSS cannot be pressed for police custody as probe for offences punishable upto 10 years must be completed in 60 days.
Case Title: Principal Secretary To Government & ANR AND Mahaveen Oswal and Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.200165 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 519
The Karnataka High Court has said that an urban development authority would have the right to decline a plea for approval of layout plan of land, only if a notification is duly published as per law for acquisition of the lands for formation of a scheme or a layout.
A division bench of Justice R Devdas and Justice G Basavaraja held thus while dismissing an appeal by the State government challenging an order of the single judge which allowed the petition filed by Mahaveer Oswal and others and which had directed the Vijayapura Urban Development Authority, to consider seeking approval of a layout plan.
Case Title: Prakash Ramachandra Hegde
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.107291 OF 2024 (CS-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.107287 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 520
The Karnataka High Court has recently said that an officer posted as in-charge of a post can discharge the functions/duties of the said post, including statutory functions.
Justice C M Poonacha held thus while dismissing a plea by Prakash Ramachandra Hegde, who had questioned the order of Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies (ARCS), Kumta, who being the officiating/in-charge officer had on November 27 stayed the order of disqualification of one Vivek Subraya Bhat. Bhat was earlier disqualified on November 25 by the Assistant Commissioner.
Case Title: Charulata Somal AND Shriya Muddanna Shetty
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 664 OF 2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 521
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Magistrate court directing the registration of a defamation case against the Assistant Commissioner of Kundapura who while discharging quasi-judicial function, allegedly acted erratically and became furious and shouted at a senior lawyer and a member of Kundapura Bar Association, appearing before him.
Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by Charulata Somal and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate court in 2015.
He said, “The revision petitioner is not an official who was discharging an official function. The facts of the case would depict that the revision petitioner as on the date of the incident was discharging the quasi-judicial function. Therefore, she could be treated as a Judge, as per definition of the word 'Judge' found in Section 2 of the said Judges (Protection) Act.”
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND G Ramachari
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 699 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 522
The Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order discharging a public servant of graft charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act as the Lokayukta police sent the voice sample of the conversation between the official and the complainant wherein he allegedly demanded a bribe, to a private agency instead of sending it to government Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis.
The court said that by sending the sample to a private agency and placing the report on it as "gospel truth" used for filing the chargesheet affected the public servant's rights.
Justice V Srishananda dismissed the State's petition challenging the trial court's December 16, 2016 order by which the court had discharged G Ramachari who was booked for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) of the PC Act.
Case Title: Karnataka Employers Association & Others AND All India Trade Union Congress & OThers
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.23 OF 2024 (L - MW) C/W WRIT APPEAL Nos. 53/2024, 54/2024, 78/2024, 82/2024, 87/2024, 88/2024, 90/2024, 92/2024, 93/2024, 107/2024, 113/2024, 139/2024, 141/2024, 142/2024, 148/2024, 156/2024, 159/2024, 160/2024 , 161/2024 , 162/2024, 165/2024, 166/2024, 170/2024, 177/2024, 216/2024, 316/2024, 413/2024, 438/2024, 502/2024, 511/2024, 533/2024, 542/2024, 543/2024, 545/2024, 553/2024, 565/2024, 567/2024, 570/2024, 572/2024, 573/2024, 574/2024, 575/2024, 576/2024, 577/2024, 578/2024, 579/2024, 580/2024, 581/2024, 583/2024, 644/2024 AND 905/2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 523
The Karnataka High Court has said that while fixing or revising the Minimum Wages to be paid to employees, employers which is a stakeholder and which will be affected in the exercise, should have their say and the stand before the notification is passed by the Government.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind while allowing the appeal filed by employers associations including the Karnataka Employers Association and others, challenging a single judge order dated September 26, 2023 said:
“The class of the employers is a stakeholder and a party who would be affected as their obligations would arise as an end result of the exercise of fixing and revising the minimum wages. When it is a question of revising the minimum wages, a variety of factors would govern the ultimate act of issuance of Notification and incorporating the conditions and stipulations therein, in which, it is legitimate to conclude that the employers should have their say and the stand.”
Case Title: Sachin R & ANR AND Karnataka State Law University & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 34457 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 524
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that law students who have already attended classes for Indian Penal Code and have failed in the examination, it cannot be expected that those students take up the examination for Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which has never been taught to them in the course structure.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while quashing a notification issued by the Karnataka State Law University of December 6 by which the University has proposed to have the supplementary examination for the petitioners Sachin R and others would be in 'Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita' (BNS) instead of IPC.
Case Title: ABC And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.14909 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 525
The Karnataka High Court as an interim measure directed the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) to provide a reservation of 0.5% to transgender persons (half the percentage of reservation provided for TGs in employment in State) with fee waiver, until it implements the 2014 directions of the Supreme Courts by formulating a reservation for transgender candidates.
In 2021 the State government provided a 1 per cent (horizontal) reservation to Transgender candidates in government jobs to be filled through the direct recruitment process. The reservation is applicable to transgender candidates in each category of General merit, SC,ST and in each of the OBC categories.
Justice Ravi V Hosmani directed, "NLSIU is directed to implement directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in NALSA's case (NALSA v. Union of India) by formulating reservation along with measures for providing financial aid to TGs in education before commencement of admission process for next academic year. Until then to provide a reservation of 0.5% (half the percentage of reservation provided for TGs in employment under State) as interim reservation with fee waiver and for which NLSIU may apply to State/Central Government for appropriate grant".
Case Title: M Manjula & Others AND Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 526
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld an order of the single judge which dismissed a petition filed by the original grantee of a land who had sought restoration of land to themselves, 12 years after it was first transferred to private persons.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed an appeal filed by M Manjula and others who are heirs of one late Lakshmaiah, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste and came to be granted the land in question in the year 1981.
It said “In light of the above discussion and the position of law that would emerge, in the facts of the case, the restoration of the land cannot be permitted after 12 years.The question of latches would come into play. 12 years having been passed, it would be highly unreasonable, unjust and inequitable, as well as against law to grant any relief to the original grantee-the petitioner-appellant, permitting restoration of the land and to treat the transfer of the land taken place long back to be null and void.”
Case Title: Union Bank of India & ANR AND V Harsih D Kamath & ANR
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 527
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an order of the single judge which had directed Union Bank of India to release the amount in Term Deposits which came to be appropriated towards the loan taken by a businessman, exercising its power of general lien over such deposits.
A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by the Bank and set aside the order dated May 2, 2023.
The bench said “It is observed in the impugned order in writ petition that, because of issuance of recovery certificate by the DRT the term deposits belongs to the petitioners are crystallized. But when the bank has got general lien over such deposits which is dealing in public money and has exercised its general lien as per the undertaking given by the father of the petitioners as well as now the petitioners the question of releasing the said deposit to the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, the appellants (Bank) have made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.”
Case Title: G Swamy AND B Devendrappa
Case No: ELECTION PETITION NO.19 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 528
The Karnataka High Court has held that Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, does not take away the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide an election dispute questioning the caste of a returned candidate to the Legislative Assembly.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde dismissed the application made under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by B Devendrappa seeking to dismiss the election petition filed by G Swamy challenging Devendrappa's election.
Originally, Swamy–the petitioner had filed an election petition before the high court questioning the Devendrappa's (respondent) election to Jagaluru Vidhanasabha Constituency claiming that the Constituency is reserved for Scheduled Tribe whereas the respondent belongs to Other Backward Community and so is ineligible to contest the election.
Case Title: Ms X AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 55559 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 529
The Karnataka High Court has asked the state government to suggest amendments to the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and the rules framed thereunder to "give effect" to the Transgender Persons(Protection of Rights) Act 2019, in permitting change of name and gender of a transgender person in their birth/death certificate.
In doing so the court directed the Registrar to modify the birth and death certificate of transgender persons on submission of their application, if it is accompanied with requisite certificate concerning change in identity and gender as provided under Sections 6 (Issue of certificate of identity) and 7 (certificate of Change in gender) of the Transgender Persons(Protection of Rights) Act 2019.
Case Title: Chandra @Chandrashekhara Bhat AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition no. 12758 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 530
Closing perhaps the oldest criminal matter in the state, the Karnataka High Court recently quashed a 44-year old murder case registered against a man who is now 68 years old, remarking that permitting a trial would be a futile exercise.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition by Chadra alias V Chandrashekara Bhat, and after taking note of the facts observed that the impossibility of the petitioner looms large. It said:
“Therefore, if acquittal is eminent in a trial, permitting such trial against the accused would be nothing but waste of precious judicial time as is observed hereinabove. In the considered view of this Court, permitting a trial, which would be of no utility would only be an exercise in futility. Thus, ends the oldest case, in the criminal justice system, of the State, perhaps, which is 44 years old.”
Case Title: SRI.THANGAVELU. R v. SHRI. SANTHOSH. J
Case Number: CRP No. 265 of 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 531
The Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar has held that a reference application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should have been filed within a period of 120 days from the date of service of summons to the defendant, which was long passed before 20.03.2019. Thus, where the reference application under Section 8 of the Act was made long after the expiry of the outer limit of 120 days from the date of service of summons, such a reference could not be construed to have been made at the earliest.
Case Title: Dr Mohankumar M AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.118/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 532
The Karnataka High Court has said that scope of revision is very limited against the discharge application and the Court has to consider only the material on record collected by the Investigating Officer whether sufficient or not.
Justice H P Sandesh held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Dr Mohankumar M. Referring to judgments of the Supreme Court It said, “The Court cannot conduct a mini trial and defence cannot be considered in a discharge application and the Court has to only look into the material collected by the Investigating Officer whether sufficient material is there or not.”