Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 01 to May 07

Nominal IndexCentral Public Information Officer/Deputy Director General, Doordarshan Kendra And Central Information Commission & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 165. D K Shivakumar And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 166D B Jatti And M/s Jamnadas Devidas. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 167Ravi M And Union of India & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 168B Prashanth Hegde And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 169ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 170Karnataka Golf Association And Karnataka Information Commission & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 171N P Amruthesh And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 172Judgments/OrdersRTI Act | Public Information Officer Cannot Challenge Appellate Authority's Order Directing It To Disclose Information: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Central Public Information Officer/Deputy Director General, Doordarshan Kendra And Central Information Commission & ANR.Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 2346 OF 2011 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 663 OF 2011Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 165The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that under the Right to Information Act, a Public information Officer has no authority to prefer an appeal against an order passed by the Appellate Authority, directing him to furnish information to an applicant under the Act. The power to prefer an appeal challenging an order passed by the Appellate authority has been conferred only on the persons who had sought for information, it held.A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda has said, “There is no provision under the Act which enables any of the parties, let alone a Public Information Officer, to prefer an appeal against the order to the Second Appellate Authority.”[DK Shivakumar Disproportionate Assets Case] State's Consent For CBI Probe Merely Executive Order, Not Sanction For Prosecution: Karnataka High Court Case Title: D K Shivakumar And State of KarnatakaCase No: WRIT PETITION NO.10479 OF 2020Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 166The Karnataka High Court last month dismissed a petition filed by Congress leader D K Shivakumar seeking to quash the sanction for prosecution granted by State to the CBI, to investigate the offences alleged against him under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act.A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan said the impugned order was merely a consent given by the State under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, "it is not a sanction as required under either Sections 19 or 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.”Section 87 NI Act | Cheque Not Invalid If Altered With Consent Of Drawer: Karnataka High Court Case Title: D B Jatti And M/s Jamnadas DevidasCase No: CRL.R.P No. 964 OF 2019Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 167The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if the payee or holder of the cheque had made alteration with the consent of drawer on cheque, such alteration cannot be a ground to resist right of payee or holder thereof.A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar dismissed a revision petition filed by accused D B Jatti who had challenged the conviction order passed by the trial court for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and upheld by the Appellate court.Karnataka Elections 2023: High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Permission For NRIs To Caste Vote From AbroadCase Title: Ravi M And Union of India & othersCase No: WP 9720/2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 168The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday rejected a PIL filed by a Non Resident Indian (NRI) seeking grant of voting rights to NRIs from the countries they reside in, during the Karnataka Assembly Elections, scheduled to be held on May 10.A vacation bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil rejected the petition filed by Ravi M. In doing so, it accepted the submission made by the Election Commission of India that “The Right to vote is not a fundamental right and it is a creature of law. Therefore unless law is shown which provides for voting, the Right to vote cannot be sought for.”Section 173 CrPC | Instruct All Investigating Agencies To Communicate Final Report To Complainant: Karnataka High Court To DGP, IG Case Title: B Prashanth Hegde And State of KarnatakaCase No: WRIT PETITION NO.18864 OF 2021Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 169The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Inspector General and Director General of Police (DG and IGP), to instruct all Investigating Officers of the Investigation Agencies to communicate the final report prepared by them to the first informant, as per Section 173(2)(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).Section 173(2)(ii) obligates investigating officer to communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.Karnataka High Court Refuses To Take Away Father's Visitation Rights On Ground That He Remarried After Divorce & Bears Another Child Case Title: ABC And XYZCase No: M.F.A. NO.8527 OF 2015Citation: 2023 LiveLaw...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 01 to May 07

Mustafa Plumber

Tags