Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: July 29 - August 4, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 352Nominal Index:Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344Karnataka State Road Corporation & Others AND Mallaiah & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 345M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 346M/S Akshaya Private Limited Vs M/S S P Sai Technologies. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 347THE BANGALORE, BANGALORE RURAL AND RAMANAGARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND Assistant Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 348ABC AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 349Nagamma & Others AND Rudrayya & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 350Principal Additional Director General Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence Versus M/S Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 351PARITOSH CHANDRASHEKAR KULKARNI AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 352Judgments/OrdersParty Not Required To Appear Before Police If Summons U/S 35 BNSS Does Not Contain Crime Number, Details Of Offence Alleged: Karnataka HC Case Title: Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15125 OF 2024Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344The 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.”Constitutional Courts Are Not Merely Arbiters But Stakeholders In Cases Relating To Rivers, Forests: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Karnataka State Road Corporation & Others AND Mallaiah & OthersCase No: R.F.A. NO.1653 OF 2011Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 345The 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.Non-Signatories Bound By Arbitration Clause When Purchasing Property From Agreement Parties: Karnataka High Court Case Title: M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North GardeniaCase Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2978 OF 2024 (AA)Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 346The 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.Settlement Arising From Contract Containing Arbitration Clause Must Be Resolved Through Arbitration: Karnataka High Court Case Title: M/S Akshaya Private Limited Vs M/S S P Sai TechnologiesCase Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2024Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 347The 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.Bank Can't Attach Grantee's Land Under Karnataka SC/ST (Prohibition Of Transfer Of Certain Lands) Act For Loan Default By GPA Holder: High Court Case Title: THE BANGALORE, BANGALORE RURAL AND RAMANAGARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND Assistant Commissioner & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29196 OF 2014 (SCST) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 17857 OF 2015 (SCST) WRIT PETITION NO. 17858 OF 2015Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 348The 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...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: July 29 - August 4, 2024

Mustafa Plumber

Tags