Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: February 12 - February 18, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 70 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 83Nominal Index:Mohammed Refeeq AND S. Mohammed Fairoz Ahamed & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 70Pallavi AND Mallamma & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 71Seethalaxmi AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 72Shelhan AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 73M/s Ozone Urban Infra Developers PVT Ltd AND Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 74The Bar Association Kittur & Anr AND The State Bar Counsel & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 75Acharya Pathasala Educational Trust AND Rashmi Khatawakar & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 76M/s. Armstrong Design And Acmite India Manufacturing Private Limited AND The Assistant Labour Commissioner. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 77ABC AND State By Mysuru Women Police Station & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 78State of Karnataka AND Prathap. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 79Exalogic Solutions Private Ltd AND Union of India & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 80H R Satyanarayana vs H C Suresha and Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 81M/s. ICDS Ltd vs Sri Bhaskaran Pillai and Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 82Smt. Vasanthi Ramdas Pai Versus Income Tax Officer. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 83Judgments/OrdersKarnataka High Court Permits DNA Profiling Test In Suit Seeking Partition Of Property Case Title: Mohammed Refeeq AND S. Mohammed Fairoz Ahamed & OthersCase No: Writ Petition No 52855 of 2019Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 70The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a defendant in a suit for partition of property, challenging the order passed by trial court directing him and the plaintiff to appear before the Forensic Laboratory to draw blood samples to conduct DNA profiling test to decide on their paternity relationships.A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma dismissed the petition filed by Mohammed Refeeq and said “If the request for DNA profiling is not accepted, the right of the plaintiff to seek the status of the family members of the defendants, to be the son of late L.P.Ghouse Baig and Umerabi and to claim share in the suit property will be denied. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner or any other defendants, if DNA profiling is conducted.”Motor Accident Compensation Can't Be Lower Merely Because Deceased Minor Was A Girl: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Pallavi AND Mallamma & OthersCase No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100618 OF 2014Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 71The Karnataka High Court has held that there cannot be any discrimination between a minor girl or minor boy while granting compensation for a motor accident.In Kishan Gopal vs. Lala (2014), the Supreme Court had ruled that in the case of death of a minor in a road traffic accident, the claimants would be entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakh.A single judge bench of Justice V. Srishananda said "In the case on, no doubt the victim is minor girl. There cannot be any discrimination between a minor girl or minor boy."Pensioners To Be Handled With Sympathy, Doctrine Of Delay & Laches Not Thumb Rule Where No Third Party Rights Created: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Seethalaxmi AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: Writ Petition No 3674 OF 2022Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 72The Karnataka High Court has held that the State pensioners have to be handled with sympathy and that the doctrine of delay and laches per se cannot defeat the legitimate right of a citizen in a case where no third party rights are created.Observing thus, a division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja partly allowed the petition filed by one Seethalaxmi who had approached the court grieving the denial of one solitary increment which avails to all civil servants who have studied in Kannada Medium upto SSLC with Kannada as one of subjects in the syllabus.State Bar Council Has No Authority To Question Law Degree Certificate On Grounds Of Ineligibility To Obtain Certificate: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Shelhan AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANRCase No: Writ Petition No 11806 OF 2020Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 73The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Karnataka State Bar Council refusing to enrol a government servant who pursued a law degree while being in service and sought enrollment after his retirement on the ground that he did not submit any documents to show that he has attended the classes conducted by the college.A single judge bench of Justice Ashok S Kinagi allowed the plea and quashed the order by the State Bar Council, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's request for enrollment afresh.RERA | Karnataka High Court Raps Panchayat For Issuing Occupancy Certificate Without Inspection, "From Within Four Corners Of AC Chambers" Case Title: M/s Ozone Urban Infra Developers PVT Ltd AND Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Others.Case No: Writ Petition No 26194 OF 2023Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 74The Karnataka High Court recently pulled up the Kannamangala Gram...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: February 12 - February 18, 2024

Mustafa Plumber

Tags