Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: March 11 - March 17, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 119 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 129Nominal Index:Sunl G & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 119D N Bhagya AND D A Mallikarjuna & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 120Abdul Khader & ANR AND Tasleem Jamela Agadi & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 121DR SHIVAMURTHY MURUGHA SHARANARU AND STATE BY KARNATAKA & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 122G Hemanth Chandra AND M/s Infrathon Projects Pvt Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 123A.H.Makandar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 124Mohammed Farughuddin AND Ramchandra Balu Shinde & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 125ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 126Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd Suvarna News 24/7 & Others AND Divya Spandana @ Ramya. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 127State Of Karnataka & Others AND National Commission For Schedule Caste. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 128Mahesh AND Ishwar & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 129Judgments/OrdersKarnataka High Court Imposes Costs Of ₹25,000 Each On 35 Petitioners For Stalling Recruitment To Post Of Veterinary Officer Case Title: Sunl G & Others AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: Writ Petition No 16408 OF 2023Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 119The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 each on 35 petitioners (collectively Rs 8.75 lakh) for stalling the recruitment process initiated for the post of Veterinary Officer.A division bench of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K while dismissing the petitions filed by Sunil G and others said “In our considered opinion, we are not able to appreciate the conduct of these petitioners in stalling the recruitment process which was called for as a matter of an emergency situation. Hence, we impose the cost of Rs.25,000 per petitioner which shall be payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authorities within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.”Clear Right To Sue Is To Be Made Out In A Suit For Declaration Of Title: Karnataka High Court Case Title: D N Bhagya AND D A Mallikarjuna & OthersCase No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.60 OF 2018Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 120The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title fails to disclose a clear right to sue, the suit deserves to be rejected.A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar made the observation while allowing the petition filed by D N Bhagya challenging the order of the trial court rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking rejection of the suit for declaration of title filed by the respondents who are legal heirs of Appajappa.S.125 CrPC | Daughter-In-Law Cannot Seek Maintenance From Parents-In-Law: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Abdul Khader & ANR AND Tasleem Jamela Agadi & OthersCase No: REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100026 OF 2022Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 121The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a daughter-in-law cannot lay a claim for maintenance against her parents-in-law.A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by an elderly couple and set aside the order of the trial court dated 30.11.2021, directing them to pay Rs 20,000 to the wife of their deceased son and Rs 5,000 to his children.Karnataka High Court Declines To Quash Rape, POCSO Charges Against Chitradurga Mutt Pontiff; Orders Trial Court To Redraw Other Charges Case Title: DR SHIVAMURTHY MURUGHA SHARANARU AND STATE BY KARNATAKA & ANRCase NO: CRL.P 4391/2023Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 122The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to quash rape charges against the pontiff of Murugha Mutt of Chitradurga, Dr Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru, who is accused of sexually abusing two minor girls staying in the hostels run by the Mutt.However, the court quashed the order of the trial court framing charges against the accused and directed it to redraw the charges after quashing certain offences levelled against the accused.NI Act | Order For Releasing Interim Compensation Is Interlocutory, Not Intermediate; Revision Petition Not Maintainable Before HC: Karnataka High Court Case Title: G Hemanth Chandra AND M/s Infrathon Projects Pvt LtdCase No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.247/2024Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 123The Karnataka High Court has held that a revision petition against an order passed under Section 148 (3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for the release of interim compensation, is not maintainable before the High Court.A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh held “Here is a case of releasing of the amount, which is in deposit under Section 148(3) and the same does not amount to intermediate order and it is only an interlocutory order and hence, revision is not maintainable and the same can be challenged before the appropriate court by filing appropriate petition.”Blatant Violation: Karnataka HC Directs Payment Of Benefits To Retd Govt Employee Who Was Denied Pension Without Inquiry,...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: March 11 - March 17, 2024

Mustafa Plumber

Tags