Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 24 To April 30

Nominal Index: [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 159- 164] Mohammad Bilal & others And Police Sub-Inspector Law and Order & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 159 Rudresha And The Management of M/s TVS Motor Company. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 160 Hanumanthrao And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 161 H Siddaraju & ANR Union of India & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 162 M/s National Insurance Company Ltd And Mrs Asha & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 163 B L Adishesh & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 164 Judgments/Orders UAPA Case: Karnataka High Court Upholds Rejection Of Alleged PFI Members' Default Bail Case Title: Mohammad Bilal & others And Police Sub-Inspector Law and Order & others. Case No: W.P.H.C. NO.10 OF 2023 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 159 The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by five alleged members of the banned organisation Popular Front of India, (PFI), and upheld the order of Special court designated to try offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which rejected their application for grant of default bail. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil found no merits in the habeas corpus petition filed by Mohammad Bilal and Others. The Central Government had in September 2022 banned the organisation. The petitioners were arrested on October 12, 2022 for the offences punishable under sections 121, 121A, 121B, 153A 5 and 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 13 and 18(1)(B) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, on the allegation that they were engaged in unlawful activities. 'Loss Of Confidence' In Terminated Workman Must Be Based On Objective Consideration Of Facts: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Rudresha And The Management of M/s TVS Motor Company. Case no: WRIT PETITION NO.52668 OF 2014 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.37496 OF 2014. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 160 The Karnataka High Court has said that in cases where employer expresses loss of confidence in the workman, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, would have to consider the said contention in light of the surrounding facts and circumstances and ascertain if such a suspicion is based on objective set of facts or on the basis of any extraneous factor. A single judge bench of Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the petition filed M/s TVS motor company (the employer) seeking to set aside Labour court's order by which it set aside the punishment of dismissal imposed by the company and directed reinstatement of the workman. It also allowed the petition filed by workman Rudresh and set aside punishment of withholding two increments imposed by the Labour court. Karnataka High Court Sentences 80-Yr-Old To One Day In 36 Yrs Old Misappropriation Case Case Title: Hanumanthrao And State of Karnataka Case No: CRL.R.P. No. 856 OF 2014 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 161 The Karnataka High Court recently modified the sentence of one year imprisonment imposed on a 80-year-old, former government servant who was convicted for misappropriating public funds and commuted it to one day–till the rising of the court. A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by Hanumanthrao in part and said “The judgment and order of conviction passed by the courts below convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 409 & 477A of IPC is upheld. The order of sentence passed by the courts below against the petitioner for the said offences is modified and the petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs.10,000.” Karnataka High Court Directs Surrogacy Board To Consider Application Of Man Who Crossed 55 Yrs Age Bar, Evolves Triple Test Citing 'Unique Situation' Case Title: H Siddaraju & ANR Union of India & others. Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 5861 of 2023 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 162 The Karnataka High Court has evolved a triple test theory to permit a couple to undertake the procedure of surrogacy, which otherwise was not permitted to them as the husband being 57-year-old has crossed the age eligibility criteria, under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed in part the petition filed by H Siddaraju and his wife and directed the State Surrogacy Board or prescribed authority to consider their application for grant of an eligibility certificate as is necessary in law for the petitioners to become parents by way of surrogacy, on the triple tests as indicated – genetic; physical and economical. Circumvented Round-About To Take Immediate Turn: Karnataka High Court Reduces Compensation Citing Contributory Negligence Of Deceased Case Title: M/s National Insurance Company Ltd And Mrs Asha & others Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 24 To April 30

Mustafa Plumber

Tags