Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 25 To December 31, 2023

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 500 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 504

Nominal Index:

M/s GROUP 4 SECURITAS GUARDING LIMITED AND The Regional Director, ESI Corporation. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 500

Almas Pasha AND The State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 501

Dr. Annaiah N AND State of Karnataka & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 502.

Kalyanamurthy K AND State Bank of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 503

M/S Tejas Arecanut Traders Versus Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 504

Appellant Required To Disprove Order U/S 45A Of Employees State Insurance Act, One Year Substantial Oppurtunity For Compliance: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s GROUP 4 SECURITAS GUARDING LIMITED AND The Regional Director, ESI Corporation.

Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 7749/2013

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 500

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal by Group 4 Securitas questioning the order of the Employees State Insurance Court, wherein it rejected the application of the appellant that it was not liable to pay a contribution of Rs.65,20,855.18 determined by the ESI Corporation. A Division bench of Justice K S Mudagal and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar dismissed the appeal with a cost of Rs 1 lakh, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

Plea Of Parity Not Binding On Court To Grant Bail To Accused, Individual Offences/ Overt Acts Are To Be Assessed: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Almas Pasha AND The State Of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No 11041 of 2023.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 501

The Karnataka High Court has said that the plea of parity raised by an accused in seeking bail is not binding on the court and individual offences and individual overt acts are to be assessed and not to simply follow orders of other accused who are enlarged on bail and on parity grant the same. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while rejecting the second bail application filed by one Almas Pasha who is charged for offence murder (Section 302 IPC).

'Practising Medicine Without Qualification & Hoodwinking Rural People': Karnataka HC Denies Registration To 'Doctor' Who Studied Paramedical Course

Case Title: Dr. Annaiah N AND State of Karnataka & others.

Case No. Writ Petition No. 23267/2023.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 502.

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea to quash an endorsement by the state authorities refusing to issue a registration certificate under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act to a person who pursued para-medical studies and was practising as a doctor for several years at his clinic.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “It is rather strange as to how the petitioner addresses himself as a practising doctor for all these years. Time has come to pull the curtain down on such people who are practising medicine without qualification and hoodwinking poor people in rural areas.”

Bank Can't Forfeit More Than 25% Deposit Made By Auction Purchaser Who Fails To Deposit Remaining Amount: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Kalyanamurthy K AND State Bank of India

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.23327/2022

Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 503

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a bank cannot forfeit over 25% of the deposit amount made by an auction purchaser who fails to deposit the remaining purchase amount within the stipulated period for completion of the sale. A single judge bench of Justice K V Aravind directed the State Bank of India to refund a sum of Rs.10,00,000, along with applicable interest from the date of payment till refund, within eight weeks to one Kalyanamurthy K.

Appellant Not Required To Deposit 10% Of Entire Disputed Amount Including Penalty, Fine, Interest: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S Tejas Arecanut Traders Versus Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 104505 Of 2023

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 504

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority to deposit 10% of the entire amount in dispute, which included tax, interest, a fine, a fee, and a penalty.

The bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has observed that while filing the appeal under Section 107(6) of the GST Act, the appellant is required to deposit only 10% of the disputed tax amount and not 10% of the entire disputed amount, including penalty, fine, and interest.