2 Oct 2023 4:30 AM GMT
Nominal Index: Dr Mohan Bhatta M R And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 366Babu s/o Shankarappa Mukkannvar And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 367Kum Sowmya R AND Registrar General & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 368Vikram & Others AND Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 369The Divisional Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd AND...
Dr Mohan Bhatta M R And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
Babu s/o Shankarappa Mukkannvar And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 367
Kum Sowmya R AND Registrar General & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 368
Vikram & Others AND Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
The Divisional Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd AND Nagaraj. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
Amrit Paul And State By High Ground PS. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
Rajesh K N & K R Umesh & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
State of Karnataka AND Malleshnaika. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 373
Mangala Gowri And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
Karnataka High Court Refuses To Issue Direction For Registration Of Post Graduate In Alternative Medicines Citing Absence Of Regulatory Body
Case Title: Dr Mohan Bhatta M R And State of Karnataka & Others
Case NO: Writ Appeal No 478 of 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging a single bench order rejecting the petition filed by one Dr Mohan Bhatta M R, who holds a PG Degree from Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, seeking registration certificate to practise under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act 2007.
While doing so, a division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit remarked, “The protection of the Public includes not only matters relating to the health, safety and wellbeing of the public but also the maintenance of public confidence in the medical profession and the maintenance of proper professional standards & conduct.”
Karnataka High Court Directs Health Dept To Release Gratuity Withheld Since 16 Yrs, Says It's No 'Bounty' Dependant On Employer's Sweet Will
Case Title: Babu s/o Shankarappa Mukkannvar And Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No: 111248/2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 367
Observing that “gratuity is not a bounty that can be withheld at the sweet will or whim of the employer,” the Karnataka High Court recently directed State's Health Secretary to disburse the gratuity amount of a former employee which has been pending for the last 16 years, within 30 days.
A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by 74-year-old retired employee and directed release of gratuity amount of Rs 4,09,550 along with interest.
Continuing In Service After Probation Period Doesn't Imply Automatic Confirmation Unless Expressly Provided Or In Exceptional Case: Karnataka HC
Case Title: Kum Sowmya R AND Registrar General & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal No 1154 of 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 368
The Karnataka High Court has held that a person appointed on probation becomes a permanent employee only after the issue of an express order of confirmation.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the appeal filed by a woman who was not confirmed to the post of stenographer in the Court of Civil Judge, Virajpet on completion of the probation period. It held, “By mere expiry of the period of probation and continuing in service after the expiry of the period of probation, a civil servant does not automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of the service, unless the rules expressly provide for automatic confirmation.”
Cannot Interfere With Govt's Elevated Corridor Project In Hubli Merely Because Some Petitioners Claim To Be Experts: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Vikram & Others AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 4352 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation questioning the construction of an Elevated Corridor for Decongestion of traffic at Rani Chennamma Circle in Hubli City.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “Merely because some of the petitioners too have expertise in the matter arguably, they cannot arrogate to themselves all the wisdom & expertise and thereby brand the project in question as being unwise and not feasible.”
Judgment Debtor Must Pay Interest Till Compensation Is Paid Even If Amount Deposited In Court During Appeal: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The Divisional Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd AND Nagaraj
Case No: Writ Petition No 201824 of 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
The Karnataka High Court recently held that when a judgment or award is passed in favour of a party, such party would be entitled to the principal amount and interest thereon till the date of receipt of the amounts.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj added that merely because the judgment debtor was to deposit the amounts in a court of law while filing an appeal against the trial court order, the obligation to pay the interest amount till payment of the compensation amount would not cease.
Can't Say He Was Involved Merely Because He Was ADGP: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To IPS Officer In Police Recruitment Scam Case
Case Title: Amrit Paul And State By High Ground PS
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3696 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to IPS Officer Amirt Paul who was arrested in connection to an alleged scam in recruiting police sub-inspectors for the State Police.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz granted bail to Paul who has been in custody since his arrest on 04.07.2022. The bench granted bail to the accused on the execution of a personal bond of Rs 5,00,000, with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
Perjury | Not Every False Statement Made In Court Can Be Subject Matter Of Prosecution, Prima Facie Deliberate Intention Must: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Rajesh K N & K R Umesh & ANR
Case No: Criminal Appeal No 1378 of 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
The Karnataka High Court has said that before directing initiation of perjury proceedings against a party for making false statements before the court, it must form an opinion on being satisfied that the person charged has intentionally given false evidence/statements and such formation of opinion must be on consideration of materials duly placed before it.
A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar observed, “It is not every false statement that is intended to be the subject matter of the prosecution...There must be prima facie case of deliberate false on a matter of substance and the Court must be satisfied and there must be reasonable foundation for the charge and the prosecution of the offender is necessary in the interest of justice. Otherwise, time of the Court, which has to be usefully devoted for dispensation of justice, will be wasted on such enquiries.”
State Not 'Victim' In Criminal Trials, Cannot Invoke S.372 CrPC To Challenge Acquittal; May Proceed U/S 378 CrPC: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND Malleshnaika
Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No 816 of 2019.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 373
The Karnataka High Court has held that the State Government cannot be construed as a 'victim' under Section 372 CrPC and an appeal filed by it against an acquittal order is not maintainable under the said provision.
A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah pointed that the legislature has provided a separate provision for the State, Section 378 CPC, to prefer appeal against acquittal. It observed,
"When there is separate provision stipulated to file an appeal against the acquittal to the State...the State cannot exercise the jurisdiction which is meant for victim under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. There is a distinction between the two provisions, the victim has to file an appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., against the order of acquittal. Whereas the State has to file an appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. When there is a distinct provision distinctly conferring certain rights to the victim and the State independently, it is necessary to exercise their respective jurisdiction independently.
Mere Allegations Of Harassment For Demand Of Loan Repayment Not Abetment Of Suicide U/S 306 IPC Without Mens Rea: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Mangala Gowri And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
The Karnataka High Court has held that insisting the deceased to repay the loan borrowed by him does not amount to abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar added that mere harassment or demands for loan repayment, without the intention to drive the person to suicide, do not constitute abetment.
“There is no evidence to show that the appellant/accused had intention to drive out the deceased Raju to commit suicide. Looking from any angle, the act of the appellant/accused harassing the deceased for repayment of money borrowed and threatening him to take his life does not amount to abetment.”