Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up [December 4 To December 10, 2023]

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 458 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 468Nominal Index:Sanju v. The State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 458C G Jagdish AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 459Santhosh Beejadi Srinivas AND Union of India & Another. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 460Srishti Daiv & ANR AND NIL. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 461Hangal Taluka Civil Contractors Association AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 462Ann Nimmi Sebastian v. State of Karnataka and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 463Chikkagundappa And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 464Renuka Yamunappa Golasangi v. Mohan Naik. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 465Dr Jonathan Jaideep AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 466Syed Esa Ibrahim & ANR AND State By Channapatna East PS. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 467Avenue Supermarts LTD AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 468Judgments/OrdersKarnataka High Court Upholds Convict's Life Sentence For Murdering Man Having Illicit Relationship With His WifeCase Title: Sanju v. The State of Karnataka, Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100297/2019Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 458The Karnataka High Court has upheld the conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment of a man, who ran over his neighbor (Jyothiba) for involvement in an illicit relationship with his wife.A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar dismissed the appellant's plea, noting that the chain of events clearly pointed to the guilt of the appellant, who fled from the spot rather than taking the victims (Jyothiba and his father) to a hospital.“When the accident occurred, he being the neighbour, if he had not indulged in an act of committing the murder and it was merely an accident, he ought not to have fled away from the place of accident. An ordinary prudent man, when there was an accident, he would have helped to shift injured persons to the hospital, since he is acquainted with victims 1 and 2 being his neighbours. But he has not done so. This conduct has to be taken note of.”Karnataka Land Revenue Act | Deputy Commissioner Cannot Invoke Inherent Powers To 'Casually Rescind' 25 Yr Old Conversion Order: High CourtCase Title: C G Jagdish AND State of KarnatakaCase No: Writ Appeal No. 387 of 2023.Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 459The Karnataka High Court has held that inherent power vested under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 with the Deputy Commissioner cannot be invoked casually to rescind orders of conversion of land.A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed an appeal filed by C G Jagdish and said “The inherent power vested in a Revenue Court by virtue of Section 25 of the 1964 Act could not have been invoked, even if we agree that the order of conversion was statutorily appealable. A resort to inherent power is not like a drug of choice for a physician.”Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea For Passport Renewal By Man Accused In Mother's Death, Says Short-Validity Passport Application May Be Considered Case Title: Santhosh Beejadi Srinivas AND Union of India & AnotherCase No: WRIT PETITION No.24269 OF 2023Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 460The Karnataka High Court has upheld a decision of the passport authority rejecting the issuance of a regular passport (Valid for 10 years), to an accused charged with offences of murder and criminal conspiracy in the death of his mother.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while deciding the petition said “the prayer for issuance of a regular passport/normal validity passport for 10 years is rejected. The impugned acknowledgement rejecting issuance of regular passport stands sustained.”Hindu Marriage Act | Trial Court Must Wait 18 Months Before Dismissing Plea U/S 13B Even If Parties Trying To Reunite: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Srishti Daiv & ANR AND NILCase No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7146/2023Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 461The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a couple seeking divorce had 18 months to report a settlement between them after filing the petition for divorce by mutual consent.It further clarified that the trial court cannot on its own dismiss the petition without the request of the parties for such disposal. A division bench of Justice K S Mudagal and Justice K V Arvind allowed an appeal and set aside the order of the trial court dismissing the petition, and directed the parties to appear before the Bengaluru Mediation Centre.No Fundamental Right To Do Business With State: High Court Dismisses Contractors' Plea Against Karnataka Govt's Call For Tenders Above ₹1 Crore Case Title: Hangal Taluka Civil Contractors Association AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 104062 OF 2022 (GM-TEN) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 103437 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO. 103745 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO. 103755 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO. 104013 OF 2022.Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 462The Karnataka High Court has...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up [December 4 To December 10, 2023]

Mustafa Plumber

Tags