Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: [January 2 To January 7, 2024]

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 01 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 09Nominal Index:Raghvendraraddi Shivaraddi Naduvinamani AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 1H B Bhagyalakshmi AND Cheluvamma. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 2Late H.H. Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 3Hemanth Raju AND Punitha H J and Another. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 4ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 5Channabasappa Hosmani AND Parvatevva alias Kasturevva & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 6Jagdeep Rao AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 7M/S. V.K. Niranjan And Co Versus Commissioner Of Service Tax. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 8Adarsh Developers Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 9Judgments/OrdersKarnataka High Court Quashes Rape Charge On False Promise To Marry But Orders Accused To Maintain Child Born From 'Consensual' Relationship Case Title: Raghvendraraddi Shivaraddi Naduvinamani AND State of KarnatakaCase No: Criminal Petition No 100721 of 2023.Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 1The Karnataka High Court recently obliterated rape charges levelled against a man but directed him to pay Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance to the child born out of the consensual relationship which he had with the lady, whom he allegedly lured on the promise of marriage.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition filed by one Raghvendraraddi Shivaraddi Naduvinamani and quashed the charges of rape under Section 376 IPC, but continued proceedings against him under sections 506, 417 and 420 of the Code. It said,“In the peculiar facts of this case, as it is found that the petitioner is the biological father of the child, he cannot now show a hands off to the responsibility of the child which is born to him albeit, till the conclusion of the trial. I therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay maintenance to the child at Rs.10,000 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial.”Drawer's Consent Not Required For Alterations To Body Of Blank Signed Cheque But Shouldn't Exceed Amount Covered By It: Karnataka High Court Case Title: H B Bhagyalakshmi AND CheluvammaCase No: Criminal Appeal No 2104 OF 2018Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 2The Karnataka High Court has held that when the drawer of the cheque signs and issues a blank cheque to the complainant, if any alteration appears on the body of the cheque, such alterations need not require the consent of the drawer of the cheque.A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah made the observation while allowing the appeal filed by a school teacher H B Bhagyalakshmi and setting aside the acquittal of Cheluvamma from offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Karnataka Town Planning Act | Land Reservation For Public Use Lapses If Not Acquired Within 5 Yrs: High Court Case Title: Late H.H. Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji & Others AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: Writ Petition No 1678 OF 2015.Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 3The Karnataka High Court has declared that land reserved for public use such as parks, cemeteries, etc., in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, loses such reservation if not acquired within five years.A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that when such designation lapses, if the land owner wants to make use of the land for a different purpose than for which it was designated, then they would have to apply under Section 69(3) of the KTCP Act for consideration of new land use proposed by the owner, which would be considered based on the surrounding developments after inviting objections from the general public and would be considered in a meeting of the Authority.Damaged Car Owner Can Claim Amount From Offending Vehicle's Insurer If Damage Amount Not Fully Reimbursed By His Own Insurer: Karnataka HC Case Title: Hemanth Raju AND Punitha H J and AnotherCase No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No 6841 OF 2013. Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 4The Karnataka High Court has held that in a motor accident if the total amount for repairs is not reimbursed by the insurer of the damaged vehicle, the claimant will have every right to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to seek an order for payment of the balance amount from the insurer of the offending vehicle.A single judge bench of Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha partly allowed the appeal of one such claimant, a taxi owner, against the Tribunal's order rejecting his claim. It said,“The claimant cannot claim the same amount which he received from his insurer towards damages to the vehicle again from the insurer of the offending vehicle. However, if the total amount is not reimbursed by his insurer, the claimant will have every right to seek the Tribunal to order for payment of the balance amount from the insurer of the offending vehicle.”Woman Brings US-Born Daughter To India In Violation Of Foreign Court Order: Karnataka HC Refuses To Interfere, Says...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: [January 2 To January 7, 2024]

Mustafa Plumber

Tags