Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 18 To September 24, 2023

Nominal Index [Citations 358 - 365]: Veerbhadra Gowda & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 358Mohan Vasudev Chavan And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 359Vivekananda Kemali And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 360Chinnaswamy Gowda And Shivramu C M Shivaramu & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 361D Roopa And Rohini Sindhuri. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 362Pigeon Education Technology India Private Limited And Directorate of Enforcement & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 363Girish Bharadwaj & Others And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 364Santosh & Others And State Through Ashok Nagar PS. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 365Judgments/OrdersLand Earmarked For Village Cattle Can Be Diverted For Larger Public Purposes Like Waste Disposal Unit: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Veerbhadra Gowda & ANR AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17835 OF 2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 358The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation questioning a Deputy Commissioner's order reserving 5 acres gomal land in Soraba Taluka, earmarked for village cattle, for establishment of Solid and Liquid Waste Disposal Unit.A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit observed, “It is not that the gomal land can never be diverted to other larger public purposes like the one put in challenge. There is absolutely no material on record to substantiate the argument that any provision of law is violated by diversion of the Government land for the purpose of waste management which in turn serves the interest of environment and ecology.”Sites For Civic Amenities Like Parks, Healthcare Centres Crucial In Shaping Quality Of Urban Life, Cannot Be Sold: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Mohan Vasudev Chavan And State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102318 OF 2016Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 359The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Belgavi) resolving to sell a plot reserved for civic amenities by invoking Section 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act.The provision enables every municipal council to lease or sale or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property owned by the local authority, so far as is not inconsistent with the provisions and purposes of the Act.S.498A IPC | Karnataka High Court Quashes Wife's Criminal Complaint Against Husband For Refusing Money To Perform Pooja Case Title: Vivekananda Kemali And State of Karnataka & ANRCase No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101804 OF 2019Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 360The Karnataka High Court has quashed a complaint registered against a man by his wife under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code after he refused to give money to her to buy necessities for the performance of a pooja.The Court found that the wife's allegations in the complaint did not meet the essential ingredients required to invoke Section 498A (cruelty) against the husband. “The complaint is so vague as it would fetter vagueness itself. The investigation has led to filing of the charge sheet, without rhyme or reason, fortunately leaving out the parents, in the charge sheet. It is filed only against the husband and against the husband what is found is as afore-quoted. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 498A is recklessly and loosely laid against the petitioner.”[Suit For Specific Performance] Impleading Proper Party Enables Court To Adjudicate Lis Completely: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Chinnaswamy Gowda And Shivramu C M Shivaramu & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO.1621 OF 2022Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 361The Karnataka High Court has said that impleading of proper parties as defendants in a suit filed for specific performance of contract, enables the Court to adjudicate the lis pending before it completely and it will have complete facts and evidence before it, to arrive at a just and proper conclusionA single judge bench of Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the petition filed by one Chinnaswamy Gowda questioning a trial court order allowing an impleadment application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to bring 45 defendants on record in the suit filed by him. It observed, “In the instant case, the contesting respondents may not be necessary parties but proper parties to the suit. The presence of proposed defendants would enable the Court to adjudicate the lis pending before it completely and will have complete facts and evidence before it, to arrive at a just and proper conclusion with regard to grant of relief sought by the plaintiff.”Doctrine Of State Humanity Doesn't Cover Acts Done By Public Servant For Her/His Own Benefit Or Pleasure: Karnataka High Court Case Title: D Roopa And Rohini SindhuriCase No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4575 OF 2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 362The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the defamation complaint lodged against IPS officer D Roopa by IAS Officer Rohini Sindhuri for allegedly publishing defamatory content...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 18 To September 24, 2023

Mustafa Plumber

Tags