Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 21 To August 27

Nominal Index:

Ananth Kumar K G And Yogita S @ Yogitha Ananth Kumar. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 315

Jagath Prakash Nadda And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 316

M J MAthew & others And Prestige St. Johns Wood Apartment Owners Association & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 317

Mahantayya And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 318

Ramesh Naik L And Karnataka State Bar Council and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 319

Chandra & Others AND G. Krishnappa. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 320

Dr Pooja S N v Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 321

Abdul Khadar @ Rafiq And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 322

Sam P Philip & Others v State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 323

Mahadev And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 324

MANSA–Centre for Development and Social Action v. Managing Director, Development Credit Bank & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 325

Sugurappa @ Sugurayya Swami v. The State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 326

Judgments/Orders

Diabetes Is 'Manageable', Not Excuse To Avoid Payment Of Maintenance To Wife & Children: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Ananth Kumar K G And Yogita S @ Yogitha Ananth Kumar

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12802 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 315

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition filed by one Ananth Kumar KG questioning the order of family court directing him to pay Rs 10,000 as monthly maintenance to his estranged wife.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit rejected the contention of the petitioner that he has been suffering from diabetes and related ailments, thus he is not able to pay monthly maintenance amount for the upkeep of his minor child for the last three years. The bench said, “A large section of people all over the world suffer from such ailments and with the advancement of medical science, all that is manageable. It is not the case of the petitioner that the same are not manageable with proper medical care.”

Karnataka High Court Quashes 'Reckless, Vague' Case Against BJP Chief JP Nadda For 'Wooing' Voters

Case Title: Jagath Prakash Nadda And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: Criminal Petition no. 5488 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 316

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against National President of Bharatiya Janata Party and a former Union Minister, Jagath Prakash Nadda for allegedly wooing and threatening voters during an election rally held in May ahead of Assembly elections.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna found the FIR under Section 171-F of IPC was 'recklessly' registered against Nadda on the basis of a 'loosely laid offence' in a 'vague complaint'.

Private Association Of Apartment Owners Not 'State' U/Article 12: Karnataka HC Dismisses Writ Plea Against 'Facilitation Charge' For Tenancy

Case Title: M J MAthew & others And Prestige St. Johns Wood Apartment Owners Association & ANR

Case No: WP 2881/2016

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 317

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to entertain a writ petition moved by certain flat owners questioning the amendment of bye laws of the Apartment Owners' Association which paved way for levy of 'Facilitation Charge' from owners who had let out their apartments on lease, licence, tenancy or otherwise.

A single judge bench of Justice R Nataraj dismissed the petition filed by questioning the action of the Prestige St Johns Wood Apartment Owners Association which is constituted under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972.

'Proximate Incident' Necessary For Passing Externment Order: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mahantayya And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No. 104804/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 318

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an externment order passed by the authorities against one Mahantayya, who was externed from Bailhongal Subdivision to Bagalkot for a period of three months.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna sitting at Dharwad said, “Provisions of law which empower externment of a person would undoubtedly mean that there should be minimum proximity or necessity for passing an order of externment. There is no proximate incident that is narrated in the impugned order. Without any foundation the order projects the petitioner as a bane to the society or the surrounding area.”

Plea To Include Advocates' Parents As Dependents For Medical Insurance Withdrawn From Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Ramesh Naik L And Karnataka State Bar Council and Ors.

Case No: WP (FR) NO.14863/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 319

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday permitted withdrawal of a public interest litigation filed by Advocate Ramesh Naik L, seeking a direction to the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) and the Bar Council of India (BCI) to take appropriate action to include Parents of Advocates as dependents in the model form provided by the State Bar Council to provide Medical insurance, Term insurance for Advocates.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal said, “After arguing for sometime the party in person seeks leave to withdraw the PIL with liberty to file a proper and comprehensive PIL. Allowed to withdraw with liberty as prayed for.”

Onus On Plaintiff To Prove Possession Of Property In Suit For Bare Injunction: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Chandra & Others AND G. Krishnappa.

Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 19003 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 320

The Karnataka High Court recently held that in a suit for bare injunction, it is for the person who approaches the Court to prove his lawful possession over the suit schedule property.

Justice S G Pandit added that in such cases, the defendant is not required to move an application to prove the authenticity of the documents produced by the plaintiff during the course of evidence. "In a suit for bare injunction, it is for the person who approaches the Court to prove his lawful possession... In the course of trial admittedly the respondent/plaintiff has marked exhibits P11 to P23, documents said to have been issued by the BBMP or the Grama Panchayath of Tanisandra. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove the documents in accordance with law and it is for the Trial Court, at the time of final disposal, to evaluate and to appreciate the documents and its genuineness."

Medical Board Can Only Decide Extent Of Candidate's Disability, Not Their Eligibility For A Course: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr Pooja S N v Union of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16631 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 321

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the Medical Board as an expert body is only authorised to determine the extent of a candidate's disability, and cannot draw a conclusion about whether a candidate would be eligible to pursue a medical course.

A division bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil on going through the records added that the Medical Board is not the selecting authority to certify the eligibility of a candidate. “The eligibility of a candidate is to be concluded by the respondents and it certainly is not within the domain of the Medical Board. Being an expert body it was merely required to assess and certify the extent of disability, in our opinion the conclusion drawn by the board is wholly unsustainable being illegal and as the board is not the selecting authority the eligibility of a candidate cannot be certified by the board.”

Article 20 | No Conviction U/S 376(3) IPC For Rape Of Woman Under 16 Yrs Age Committed Prior To 2018 Amendment: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Abdul Khadar @ Rafiq And State of Karnataka & ANR.

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2020

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 322

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the conviction handed down to a man for raping his minor step daughter, but modified the sentence of 20 years imposed on him by the trial court to 10 years imprisonment.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan partly allowed the appeal filed by 45 years old Abdul Khadar @ Rafiq, who was convicted to 20 years under section 376 (3) of the Indian Penal Code, for an offence committed in 2015.

How Is Offering Prayers A Threat? Karnataka High Court Quashes PIL Challenging Use Of Residential Premises As Prayer Hall

Case Title: Sam P Philip & Others v State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 8389/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 323

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a PIL filed by residents of HBR Layout in Bengaluru, who opposed the use of a residential property as a prayer hall.

During the hearing, a division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal took strong exception to the oral submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that 'offering prayers was a risk'.

“We will not accept this. Offering a prayer is not a risk. Mr Counsel, you probably made this statement under an erroneous impression, please think twice before making a statement. We are not permitting such statements. This is something to which we have strong objections, you can’t make a statement so casually. You are a lawyer, please don't make such statements, this is not done. You have no right to make such sweeping statements. One can only say that there is some violation of rules, please ask the authorities. How can you say someone offering prayer is a threatening activity?”

Virtual Cross Examination Doesn't Prejudice Accused: Karnataka HC Refuses To Order Physical Presence Of Judge Appearing As Witness In Criminal Case

Case Title: Mahadev And State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No 200953/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 324

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused seeking physical presence of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura (now posted in Bengaluru) for cross examination as a witness in his case, instead of via video conferencing. A single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T. sitting at Kalaburagi said recording of evidence through video conferencing is permissible in view of proviso to Section 275(1) of CrPC, as amended in 2008.

Permanent FCRA Registration Doesn't Guarantee Foreign Fund Crediting Without Ministry's Clearance: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MANSA–Centre for Development and Social Action v. Managing Director, Development Credit Bank & Others.

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.6111/2014

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 325

The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that permanent registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) did not endow an unequivocal right to credit foreign funds into their designated savings account without authorisation from the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Justice K S Hemalekha thus dismissed a petition filed by MANSA seeking a direction to the Development Credit Bank (DCB) to release frozen funds received from a foreign donor Dan Church Aid which has been put under the ‘prior approval category’ by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Criminal Intimidation | Mere Expression Of Words Without Intention Insufficient To Attract Section 506 IPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sugurappa @ Sugurayya Swami v. The State Of Karnataka

Case NO: Criminal Petition No.201248 of 2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 326

The Karnataka High Court has held that mere expression of words without any intention to cause alarm to the complainant or to make him to do or omit to do any act, is not sufficient to bring the act of the accused within the definition of criminal intimidation, as prescribed under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

A Single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T thus quashed a trial court order taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal, 1860 against the accused.