Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 30 To November 5, 2023

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 411 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 419Nominal Index:Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital And Dr Sanjay Murgod. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 411Dr Siddaiah S AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 412Hanamantraya AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 413Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited AND S Kiran. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 414Ditul Mehta & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 415 CHAMARAJPET NAGARIKAR OKKUTA ® AND State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 416Ramesh B S AND Navaneetha. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 417D Venkatesh AND The Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 418Srinivas Sagar B & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 419Judgments/OrdersS.98 Karnataka Education Act Applicable To Unaided Educational Institutions Run By Linguistic Minority Bodies: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Rajarajeshwari Dental College and Hospital And Dr Sanjay MurgodCase No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 411The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 98 of the Karnataka Education Act, which pertains to the Retrenchment of Employees, is applicable to unaided educational institutions run by the linguistic minority institution.A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit added that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Dentists Act, 1948 are poles apart and could not be read into each other. "The provisions of 1948 Act in essence intend to regulate the standard of professional education whereas, the provisions of Sections 97 & 98 of the 1983 Act in substance intend to secure the service conditions of employees of Educational Institutions. Thus, they are poles apart. By no stretch of imagination, one can be read into the other."'Ignorance Of Law No Excuse': Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Former Taralabalu Kendra Secretary For Storing Pistol On Religious Premises Case Title: Dr Siddaiah S AND State of KarnatakaCase No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7580 OF 2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 412The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the former secretary of Taralabalu Kendra, for possessing a pistol furnishing the address of the Kendra and keeping the pistol in the premises of the Kendra, which is a religious institution.Justice K Natarajan pointed out that the petitioner's ignorance of the law was not a valid excuse, and the possession of a pistol was indeed prohibited under the Act. "If at all the petitioner claims he is ignorance of Section 3 and 4 of the said Act, that he has obtained the license from the police and used it, but 'the ignorance of law is not an excuse' to the petitioner and the petitioner already committed the offence under Section 3 (c), 4 of which is punishable under Section 7 of the Act."S.306 IPC | Can't Jump To Conclusions Based On Suicide Note, Contents Must Be Examined In Investigation: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Hanamantraya AND State of Karnataka & ANRCase No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200255 OF 2023Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 413The Karnataka High Court has said that merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note, one cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that he is an offender under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, the contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances have to be examined in a full fledged investigation.A single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik K, sitting at Kalaburagi bench dismissed the petition filed by Hanamantraya, who named in the suicide note of deceased Basavaraj who committed suicide by hanging. The bench said, “Generally, the person who commit suicide used to/liked to leave a suicide note naming certain persons as responsible for his committing suicide. Merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note, one cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that, he is an offender under Section 306 of IPC. The contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances have to be examined to find out whether it is abetment within the meaning of Section 306 of IPC read with Section 107 of IPC. But, in order to ascertain this factual aspect, a full fledged investigation is required as well as a trial to be held.”Karnataka High Court Upholds Reinstatement Of KPTCL Workman Who Went On Prolonged Unauthorised Leave Due To Depression Case Title: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited AND S Kiran.Case NO: WA 217/2023.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 414The Karnataka High Court on Monday upheld an order of a Single Judge which directed the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) to reinstate an employee who was dismissed from service as he remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period on account of his suffering from mental depression.A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit orally remarked, “Nobody will go away from the job these days. You are a state entity...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 30 To November 5, 2023

Mustafa Plumber

Tags