Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: April 08 - April 14, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 169 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 174Nominal Index:Sachin M R AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 169King Solomon David & ANR AND Joint Secretary. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 170Dayananda @ R Babu & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 171Priyanka Singh AND Pankaj Singh Sengar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 172M/s Pancharathna Enterprises AND The Commissioner & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 173Dr Guddadev Yadrami AND The Director & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 174Judgments/Orders[Karnataka Police Act] Mandatory To Provide Hearing, Materials Relied Upon By Authority Before Passing Externment Order Against Accused: High CourtCase Title: Sachin M R AND State of KarnatakaCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9727 OF 2024Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 169The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act (Act), it is mandatory to grant reasonable opportunity and also to provide necessary material relied on by the authority to an accused along with the show cause notice issued against whom an externment order is pending issuance.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Sachin M R and quashed the externment order dated 20.03.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner.It said “There are several safeguards for passage of an order of externment upon the person against whom it is sought to be passed. These are procedural safeguards. It is trite that procedural safeguards are the lifeblood of liberty, which cannot be treated or taken away in the manner that it is done in the case at hand.”Breaking: Karnataka High Court Quashes Union's Circular Banning 23 Breeds Of 'Dangerous & Ferocious' Dogs Case Title: King Solomon David & ANR AND Joint SecretaryCase No: WP 8409/2024Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 170The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed the circular issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, which bans the rearing of certain breeds of dogs on the ground of them being ferocious and dangerous to human life.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The High Court of Delhi from which the entire impugned action has sprung has recorded the undertaking of Union of India that they would hear all stakeholders. It is an admitted fact that none of the stakeholders are heard. The composition of the committee is not in consonance with the Rule framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The Union of India could not have imposed the ban without appropriate recommendation from a properly constituted committee.”Karnataka Excise Act | Police Can't File FIR Solely On Basis Of Seizure Panchnama: High Court Case Title: Dayananda @ R Babu & ANR AND State of KarnatakaCase No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 129 OF 2021Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 171The Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction handed down to two accused under Sections 32, 34 and 38-A of the Karnataka Excise Act, holding that the police cannot file an FIR on the basis of seizure panchanama.A single-judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah allowed the revision petition filed by Dayananda @ R Babu and Another and set aside the conviction handed down to them by the trial court which was confirmed by the appellate court.Husband With 75% Disability Can't Be Directed To Pay Maintenance To Estranged Wife: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Priyanka Singh AND Pankaj Singh SengarCase No: WRIT PETITION No.48615 OF 2013 (GM - FC) C/W WRIT PETITION No.41607 OF 2017 (GM - FC) WRIT PETITION No.41608 OF 2017Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 172The Karnataka High Court has refused to direct a husband with 75% disability to pay maintenance to his estranged wife and also set aside an order of the execution court which, acting on the plea filed by the wife, had issued an arrest warrant or fine levy warrant against the husband.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The husband walks with the help of crutches. Therefore, in the considered view of the Court, no direction can be issued to the husband to pay maintenance to the wife/respondent as he is no longer an able bodied man to search for employment and pay maintenance to maintain the wife and the child.”BBMP Cannot Insist On NOC From Landlord For Renewing Trade License Of Leased Property: Karnataka High Court Case Title: M/s Pancharathna Enterprises AND The Commissioner & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION No.22657 OF 2023Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 173The Karnataka High Court has held that insistence on NOC from landlord by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for renewing the trade licence would not fall into the category of permissible restriction envisaged under Article 19(6) of the Constitution and thus insisting on obtaining of NOC cannot be construed to be a mandatory requirement.A single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav made the observation while allowing a petition filed by M/s Pancharathna Enterprises which runs a Hotel under the name and style of...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: April 08 - April 14, 2024

Mustafa Plumber

Tags