Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: January 27 To February 02, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 28 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 37Nominal Index:M/s Renram Fashions India Pvt Ltd AND The ESI Corporation. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 28Vikas C V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 29 V Keshavamurthy AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 30Hindustan Aeronautics Officers Guild AND Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 31Dr Natesha D B AND Directorate of Enforcement. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 32Sushil Kumar Churiwala AND Akshay Bansal. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 33Prafula M Bhat & Others AND Saraswati Shahstri & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 34ABC AND State Of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 35BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE v. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 36Karnataka SC/ST, Backward Classes and Minorities Advocates Federation AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 37Judgments/OrdersObjection Regarding Court's Jurisdiction Must Be Raised At Earliest Possible Opportunity, Not After Adverse Order Is Passed: Karnataka HCCase Title: M/s Renram Fashions India Pvt Ltd AND The ESI Corporation.Case No: REVIEW PETITION NO.598 OF 2024 IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3185 OF 2017Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 28The Karnataka High Court has said that any objection with regard to jurisdiction of a court in adjudicating an appeal has to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity by a party and it cannot be raised after the passing of the order which has gone against it.A single judge, Justice H P Sandesh dismissed a review petition filed by M/s Renram Fashions India Pvt Ltd, which had moved after the single judge had set aside an of the ESI court which had partly allowed the plea filed by the company and modified the order passed directing petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.26,34,569, towards damages for the delay in payment of contribution for the period from January 2009 to June 2013.Unfortunate That Age-Old Menace Of Dowry Death Still Exists In Society: Karnataka HC Declines To Quash Case Against Husband, In-LawsCase Title: Vikas C V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANRCase No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2730 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 29The Karnataka High Court has held that merely because the deceased had scribed that no one is responsible in the death note, a court, while relying on the same, cannot quash the proceedings initiated against husband and in-laws for charges of cruelty and dowry death.Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Vikas C V and others who are charged under Sections 498A (cruelty), 304B (dowry death) r/w Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.Karnataka High Court Dismisses PIL To Permit Holding Of Bull/ Bullock Cart Race In Kolar DistrictCase Title: V Keshavamurthy AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WP 35617/2024.Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 30The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Kolar District, to grant permission for conducting a bulls race/bullock cart race, in Dullapalli village of the District scheduled in January 2025.A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun dismissed the petition filed by V Keshavamurthy and said “It is entirely for the authorities to consider the subject matter, the court will not intervene in any fashion.”Company's Order Reversing Pay Hike Upsets Employee's Financial Planning: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside HAL CircularCase Title: Hindustan Aeronautics Officers Guild AND Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd & ANRCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14734 OF 2021Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 31The Karnataka High Court has set aside a circular issued by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), whereby it sought to re-fix the pay of Officers, which came to be increased, in the year 2017.A single judge, Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the petition filed by 'Hindustan Aeronautics Officers Guild' and set aside the Circular dated 24.07.2021, issued by the employer. It also clarified that the pay fixation (presently being paid) would continue to hold the field.ED Can't Trample Upon Individual Liberty & Privacy, Search & Seizure Operations Must Adhere To Procedural Fairness Under PMLA: Karnataka HCCase Title: Dr Natesha D B AND Directorate of EnforcementCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 32956 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 32The Karnataka High Court has observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot give the elements of procedural fairness contained in the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) a go-by in the course of its administration.A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar made the observation while allowing the petition filed by former Commissioner of Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA), Dr Natesha D B, during whose tenure alleged illegal allotment of land sites was made to Chief Minister Siddaramiah's wife Paravathi.Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Should Not...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: January 27 To February 02, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

Tags