Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: March 25 - March 31, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 142 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156Nominal Index: N M Suresh AND Sudeep S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 142Amith M Jain AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 143Althaf Ahamed AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 144THIMMAPPA AND THE STATE BY HOLALKERE POLICE. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 145Veeranna G Tigadi AND High Court of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 146Dr. Sridhara S AND The Director Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 147Thimmappa & Others AND Bharathi. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 148Ravi Kumar & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Authority & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 149Ramanjaneyulu & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 150Dr Yogananda A AND The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 151Pooja AND Siddanna & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 152Yathish M G AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 153M/S. Mvr Constructions Vs M/S. V.M.R Constructions And Others.2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 154M/s Bellary Nirmithi Kendra v. M/s Capital Metal Industries, Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 155M/S Durga Projects Inc Vs Sri. B.G. Babu Reddy. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 156Judgments/ OrdersKarnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Kannada Actor Sudeep's Defamation Complaint Against NM Suresh Case Title: N M Suresh AND Sudeep SCase No: Writ Petition 3641 OF 2024Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 142The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a defamation complaint filed by Kannada Actor Sudeep S against N M Suresh who is the office bearer of the Kannada Film Producers Association and Secretary of the Film Chamber of Commerce for allegedly making false acquisitions against Sudeep.A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition filed by Suresh seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the trial court under sections 499 and 500 of IPC.Only Authorised Person Responsible For Quality Control Of Fertiliser Products Can Be Prosecuted, Not Directors Of Company: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Amith M Jain AND State of KarnatakaCase No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6425 OF 2023Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 143The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal prosecution initiated against one Amith M Jain, Managing director of a company who was charged under sections 3 (1), 13 (2), 19 (b) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, read with Sections 3(2)(d) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajit Shetty said, “The material on record would go to show that the petitioner is only the Managing Director of the company and in view of the Government Order dated 14.02.2002, only persons who are responsible for production of quality control of the fertiliser products can be prosecuted.”Disputed Property Rights Can't Be Dealt With In Writ Jurisdiction, Writ Courts Can Only Take Note Of Already Established Rights: Karnataka HC Case Title: Althaf Ahamed AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WA 713/2023Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 144The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that contested property rights cannot be dealt with in writ jurisdiction. The writ court can at the best take notice of the property rights of the parties which are already established rights.A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed an appeal filed by Althaf Ahamed, challenging an order of the single judge bench which refused to invalidate the gift deed executed in favour of his sisters by their mother.Emotion Should Not Become An Influencing Factor To Impose Death Penalty: Karnataka High Court Reduces Sentence For Beheading Mother's Head Case Title: THIMMAPPA AND THE STATE BY HOLALKERE POLICECase No: CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE NO.6 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1301 OF 2018Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 145The Karnataka High Court has set aside the death penalty imposed on an accused for murdering his mother by beheading her, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and S Rachaiah partly allowed the appeal filed by accused Thimmappa challenging the conviction and death sentence imposed on him by the trial court under section 302 of the India Penal Code.The bench said “If we take an analysis of the entire situation, we find that this is not a rarest of rare case though it is a fact that the incident was cruel and brutal. Emotion should not become an influencing factor to impose a death penalty. Degree of criminality matters much while imposing the death penalty.”Karnataka HC Imposes Costs Of ₹10 Lakh On New Indian Express For Publishing Inquiry Report Against District Judge Which Had Been Rejected By Full Court Case Title: Veeranna G Tigadi AND High Court of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14053 OF 2015Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 146The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the owner of Express Publications (Mudhurai) Ltd, which publishes the New Indian Express newspaper for publishing a...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: March 25 - March 31, 2024

Mustafa Plumber

Tags