Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 07 To October 13, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 428 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 435Nominal Index:B J Rajni & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 428The Legal Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited AND Nagamma & Others and Smt Nagamma and Others AND Sri P Penkatesh and others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 429M S Praveen Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 430S Bsavaraj AND Bar Council of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 431Arunkumar AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 432Pradosh S Rao AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 433Vishwanath Basappa Batti AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 434Nagabhushana B AND Registrar General & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 435Judgments/Orders'Heart Of Cardio Institute Itself Not In Right Place': Karnataka HC While Regularising Service Of Nurses Engaged On Contract Since 20 Yrs Case Title: B J Rajni & Others AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12683 OF 2023 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 12691 OF 2023Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 428The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of Ten Staff Nurses (Stipendiary) working on contractual basis for over 20 years in Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research, by directing that their services be regularised from the date they completed 10 years of service.A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda allowed the petitions filed by B J Rani and others and said “Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have worked for more than 20 years, it would be just and necessary to direct the respondents to regularise the services of petitioners from the date they completed 10 years of service. The respondents shall not take into consideration the renewal break of a day or two while computing this period of 10 years.”Insurer Has To Pay Claimants, Recover Amount From Vehicle Owner In Absence Of Valid Permit At The Time Of Accident: Karnataka HC Reiterates Case Title: The Legal Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited AND Nagamma & Others and Smt Nagamma and Others AND Sri P Penkatesh and othersCase No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7089 OF 2016 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6824 OF 2016.Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 429The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that even though the vehicle which causes an accident does not hold a valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount due to the claimants and recover it from the vehicle's owner.A single judge bench of Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda refused to accept the contention of Shriram General Insurance Company Limited that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was plying on the road without valid permit and fitness certificate. The court rejected the company's argument that since a "fundamental breach" on vehicle owner's part is "demonstrated", so the Insurance Company can avoid its "liability completely" and its for the owner to pay the compensate the claimant.Party Cannot Mount Fresh Challenge Against Land Grant Order Or Claim Title Over Property In Review Plea: Karnataka High Court Case Title: M S Praveen Kumar AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO.1713 OF 2024Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 430The Karnataka High Court has said that parties cannot be permitted to mount a fresh challenge to a land grant order which has been duly upheld by the coordinate Bench, under the guise of a review petition.A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed a petition filed by one M S Praveen Kumar and said, “Allowing such a challenge would not only undermine the established legal tenets but also threaten the stability of property rights that rely on judicial finality.”Bar Council Of India Cannot Issue Gag Orders Restraining Speech Of Advocates Or Its Members: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: S Bsavaraj AND Bar Council of India & Others Case No: WRIT PETITION No.11480 OF 2024Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 431The Karnataka High Court has held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) does not have the power to issue gag orders restraining the speech of Advocates or even the members of the Bar Council.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The Chairman of the Bar Council of India ostensibly cannot pass any such gag order which takes away the fundamental right of any Advocate. The power of the Courts either competent civil court or the constitutional Court, cannot be permitted to be usurped by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, as is done in the case at hand.”Registration Of FIR U/S 154 CrPC After BNSS Came Into Force Not A Curable Defect: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Arunkumar AND State of KarnatakaCase No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200913 OF 2024.Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 432The Karnataka High Court has held that from July 1, 2024 onwards when the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) came into force, the police registering an FIR under the...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 07 To October 13, 2024

Mustafa Plumber

Tags