- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Karnataka High Court
- /
- Karnataka High Court Annual Digest...
Karnataka High Court Annual Digest 2023 - Part I [Citations 1 - 250]
Mustafa Plumber
3 Jan 2024 6:17 AM GMT
![Karnataka High Court Annual Digest 2023 - Part I [Citations 1 - 250]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/01/03/750x450_513493-karnataka-high-court-annual-digest-2023-part-1.webp "Karnataka High Court Annual Digest 2023 - Part I [Citations 1 - 250]")
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 01 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 250Nominal IndexPriyanaka R Patil v. Kendriya Sainik Board. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 1Ankit Kumar & others v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 2M/S. Provident Housing Limited v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 3Latha Choodiah v. Sree Balaji H. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 4P Sunil Kumar...
Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 01 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 250
Nominal Index
Priyanaka R Patil v. Kendriya Sainik Board. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
Ankit Kumar & others v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
M/S. Provident Housing Limited v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
Latha Choodiah v. Sree Balaji H. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
P Sunil Kumar & ANR v. State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
THE CAP A PIE v. The South Western Railways. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
Karnataka State Association of the Management of Nursing v. Allied Health Science Institution And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
Praveen Bhai Togadia & ANR v. State of Karnataka & others 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
Suchitra Cinema and Cultural Academy v. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
Prasad Raykar v. B T Dinesh 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
Bharat Punarutthana Trust V. The Government Of Karnataka & Others 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
Central Bureau of Investigation And State of Karnataka 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
M/s Wipro India Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
Rashmi Education Trust Vidyaniketan School & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
Ravi @ Kamran Ravi And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
Abdul Majeed And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
Pavan And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
State of Karnataka And Shaikh Rouf. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
S Neelakantappa And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
Honnegowda & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
Kuldeep And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
Union of India & others And State of Karnataka & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
XXX And ABC. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
XYZ And ABC. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
K V Srinivas Rao & others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
Rajeev Chandrasekhar And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
Dr.Satyakk And Government of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
National Insurance Company Ltd And Menpa Maistry & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
K M Basha And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
M/s BBP Studio Virtual Bharat Pvt Ltd And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
Shailesh Kumar V And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
Vijay Kumar & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 32
M/s Allengers Medical Systems Ltd And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
Padmanabha N S & others v. State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
Ranjith Naik K V & Others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
Thotlegowda v. State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
M Prakash And M Vinayaka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
Ameena Afroj And State of Karnataka & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
Shesha Krishna And Krishn Hegde. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
Akshata Chougala & Others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
CH K.S.Prasad @ K S Prasad And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
Cheluvaraju And Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
Somanna & Others And Prakash. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
Hemanthkumar N And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
Syadul Akhon @Shahid Ahmad And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
Jana Jagruthi Samithi & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
SRINIVAS.S And STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
Kyathappa S & others v. The Secretary & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 49
Pratibha Singh And Vineet Kumar. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 50
Santhosh Kumar H And A Keshava Bhat & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 51
High Court of Karnataka And K S Anil. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 52
M/s Premier Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd versus Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
PUNARVASU @ VASU And INDRANI S. 2023 LiveLaw (kar) 54
M V Guruprasad & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 55
G And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 56
Shadaksharappa And Kumari Vijayalaxmi. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 57
M.B.Jayadevaiah And The Managing Director, BMTC Central Offices & ANR.. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
M/s Hindustan Medical Products And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 59
Jayamma And Jayamma @ Nagamma. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
Sharan Desai v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 61
Ramachandra & ANR And State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
Sikandar Mohammad Ali Dalal & ANR And Babu Hanumanth Mindolkar & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
National Law School of India University And Manjula P R & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
Director of Income Tax Versus IBM India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
A.B. Yomakeshappa And Karnataka State Information Commission & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
Indian Coffee Workers Cooperative Society Limited And The Senior Labour Inspector & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 67
Nagamma And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 68
K J Kunjumon & others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
Patil Malligemadu Chandrashekhar & others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
Vuppalapti Satish Kumar And VTH Source Components Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
H.Nagabhushana Rao And The Under Secretary FFR Division & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
Siddalingappa S T And Karnataka State Human Rights Commission. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
Arunkumar N. T And Deputy Commissioner of Police & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
Times Now BCCL And Bhojaraj R Patil. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
H C Nandish & ANR And The Ministry of Indian Railways & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
Sachin And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
Cohiba Club And Deputy Commissioner & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
N Hanumegowda And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
Ramachandra Reddy & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
Aithappa Naika And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 81
XYZ And Karnataka State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 82
DR. K.N.Anuradha And Karnataka State Information Commission & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
The Mysore Electrical Industries Limited And Engineering & General Workers Union. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
B Ranganath Hegde And Karnataka State Legal Services Authority & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
Kattemane Ganesha v. State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
M/s Inditrade Fincorp Pvt Ltd And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 87
Jayanna B @ Jayaram And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 88
P S Leelavathi v. N Ravi Shankar & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
Karnataka Lokayuktha And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 90
Belandur GM Pan,Karyalaya And Government of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 91
Karnataka State Private Homoeopathic Medical College Managements Association And Union of India & oThers. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 92
The State of Karnataka Versus The Index Technologies India Ltd.. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 93
Basavanand Swamigalu And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
Syed Ghouse Mohiyuddin Shah Khadri And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 95
ABC & others And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
A Manju And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
Vihaan Direct Selling India Private Limited And The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 98
M Venkateshappa And The Karnataka Information Commission & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
Nagalinga And The Excise Commissioner in Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
Murugan T And P. Jayagovinda Bhat & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
Mallikarjun Desai Goudar And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 102
KARNATAKA UNAIDED SCHOOLS MANAGEMENTS ASSOCIATION And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
ABC Vs XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
ABC Vs XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 105
ABC And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
Jayamma & Others And State of Karnataka & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
Lakshminarayana And Lokesh L. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
Sameer Dinakar Bhole And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
Khaleel Ul Rehman & Others And Sharaffunnisa Muniri @ Ashraf Unnisa. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
M/s D C B Bank Limited And The Assistant Commissioner. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
Dr Sanjeev Kumar Hiremath And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
Dr Bhanu C Ramachandran And Union of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
M/S AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED And UNION OF INDIA. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
The Public Information Officer And The State Information Commissioner & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
Kavitha M And Raghu & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
Basangouda And Muddangouda & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
Bharatiya Janata Party And Election Commission of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
Master Arya Selvakumar Priya & ANR And Joint Secretary (PSP) and Chief Passport officer & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
Renuka Manghnani And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
M/s S P Metals Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
Omkarmurthy And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
The Principal Secretary & ANR And Tejasco Techsoft Private Limited. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
K. Madal Virupakshappa And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
T Roopeshkumar @ Roopi And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
Sujata & Others And Nehru @ Kamagond Patil & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
Siddu And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
Anoop Bajaj And Jayanna. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 129
KM And KC & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 130
The Director (Exams) & Others And Ravishankar & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
Himayath Ali Khan v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 132
M/S Patanjali Foods Limited Versus Union Of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
M/S Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
Manje Gowda And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
Rathnamma & ANR And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
Bujji @ Babu G And State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
Nanjappa And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
Khadar Basha & others And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
M P Renukacharya And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
Sudarshan Ramesh And Union of India & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
T N Shivaraju & others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
Aisha Mallik & Others And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
Ramamurthy N And Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
Isthiyak Ahmed And Election Commission of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
K. Shankarlal v. Post Master, India Post & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
Roopa D And Rohini Sindhuri &ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
Coolulu Sports Private Limited And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
Kanchan Srinivasan And Bangalore Cyber Crime Police Station & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
THE SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT AND MONITORING COMMITTEE And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
Mohammed Shariff And National Investigating Agency. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
H D Naveen And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
Thirakavva & ANR Ratnavva & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
Sudarshan V Biradar And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
M/s TTK Healthcare Ltd And P V Ravi. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Kousalya And Government of Karnataka 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 157
XIAOMI Technology India Private Limited. v. Union of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 158
Mohammad Bilal & others And Police Sub-Inspector Law and Order & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 159
Rudresha And The Management of M/s TVS Motor Company. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 160
Hanumanthrao And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
H Siddaraju & ANR Union of India & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
M/s National Insurance Company Ltd And Mrs Asha & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
B L Adishesh & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
Central Public Information Officer/Deputy Director General, Doordarshan Kendra And Central Information Commission & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 165
D K Shivakumar And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
D B Jatti And M/s Jamnadas Devidas. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 167
Ravi M And Union of India & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
B Prashanth Hegde And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 169
ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
Karnataka Golf Association And Karnataka Information Commission & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
N P Amruthesh And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
Dilshad And Athaulla Khan & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
Emmanuel Michael And Union of India. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 174
Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited Versus Directorate General Of Goods. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
Vinod Damji Patel And The Hoskote Yojana Pradhikara & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
Gajaraja And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
Social Democratic Party of India And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Vidhya Peetha & ANR And The Chief Secretary & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
Siddappa B H And The State By Lokayukta Police. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
Karnataka General Labour Union And Government of India & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
Gangamma & ANR And Pratibha & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
C Manjunath And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
Sharnavva @Kasturi and Shivappa. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
Raman Sundaresan And Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
Blink Commerce Private Limited And Blinkhit Private Limited. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
Town Essentials Pvt. Ltd. v. Daily Ninja Delivery Services Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
NG & others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
Reeth Abraham And Sunil Abraham. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
G Jagadish Kumar And K G Murali. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
Prasad A A And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
Gurushree High-Tech Multi Speciality Hospital And Commissioner For Health And Family Welfare And Chairman Appellate Authority & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
N P Amrutesh And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
Karnataka State Level Advocates Clerks Association And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
Rangaraju @ Vajapeyi And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
Jameela And Sullia Afsa & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Shivappa Bellad And Superintendent of Open Air Prison & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
Dr Vinod G Kulkarni And Ministry of Railways & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
M/s Mangalore New Sultan Beedi Works And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
Nasim Banu & ANR And Shabas Khan & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
Diocese of Chikkamagaluru And Lancy J Narona & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
Kreetams Pro Bono And Centre For Legal Research And Ministry of Secondary and Primary Education & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
Pramod R S And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
M S Ravi Dixit And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
B S Yeddyurappa And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
Dr. Chandrashekar T B And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
Pavankumar A N & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
Dr M David And Department of High Education & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
ABC v. XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
Abdul Rehman And The Deputy Commissioner & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
PG Setty Construction Technology Pvt Ltd And The Managing Director, Karnataka State Police Housing And Infrastructure Development Corporation & Others 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
M/s. GE T & D India Ltd. Versus State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
Imran Ahmed And National Investigation Agency. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
Byluru Thippaiah And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
Vipul Prakash Patil And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
D K Suresh And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
A Vasudevachar & Others And The District Registrar & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
Mrs Divya Ganesh Nallur & ANR And NIL. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
Allauddin & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
D K SHIVAKUMAR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
Coffee Day Resorts (Msm) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
ABC & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
Mali Rizwan And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
Gururaj Havanur And The Management of Syndicate Bank & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
Sindhu Boregowda And Yashwanth Bhaskar B P. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
Vijesh Pillai And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
The City Municipal Council And Akbar Patel. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
Ramesh Naik. L v. State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
Prajith R And XXX & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 232
V V Singara Velu & ANR And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
Lingasugur Taluk Halumata Abhivrudhi Samiti ( R ) & Others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
Subramani And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
B S Kumar Swamy Versus State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
K P Pushpesh & Others And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
Pramod Mutalik And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 238
Parameshwarappa And The State. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 239
Mrs Gauramma & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 240
Aniruddh v RGUHS & connected matters. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 241
M R Seetharam And State By Anti Corruption Bureau & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 242
Jairam Ramesh & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 243
X Corp v. UNION OF INDIA. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 244
State of Karnataka Versus Aishwarya Fort. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 245
Kailash S Raj & others And State of Karnataka 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 246
Pr Commissioner Of Income-1 Tax (Exemptions) Versus M/S Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 247
Mother Marry College of Nursing & Others And The Registrar. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 248
ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 249
Francis Xavier Crasto And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 250
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Priyanaka R Patil v. Kendriya Sainik Board
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19722 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
The Karnataka High Court has struck down a criteria in the guidelines issued by the Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement, by which married daughters under the age of 25-years, were held ineligible for issuance of dependent Identity cards. The identity card, if issued, makes them eligible to apply for government jobs in the reserved category for ex-servicemen.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprsanna allowed the petition filed by one Priyanka R Patil, who is the daughter of deceased Subedar Ramesh Khandappa Police Patil who was killed in action and struck down guideline 5(c) holding it to be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Ankit Kumar & others v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.25783 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA) cannot, in the absence of enabling rules, withhold the original documents of medical students who have participated in the second round of counselling and secured a seat and then desire to participate in the counselling process elsewhere in other states.
A division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice C M Joshi allowing the petition filed by Ankit Kumar and others, directed the Authority to consider their representations for return of original documents and return them forthwith.
Case Title: M/S. Provident Housing Limited v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ANR.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.18448 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, directing M/S. Provident Housing Limited to refund an amount to an apartment purchaser, who filed a complaint with the Authority seeking refund after willingly withdrawing from the contract for sale and accepting the refund amount. The project had received partial occupancy certificate before the enactment of Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act), 2016.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprsanna allowed the plea filed by the company and set aside the order dated 30.09.2020 by which the authority directed the company to refund an amount of Rs.6,84,494 to Shyama Shetty within 60 days, failing which, it would carry interest at 2% per month.
Case Title: Latha Choodiah v. Sree Balaji H.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.11172 OF 2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
The Karnataka High Court has said that remarriage of the former husband cannot be a ground to question the settlement arrived between the couple after issues were settled before the court and decree of divorce was granted.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by one Lata Choodiah seeking to set aside the memorandum of settlement arrived at under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 – the settlement was entered into on 07-08-2015 between her and her former husband.
Case Title: P Sunil Kumar & ANR v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8969 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against owners of a shop licensed for selling explosives to quarry contractors, on the ground that their employee had illegally sold the gelatine sticks to a person, who died in an explosion.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petition filed by P Sunil Kumar and others and quashed the proceedings initiated against them under Sections 3,5,6 of Explosive Substance Act and Section 9(b) of Explosive Act and 286, 304 of IPC.
Case Title: THE CAP A PIE v. The South Western Railways
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 22793 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
The Karnataka High Court has said that it would amount to violation of principle of natural justice if a tender authority passes an order upon which it did not seek to issue show cause notice.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna recently allowed in part the petition filed THE CAP A PIE, questioning the termination of its contract by South Western Railways performing work of collection, washing and ironing of bedroll linen supplied to AC coach passengers in several trains and blacklisting the firm for two years.
Case Title: Karnataka State Association of the Management of Nursing v. Allied Health Science Institution And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal 839/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the order of the Single Judge bench which upheld the constitution of a Special House Committee, empowered to visit all Nursing Colleges and Allied Health Sciences Institutions in state and carry out inspections to ascertain whether they are functioning as per directions of the Indian Nursing Council and whether they have the necessary infrastructure and other facilities.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi dismissed the appeal filed by the Karnataka State Association of the Management of Nursing and Allied Health Science Institution.
Case Title: Praveen Bhai Togadia & ANR v. State of Karnataka & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9574 OF 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed in the year 2015 by Praveen Bhai Togadia challenging the prohibitory orders banning him from entering into the Udupi District limits and participating in any Public Meetings/ Functions for a period of seven days, between March 7, 2015 to March 13, 2015. Togdia is the National President of Antar-Rashtriya Hindu Parishad.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani dismissed as having become infructuous, the petition filed by Togadia and one Baikady Suprasad Shetty.
Case Title: Suchitra Cinema and Cultural Academy v. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority & ANR.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.58854 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that where a statutory authority employs wrong terminology while granting any concession to a party, the same cannot be a ground to revoke such concession where the party itself was not at fault.
The development comes in a writ petition filed before the bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit challenging the communication issued by the Bangalore Development Authority to Suchitra Cinema and Cultural Academy, whereby the latter was asked to pay back a sum of Rs.50 Lakh on the ground that the word 'donation' was used for granting concessions, whilst renewing lease of the sites.
Case Title: Prasad Raykar v. B T Dinesh
Case No: Criminal Appeal 725 of 2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
The Karnataka High Court has said that a son being the legal representative is liable to discharge the liability of the deceased father under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan rejected the argument canvased by one respondent/accused B T Dinesh, that there is no legally enforceable debt against him as the loan was borrowed by his father, who expired before filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
GPS For Ambulances: Karnataka High Court Disposes PIL Being Satisfied With State's Initiatives
Case Title: BHARAT PUNARUTTHANA TRUST v. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & Others.
Case NO: WP 6073/2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
The State government on Wednesday informed the Karnataka High Court that a feature is enabled in the Vahan portal for checking whether new ambulances being registered are equipped/installed with the Global Positioning System.
As per an affidavit filed by the Additional Commissioner, Karnataka State Road Safety Authority, “National Informatics Centre has rolled out a feature for new registration of ambulances whereby the Vahan portal will now check at the time of Inspection if Global Positioning System data is available or not. This feature is now enabled in Vahan and after verification and providing training to all RTOs, this will be rolled out throughout the state.”
After High Court Nudge, Karnataka Govt Authorises CBI To Attach Excess Properties Of Mining Baron Janardhana Reddy
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation And State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 402/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
The State government on Thursday submitted before the Karnataka High Court an order granting authorisation to the Central Bureau of Investigation to attach excess properties of former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Gali Janardhana Reddy's properties in relation to a corruption case.
Additional Advocate General Dhyan Chinnappa though pointed out to the court that an earlier authorisation was granted by the state government in the year 2015 for attaching properties of the same accused was not pursued till 2021, for around seven years by the CBI before the concerned court. He submitted that the CBI which is now complaining has many many problems which he is not dealing with.
Case Title: M/s Wipro India Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Case No: Writ Petition No.16175 Of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
The Karnataka High Court has held that the circular regarding the mismatch of input tax credit (ITC) is applicable for 2019–20 in the case of identical errors.
"Though the Circular refers only to the years 2017–18 and 2018–19, since there are identical errors committed by the petitioner not only in respect of the assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 but also in relation to the assessment year 2019–20 also, I am of the view that by adopting a justice-oriented approach, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the Circular for the year 2019–20 also," the single bench of Justice S.R. Kumar said.
Karnataka High Court Strikes Down State Govt's Power To Regulate Fees For Unaided Private Schools
Case Title: Rashmi Education Trust Vidyaniketan School & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6313 OF 2017 (EDN) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS. 33161 OF 2017, 47074 OF 2018, 47077 OF 2018, 5072 OF 2019, 6185 OF 2019, 9149 OF 2019, 11657 OF 2019, 14703 OF 2019, 6396 OF 2020, 15241 OF 2021, 15268 OF 2021 AND 16418 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
The Karnataka High Court has held that the state government cannot interfere and control the fee structure of private unaided educational institutions. It thus declared as ultra vires Section 48 of the Karnataka Education Act 1983 which prohibits private unaided schools from collecting fee in any manner except as prescribed by the State government
A single judge bench of Justice E S Indiresh referred to TMA Pai Foundation case and agreed that the decision on the fee structure must be left to the private unaided educational institutions, as those educational institutions do not seek or are not dependent upon any funds from the Government. It also agreed that their financial affairs are affected by giving admissions to students through RTE.
Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Accused In Murder Case On Ground Of Parity
Case Title: Ravi @ Kamran Ravi And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11294 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a murder accused, observing that though the allegations against him and others are of serious nature but the overt act alleged against him is similar to that of other accused, who have already been granted bail.
"The charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer makes out a prima facie case against all the accused including the petitioner. Admittedly, the overt act alleged against the present petitioner is similar to that of accused Nos.2 and 3. It is not in dispute that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are already enlarged on bail. Under such circumstances, the benefit of parity is to be extended to the present petitioner," it said.
Case Title: Abdul Majeed And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10830/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
The Karnataka High Court has observed that individual role of accused cannot be considered while deciding on bail application filed by a murder accused who was part of an unlawful assembly and who allegedly committed the offence in pursuance of a common object.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh made the observation while rejecting the successive bail application filed by accused Abdul Majeed who was charged under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 342, 323, 324, 364, 307, 302, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC. Earlier his bail application was rejected by the court vide order dated 01.07.2022, on merits.
Apprehension Of Acid Attack: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail To A Jilted Lover
Case Title: Pavan And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9563 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
The Karnataka High Court refused bail to a jilted lover, accepting the apprehensions raised by the victim that if released on bail the accused would throw acid on her.
A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma dismissed the petition filed by one Pavan, who was charged for offences punishable under sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 354(D) (stalking) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC and provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Case Title: State of Karnataka And Shaikh Rouf
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200060/2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
The Karnataka High Court has enhanced the sentence of five years imposed by the special court on an accused convicted under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO), Act, observing that when the statute has prescribed a minimum sentence of seven years for the offence punishable, the Special Judge did not have any power whatsoever to reduce minimum sentence to five years.
A single judge bench of Justice V. Srishananda, sitting at Kalaburagi bench, upheld the conviction handed down to Shaikh Rouf under Section 4 of the Act and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and enhanced the sentence of the trial court.
Case Title: S Neelakantappa And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6915/2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a cheating case registered against a 61-year-old man who is alleged to have fraudulently obtained a false Caste Certificate, stating that he belongs to Scheduled Caste on which basis he secured a job in BEML.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by S. Neelakantappa, saying “The Caste Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner having not been cancelled under the provision of the Rules, (Karnataka Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Rules 1992, cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of the final report is impermissible.”
Case Title: Honnegowda & ANR And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1353/2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against two employees of Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd, accused of purchasing stolen gold jewellery as the police failed to arraign the company as accused in the case.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Honnegowda and Praveen H K and said “The charge sheet is laid against the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 4 alleging that the company in which they are working as an employees have purchased the stolen gold jewellery. In the absence of the company not being arraigned as a accused, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4 cannot be held vicariously guilty of the same.
Karnataka High Court Directs State Govt to Pay ₹3 Lakh To Lawyer Arrested Illegally By Police
Case Title: Kuldeep And State of Karnataka & Others
Case no: WRIT PETITION No.24832 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to pay a compensation of Rs 3 lakh to a 23-year-old advocate, who was last month arrested illegally by the police.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said that lawyer Kuldeep's arrest was contrary to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar. The court clarified that the compensation of Rs 3 Lakh will not come in the petitioner's way to claim additional compensation in a competent civil court in enforcement of a private law remedy.
Case Title: Union of India & others And State of Karnataka & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.33252 OF 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the demand notices issued to the Union of India by the Mangalore Municipal Corporation towards payment of property tax in respect of the building used for staff quarters.
A single judge bench of Justice M G S Kamal by its order dated November 8, 2022, quashed the notices issued by the corporation dated 04-06-2010 and 16-07-2011. However, since the amount was already paid to the corporation by the department, it directed the corporation to adjust the same towards payment of service tax for the amenities provided.
Marriage With Minor Girl Not Void U/S 11 Of Hindu Marriage Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: XXX And ABC
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1493 OF 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the family court under the Hindu Marriage Act by which it declared the marriage between a couple to be null and void, as the woman was minor at the time of marriage.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty observed that Section 11 of the Act, which defines 'Void marriages', does not include legal age of marriage as a pre-condition. It thus set aside the family court order dated 08.01.2005 saying “Section 11 of the Act has no application to the fact situation of the case.”
Case Title: XYZ And ABC
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24226 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
The Karnataka High Court has said that if a wife is directed to pay maintenance to an able bodied husband who does not suffer from any disability or infirmity, it would be promoting idleness.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made it clear that “Merely because Section 24 of (Hindu Marriage) Act is gender neutral for grant of maintenance, it would be promoting idleness notwithstanding the fact that the husband has no impediment or handicap to earn.”
Case Title: K V Srinivas Rao & others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.24580/2021(LA-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.22750/2021(LB-RES), 23022/2021(LB-RES),6905/2022(LA-RES)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
The Karnataka High Court has said that if some landowners have relinquished their land it cannot be a ground to compel other landowners to do so except in accordance with law.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit, partly allowed a bunch of petitions and restrained the Land Acquisition officer of Sagar City Municipal Council, from forcibly taking away the land of petitioners for expansion of a road.
Case Title: Rajeev Chandrasekhar And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201520/2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, against Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar.
Justice V Srishananda sitting at Kalaburagi bench quashed the proceedings initiated under section 18 of the Act. The allegation against Chandrasekhar was that as Director of Kannada Prabha Publications Limited, he had violated the provisions of the Act.
Case Title: Dr.Satyakk And Government of India & Others
Case No: W.P.No.200151/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a Medical Graduate, questioning the endorsement issued to him by the Department of Health and Family Welfare Service rejecting his application for the post of Medical Officer on the grounds that he has graduated from a University in China.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde while rejecting the petition filed by Dr.Satyakk, accepted the submission of the State Government that the eligibility criteria fixed by the State of Maharashtra, which recognises foreign University degrees for employment, is not binding on the State of Karnataka.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd And Menpa Maistry & others
Case No: MFA NO.4286 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
The Karnataka High Court has said that an insurance company is liable to pay compensation to a patient who succumbs to his ailments, when the ambulance in which he is being shifted to a hospital for better treatment meets with an accident.
A single judge bench of Justice T.G.Shivashankare Gowda turned down the contention of the National Insurance Company Ltd and upheld the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting compensation to the claimants of the deceased Ravi.
Case Title: K M Basha And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201668/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against a man for posting on his Facebook page a message — the contents of which, the police claimed, amounted to insulting the soldiers and disturbing the peace and tranquillity of the society.
Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by one K M Basha and quashed the order taking cognisance of the chargesheet filed against him under Section 505 IPC. The court said before taking of the cognizance by the Magistrate for the offences punishable under Section 505 of IPC, prior sanction under Section 196(1)(A) of Cr.P.C. is necessary.
Case Title: M/s BBP Studio Virtual Bharat Pvt Ltd And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.21308 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to release balance payments due to M/s BBP Studio Virtual Bharat Pvt Ltd, which was appointed to produce a 3D film during the Global Investors Meet, held in November 2022, but the contract was cancelled last minute and film was not showcased at the event.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the communication dated 25-10-2022 issued by Marketing Communication And Advertising Ltd, cancelling the work order issued for producing the film to the petitioner.
Case Title: Shailesh Kumar V And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2797 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
The Karnataka High court has held that mere hurling of abuses without any intention to insult or make casteist remarks will not become an offence under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition filed by one Shailesh Kumar V and quashed charges levelled against him under Section 3(1)(r) &(s) of the Act, while sustaining and permitting continuation of proceedings for charges under the Indian Penal Code.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Matrimonial Website Employees
Case Title: Vijay Kumar & ANR And State of Karnataka
Case no: WRIT PETITION NO.29340/2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 32
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered against two employees of a matrimonial website by a woman subscriber, who was cheated by a man she had come into contact through the portal.
The woman in her complaint in 2017 said that she had created her profile on the "Kannada Matrimony" and subsequently she came into contact with a person by name of Amit Deepak through the portal. The accused on one pretext or the other demanded money from the complaint which she transferred to him. After speaking with a close friend, she realised that she was cheated by Deepak for a sum of Rs.1,70,000.
Case Title: M/s Allengers Medical Systems Ltd And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.17634 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
The Karnataka High Court has said that a tender inviting authority is empowered only to cancel the tender prior to notification of award and execution of the contract. Once the award is notified, it is statutorily impermissible to withdraw or cancel the tender except for violation of the tender conditions, said the court.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M/s Allengers Medical Systems Limited and directed Karnataka State Medical Supplies Corporation Limited to issue purchase order for portable X-ray machines in favour of the company pursuant to the Tender Notification dated 27-10-2021 and award of tender in its favour, within 2 weeks.
Case Title: Padmanabha N S & others v. State of Karnataka & ANR
Case no: WRIT PETITION NO.20228 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
The Karnataka High Court, while refusing to quash proceedings against accused under the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, said that despite the completion of 75 years of independence of India, "the downtrodden people [are] not able to do any business equal to that of any other business people who were said to be in upper caste."
The court made the observation in the judgment on a petition seeking quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners. who had allegedly threatened a resort owner, belonging to the Wadda community (stone cutters).
Case Title: Ranjith Naik K V & Others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3079/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
The Karnataka High Court has suggested to the State Government to appoint guest lecturers in government colleges only if they meet the minimum educational qualification prescribed by the UGC.
A single judge bench of Justice B M Shyam Prasad made the observation while disposing of a batch of petitions filed by guest lecturers questioning the government order dated 14.01.2022, insofar as it stipulates that even a candidate who does not possess minimum educational qualification as prescribed by UGC, could be appointed provided such qualification is acquired within three years and if the minimum qualification is not acquired within those three years and after three years, the appointment of such applicants would be completely restricted.
Case Title: Thotlegowda v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 165 OF 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
The Karnataka High Court has said that death of the convict does not discharge his liability from paying fine and compensation imposed by court. It can be recovered from the property which goes to his legal heirs after his death and they are legally liable for payment of fine.
A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by one Thotlegowda challenging the order by which he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135 and 138 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and directed to pay a fine amount of Rs 29,204.
Case Title: M Prakash And M Vinayaka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20269 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Director General and Inspector General of Police to hold a departmental enquiry against police inspector Praveen K.Y of the Cottonpet Police station, for failure to comply with the order passed by the Magistrate court directing registration of First Information Report on a private complaint of theft.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said lawful orders passed by the judicial authority are required to be scrupulously enforced by the police and failure to do so constitutes a constitutional tort arising out of breach of a fundamental right of access to justice for victims of crime. "Such breach amounts to serious misconduct and gross dereliction of duty justifying imposition of major penalty. Such gross dereliction of official duty by the Law Enforcement Agencies cannot be countenanced," the court said.
Case Title: Ameena Afroj And State of Karnataka & others
Case No: W.P.No.200032/2023
Citation; 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, has the jurisdiction to consider all matters 'concerning recruitment' which includes all decisions from the date of publication of notification inviting applications for the government job posts to the orders of appointment.
A single judge bench Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde sitting at Kalaburagi bench gave the clarification while disposing of a petition filed by one Ameena Afroj, who had questioned the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in adjudicating over the challenge made by her to the decision of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, classifying the petitioner as a General Merit candidate instead of under the category 2-B/KA-HK for selection to the post of a government school teacher.
Case Title: Shesha Krishna And Krishn Hegde
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6027 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a defamation case registered against a news reader of Kannada news channel. A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by Shesha Krishna who works for BTV News, refusing to accept one of the contention raised by her that she is only the news reader.
The bench said, “The allegation made against the accused persons cannot be bifurcated as the petitioner is the newsreader, acted on behalf of the accused Nos.1 (owner of channel) and 2 (reporter) which (news) was telecasted by the accused 1 and 2. Therefore, without petitioner-accused No.3, the proceedings against accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot be sustainable. Therefore, the petitioner is also required to face trial.”
Case Title: Akshata Chougala & Others And State of Karnataka & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23752 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
The Karnataka High Court has granted relief to hundreds of applicants to the post of Graduate Primary Teachers who were placed in the General merit category by the State government as they had submitted the caste and income certificate of parents instead of the certificates of their spouse.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a batch of petitions and quashed the provisional select list insofar as it relates to the petitioners being brought under the general merit category.
Case Title: CH K.S.Prasad @ K S Prasad And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.195 OF 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
The Karnataka High Court has said that contribution towards provident fund by an employee is a statutory deduction and non remittance of it by the employer in the employee's account maintained with the Provident Fund Organisation, cannot attract the offence of cheating.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made this observation while allowing a petition filed by one CH K.S.Prasad and quashing the offences registered against him under sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: ABC And XYZ
Case No: M.F.A.NO.2786/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld a family court order which directed the mother of a seven years old girl child to hand over the custody to child's father, after observing that she herself was more attentive towards her illicit relationship at work rather than welfare of her child.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the appeal filed by the woman and observed, "If the issue regarding the relationship of the appellant with the said S (name redacted) juxtaposition the welfare of the child is considered, it appears that the appellant has given more importance to the illicit relationship of hers with the said S (name redacted) and has neglected the child...she had handed over custody of the child to her parents who were residing at Panchakul in Chandigarh while she continued to stay at Bengaluru with S (name redacted)."
Case Title: Cheluvaraju And Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16575 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
The Karnataka High Court has termed as 'preposterous' a petition filed by one Cheluvraju seeking to declare an affidavit filed by the Government of India before the Central Information Commission in his application, as bad in law.
The petitioner had filed an application under the Right to Information Act before the Commission seeking certain information. Following the affidavit filed by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs the application made by the petitioner came to be dismissed.
Case Title: Somanna & Others And Prakash
Case No: C.C.C. No.846/2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
The Karnataka High Court has convicted one Prakash for civil contempt and sentenced him to three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs 2,000 for wilfully disobeying court orders and alienating a property which the court had restrained him from doing so.
The court has also given the accused an option to avoid imprisonment by depositing the entire sale consideration amount received by him in alienating the property which is pending consideration of the appeal, within two months, which would be subject to the result of the said appeal or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.
Case Title: Hemanthkumar N And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24847 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka Public Service Commision to rectify the error made by a job applicant who had wrongly filled the application form under the Scheduled Tribe category instead of Scheduled Caste to which he belongs and regulate the provisional/final select list in accordance with his merit.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by one Hemanthkumar N, turned down the contention of the respondents that the order would open Pandora's box and become a precedent. It said, “If this order opens up Pandora's box; so be it, if it becomes a precedent; so be that. This Court would not turn a deaf ear to a cry of a Scheduled Caste candidate who has scored high marks, despite the trials and tribulations throughout that they face to lose the opportunity of getting selected for trivial reasons.”
Case Title: Syadul Akhon @Shahid Ahmad And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 252 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a bail application filed by a 42-year-old, who is alleged to have been living illegally in India for the last 20 years. According to the police, he is a Bangladesh citizen.
A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma, while refusing bail to Syadul Akhon @Shahid Ahmad, said: “It is alleged that he (petitioner) concocted the several ID Cards to project that he is an Indian Citizen. The allegation is of serious nature having serious consequences, such acts may prove to be a great threat to the Nation.”
Case Title: Jana Jagruthi Samithi & ANR And State of Karnataka.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 36109 OF 2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by one Jana Jagruthi Samithi and others seeking a directions to the State Authority, to see that certain private persons are not holding excess land beyond permissible limit and that such excess land be distributed among landless persons.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi on going through the records said “The petition is nothing but a clear misuse of a tool of public interest litigation for settling the personal score or targeting the respondents on a personal grudge.”
Case Title: SRINIVAS.S And STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10518 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
The Karnataka High Court has refused to release the mobile phone of a RTI activist, seized by the Police during investigation of a criminal case against him, citing his refusal to unlock the device for the purpose of investigation.
The petitioner allegedly videographed the proceedings of Mysore Urban Development Authority in his phone and later prevented discharging official duties of the MUDA commissioner. During investigation, the Police seized his mobile to retrieve the alleged video and send it for forensic examination. However, as per the prosecution, the petitioner did not cooperate in the investigation and flatly refused to unlock the device.
Case Title: Kyathappa S & others v. The Secretary & others
Case No: 312/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 49
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation which alleged that construction of Isha Yoga Centre is allegedly causing environmental degradation and defacing entire ecosystem in the Foothills of Nandi Hills and Narasimha Devaru Range (Betta) NDB. The plea had alleged that permission have been granted by the authorities in utter violation of environmental laws.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi dismissed the petition and said the reasons would be recorded separately.
Case Title: Pratibha Singh And Vineet Kumar.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.21852 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 50
The Karnataka High Court has issued directions to trial courts to follow a timeline, in deciding applications filed by estranged women seeking maintenance from their respective husbands under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna felt the requirement to issue the directions noting that “Proviso to Section 24 directs that an application filed under Section 24 seeking maintenance should be disposed of as far as possible within 60 days. The term “as far as possible” is being interpreted that the Court can pass orders even after six months in some cases, two years, three years or even four years after filing the application.``
Case Title: Santhosh Kumar H And A Keshava Bhat & Others.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4359 OF 2022 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4451 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 51
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a defamation complaint against an advocate, who is accused of filing a written statement with "objectionable statements against the complainant" before the Upalokayukta on behalf of his clients. The complainant is also a lawyer.
Justice K Natarajan rejected the contention of the accused - Advocate Santhosh Kumar M, that there is no criminal intention to defame the complainant or that he only acted in a good faith to protecting his client. The bench said: “The averments made by the accused or defamatory statement made by the accused will not fall under the exception of the section 499 of IPC as the statement made by the accused No.3 (Advocate) cannot be said to be in a good faith while conducting the trial or proceedings.”
A Week After Sending Him To Jail, Karnataka High Court Orders Release Of Advocate In Contempt Case
Case Title: High Court of Karnataka And K S Anil
Case No: Criminal CC 9 of 2019 C/w Criminal CC 13 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 52
The Karnataka High Court on Friday accepted the unconditional apology tendered by an advocate who was last week sent to judicial custody for contempt of court.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi said: “ By accepting the apology, the contempt proceedings are closed. Respondent accused be released forthwith.”
No GST Applicable On Supply Of Vouchers: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Premier Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd versus Union of India & Ors.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 5569 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that vouchers do not fall under the category of goods and services and therefore, the issue and supply of vouchers would not attract GST.
The bench of Justices P.S. Dinesh Kumar and T.G. Shivashankare Gowda remarked that vouchers, including Gift Vouchers and Cash Back Vouchers, are mere instruments accepted as consideration for supply of goods or services, which have no inherent value of their own.
Case Title: PUNARVASU @ VASU And INDRANI S
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20737 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (kar) 54
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an able bodied man has to take care of his wife and child even, by finding an avocation, if he has none.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made this observation while rejecting a petition filed by a husband questioning the order of the family court granting his estranged wife and child maintenance amount of Rs 10,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC.
Case Title: M V Guruprasad & ANR And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 61426 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 55
The Karnataka High Court has expressed deep anguish over the actions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) and its officials who for almost 15 years failed to pay compensation to landowners whose properties were acquired for public purpose in 2007.
Justice Krishna S Dixit, while partly allowing the petition filed by one M V Guruprasad, said, “The government cannot act as a robber of citizen's lands.” “Taking away private lands for the purported public purpose sans compensation militates against the spirit of constitutional guarantee enacted u/a 300A, the fundamental right to property no longer being on the statute book, notwithstanding,” it added
Case Title: G And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104244 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 56
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case where "omnibus allegations" of physical and mental harassment were made by a woman against her sister-in-law.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the petition filed by a woman who was chargesheeted along with other accused under sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 149 IPC. The court said, “In the statements of the mother and brothers of the complainant, there are no specific and distinct allegations made against the petitioner.”
Case Title: Shadaksharappa And Kumari Vijayalaxmi
Case No: W.P.NO.201274/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 57
The Karnataka High Court has issued broad guidelines for trial courts to follow in appointing Court Commissioners exercising power under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also to adhere to a timeline in receiving reports of the Commissioner.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde sitting at Kalaburagi, said “The report under Order XXVI of the Code, in an appropriate case, is an effective tool available to the court and the party to the proceeding. The party to the proceeding, may use this tool for proving his/her case and the court to unravel the mystery surrounding the case.”
Case Title: Shadaksharappa And Kumari Vijayalaxmi
Case No: W.P.NO.201274/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 57
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that an application made for appointment of a Commissioner for local inspection under provision Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can be made either before the commencement of the trial or after.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said “The provision is not 'stage' centric. Thus the provision can be invoked either before the commencement of the trial or after.”
Case Title: M.B.Jayadevaiah And The Managing Director, BMTC Central Offices & ANR.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 31943 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
The Karnataka High Court has said that in the event an employee suffers from disability of 40% or more while performing duty, as a matter of right such an employee would be entitled for benefit of downgrading of cadre in order to continue service without any adverse impact on the pay and other benefits.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj gave this clarification while allowing a petition filed by a one M.B.Jayadevaiah and quashed the general order issued by Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) and directed it to restore pay of the petitioner applicable to the post of driver which the petitioner was drawing before his cadre was downgraded in the year 2002 and pay him arrears of salary and extend all other consequential benefits.
Case Title: M/s Hindustan Medical Products And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6743 OF 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 59
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings initiated under provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act against a firm and its partners for allegedly supplying drugs of sub-standard quality.
Justice K Natarajan refused relief to M/s Hindustan Medical Products and its partner Pawan Kumar Loharuka, who had contended that he is only partner and he is not responsible and liable for prosecution. It is only the technical staff who are responsible for the manufacture of drugs, he had argued.
Case Title: Jayamma And Jayamma @ Nagamma
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.6 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
The Karnataka High Court has said that even if a blank cheque leaf, validly signed, is handed over by accused, which is towards some payment, it would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
A single judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D Huddar observed this while upholding the conviction handed down to accused Jayamma under section 138 of the Act, by the trial court and which was confirmed by the first appellate court.
Case Title: Sharan Desai v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.16114 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 61
The Karnataka High Court has suggested the Union of India to expeditiously take steps to notify certain criteria for nomination of Members from each state to Council of Architecture of India, qua their qualification and experience.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said till the compliance is made by “The State Government shall notify the criteria for nominations/selections of the member to Council for the ensuing vacancy.”
Case Title: Ramachandra & ANR And State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.201596/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against two Bank managers for changing the access of a locker, purportedly on the application of one of the joint holders. A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda said that no intention of criminality can be attributed to Bank managers for merely acting on the mandate of the customer.
Case Title: Sikandar Mohammad Ali Dalal & ANR And Babu Hanumanth Mindolkar & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 103071/2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
The Karnataka High Court has said that a court can exercise powers under Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure and pass order of staying the execution proceedings only if the suit challenging the decree and execution proceedings referred are pending before the same court and not before two different courts which are not of coordinate jurisdiction.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar sitting at Dharwad bench also clarified that the provision would apply only if the suit is instituted prior to institution of the execution proceedings and in the event the execution proceedings have already been instituted, mere institution of suit subsequently and its pendency cannot be made the basis to invoke Order 21 Rule 29 CPC.
Case Title: National Law School of India University And Manjula P R & others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1080 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by a single judge bench of the court directing the National Law School of India University, (NLSIU) to conduct re-examination in the Corporate Law paper of Formative – I Assessment, for one student out of 708 students who took the exam.
A Division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi allowed the appeal filed by NLSIU and set aside the order dated 23.08.2022 wherein it directed the University to conduct re-exam for Manjula PR.
Payroll Services By IBM Philippines Not FTS, TDS Not Liable To Be Deducted: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Director of Income Tax Versus IBM India
Case No: I.T.A NO.218 Of 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
The Karnataka High Court, while dismissing the appeal of the department, held that payroll services by IBM Philippines are not fees for technical services (FTS), and the TDS is not liable to be deducted.
The division bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda has observed that the work has been outsourced to IBM Philippines. IBM Philippines was carrying out the work described in the agreement between IBM India and P&G India. Hence, IBM Philippines was not rendering any technical service, and therefore, the income in the hands of IBM Philippines is a business income.
Case Title: A.B. Yomakeshappa And Karnataka State Information Commission & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 30170 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
The Karnataka High Court has observed that under provisions of the Right To Information Act, only such information that is available and existing and held by the public authority can be provided.
The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information that is not a part of record nor he is obliged to furnish information that is not accessible and available in his office, said the court.
Case Title: Indian Coffee Workers Cooperative Society Limited And The Senior Labour Inspector & Others
Case no: WRIT PETITION NO. 22751 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 67
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that workmen employed at the Indian Coffee Workers Co-operative Society Limited, if not paid minimum wages as prescribed, can make an application to the appropriate authority constituted under the Minimum Wages Act to consider their claim for recovery of minimum wages.
Further, it has said that Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 does not impose any embargo on an authority under the Minimum Wages Act to consider the claim.
Manual Scavenger's Dispossessed Widow Gets Land With House After Karnataka High Court's Intervention
Case Title: Nagamma And State of Karnataka
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.21320 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 68
The Karnataka High Court has for the second time come to the aid of a widow of a manual scavenger by ensuring authorities restore possession of a plot of land with a house, which was taken away as she did not have financial means to construct house on land allotted pursuant to an earlier high court order.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Nagamma and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the respondents for driving the petitioner to unnecessary litigation, and ignoring her request/representations for re-allotment of land.
Case Title: K J Kunjumon & others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.18737 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a case against four persons who allegedly tried to lure and convert a Hindu person to Christianity, in 2011.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by K J Kunjumon and others who were charged under sections 504, 323, 295A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. “There is a case and counter case registered against both the parties, such being the case, the petitioners are required to face the trial and the trial judge has to give the findings in both the cases and punish the aggressor of the crime. Therefore, at this stage, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed,” it said.
Case Title: Patil Malligemadu Chandrashekhar & others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: W.P. NO.8888/2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by lecturers, principals and associate professors working in affiliated colleges, aided and unaided by the state government, for enhancement of the age of superannuation from present 60 years to 65 years.
A single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said the contention of petitioners that even those working in Affiliated Colleges are to be treated on par with the Teaching Community drawing UGC Scales cannot be accepted, as the Teaching Community of the Universities drawing UGC Pay Scales form a distinct class of employees vis-à-vis other Teaching Community staff.
Plea To Quash S.138 NI Act Conviction Not Maintainable U/S 482 CrPC: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Vuppalapti Satish Kumar And VTH Source Components Pvt Ltd.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.991 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
The Karnataka High Court has said that a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash conviction handed down to an accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable.
Petitioner Vuppalapti Satish Kumar had approached the court seeking to quash the conviction handed down to him on 2.1.2023, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
102 Yrs Old Freedom Fighter To Get Pension Arrears After Karnataka High Court Intervenes
Case Title: H.Nagabhushana Rao And The Under Secretary FFR Division & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.405 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of 102 years old Freedom Fighter and has directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to pay arrears of pension which were withheld for a year as he was unable to submit the Life Certificate to the bank.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “Ebbing mental prowess and physical incapacity due to age was one of the prime reasons why the certificate could not be submitted in time. This, in the peculiar facts of this case, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed to take away the right of the petitioner for grant of pension, particularly, in the teeth of the guidelines.”
Case Title: Siddalingappa S T And Karnataka State Human Rights Commission.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 51993 OF 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
The Karnataka High Court has said initiation of proceedings by a complainant, post acquittal of the accused before the Karnataka State Human Right Commission, against a police officer who investigated the complaint and filed a chargesheet in the case is unsustainable in law.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani made the observation while allowing a petition filed by police inspector Siddalingappa S T and quashed the order passed by the Commission dated 20.06.2015, imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000 on the charges of dereliction of duty.
Case Title: Arunkumar N. T And Deputy Commissioner of Police & others.
Case No: WP 14221/2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday appreciated the efforts taken by the State government in providing Emergency Response Support Systems to address issues raised by citizens who are in need of assistance or in distress.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi remarked that the measures are citizen friendly, responsive and efficient. The observation came while disposing of a public interest litigation filed by one Arunkumar N T who had raised a cause in respect of the accidental misuse of the national emergency number 112 or other quick response facility numbers and misuse by certain pranksters.
Case Title: Times Now BCCL And Bhojaraj R Patil
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200023/2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.201460/2022, 201461/2022 & 201462/2022.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the summons issued to Times Now, India Today Group, India Today Editor-in-Chief Aroon Purie and news anchors Rajdeep Sardesai and Shiv Aroor by a trial court on a complaint filed by former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Bhojaraj Patil, alleging offences under Sections 499 and 500 of India Penal Code.
Justice V SRISHANANDA said the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons is mechanical in nature. The court remitted the matter for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with law.
Case Title: H C Nandish & ANR And The Ministry of Indian Railways & Others
Case NO: WP 16448/2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking to quash the decision of the State government by which it dropped the proposal for laying a railway line between Belur and Sakleshpur Taluks.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi dismissed the petition filed by one H C Nandish and another, saying it is devoid of merits. The state government had vide its order dated 17-01-2019 dropped the proposal for laying down the railway line stating that the project cost had exceeded enormously and it would not be feasible to continue the same.
Case title: Sachin And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201553 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order of the sessions court allowing an application made by the prosecution under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, permitting it to arraign a person as accused whom the police had earlier given clean chit in investigation.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by Sachin against arraigning him as accused No.2 in the case being tried for offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506, R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Cohiba Club And Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.31185 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
The Karnataka High Court has said the Excise authority is entitled to exercise powers under section 29 of the Karnataka Excise Act and cancel the license issued to a partnership firm running a Bar and Restaurant, if the transfer is not intimated to the concerned authority or fees is unpaid on change of partners in the firm.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition filed by Cohiba Club and upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the license issued to the partners of the Club.
Case Title: N Hanumegowda And State of Karnataka
Case No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an extortion complaint against a man who was alleged of threatening the complainant, stating that he is a RTI/RSS activist and would stall inauguration of a building if he is not paid money.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar noted there was no allegation against the petitioner that he put any person in fear of injury to extort money. It observed, "To constitute an offence punishable under Section 385 of IPC, a person must put any other person in fear of any injury. In the instant case, there is no material placed along with the charge sheet that the petitioner has put the defacto complainant in fear of any injury in order to commit extortion."
Case Title: Ramachandra Reddy & ANR And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3359 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.2096 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that if a term of life imprisonment under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is imposed on an accused and another fixed term sentence is imposed for another charge, then both sentences will run concurrently and not consecutively.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna gave this clarification while allowing the petition filed by convicts Ramachandra Reddy and another and directed that the sentences imposed upon the petitioners in terms of the impugned order of conviction dated 25.11.2010, passed in S.C.No.02/2007, shall run concurrently.
Case Title: Aithappa Naika And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 672 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 81
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the sentence of two years imposed on an 81-year-old convict and modified it to three days simple imprisonment after the convict volunteered to serve at an Anganwadi Centre for a period of one year. A single judge bench of Justice R Nataraj allowed the petition filed by Aithappa Naika in part and set aside the judgment of the appellate court holding him guilty for offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and imposing a sentence of two years along with fine of Rs 5,000.
Case title: XYZ And Karnataka State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 37674 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 82
The Karnataka High Court has held that the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights cannot pass an order granting visitation rights of the child to a parent.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani observed, “The Commission is an advisory body and it could frame or suggest policy decisions with respect to the child's rights to the State Government. The Act does not empower and conferred with any power of adjudication or to decide adversarial proceedings. The commission has no power to adjudicate any lis between two parties.”
Case title: DR. K.N.Anuradha And Karnataka State Information Commission & Others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 13791 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by the Karnataka State Information Commission while deciding on applications made before it under the Right to Information Act. A single judge bench of Jyoti Mulimani said “Given the increase of applications, it's high time the Commission addresses the issue properly and in a right perspective.”
Case Title: The Mysore Electrical Industries Limited And Engineering & General Workers Union.
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 3788 OF 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
The Karnataka High Court has held that Mysore Electrical Industries Limited, a State Government Undertaking, which is not registered under Section 7 of the Contract Labour Abolition Act (CLRA) shifted the services of its workmen to private agencies (contractors) without their consent, declaring their employment as contract labour, only for the purpose of depriving the workers their due amounts.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj upheld the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 03-12-2011, directing the employer to restore the services of the workmen.
Case Title: B Ranganath Hegde And Karnataka State Legal Services Authority & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 798 OF 2013
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the Demand notice/Communications issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, (KSLSA) and District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), to a former (now deceased) Member of the Permanent Lok Adalat, seeking to recover excess sitting fees drawn by him.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani allowing the petition filed by B. Ranganath Hegde, quashed the Demand notice/ Communications dated 03.12.2012, 08.11.2012, 12.09.2012 and 31.08.2012 issued by KSLSA and District Legal Services Authority by which an amount of Rs 46,900 was sought to be recovered.
Case Title: Kattemane Ganesha v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.441 OF 2015 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1055 OF 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
The Karnataka High Court has said trial courts dealing with criminal matters have to appreciate evidence as a whole and cannot ignore the cross-examination.
A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice Rajesh Rai K allowed the appeals filed by a murder convict Kattemane Ganesha and the victim in the same case. While Ganesha had challenged the order convicting him in the murder case, the victim had challenged the acquittal of the co-accused.
Case Title: M/s Inditrade Fincorp Pvt Ltd And Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.25172 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 87
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by M/s Inditrade Fincorp Ltd, challenging the order passed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) freezing its bank account under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The freezing order is passed on allegations that the petitioner disbursed small loans to small borrowers, through payment gateways while having an agreement with another company which allegedly has links to China.
Case Title: Jayanna B @ Jayaram And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3987 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 88
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Special Court which rejected the application made by an accused being tried under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (POCSO) to recall the prosecutrix (victim) from cross-examination.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan observed, “Of course, as per Section 33 of the POCSO Act, the prosecutrix/victim shall not be called frequently for cross examination by the Court. However, that does not mean there shall not be any opportunity given to the accused for the purpose of cross-examination of the prosecution witness.”
Case Title: P S Leelavathi v. N Ravi Shankar & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.42752 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that an application under Sections 50, 52 of the Mental Health Act for holding judicial inquisition and appointment of guardian for a mentally ill person, has to be made within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the alleged mentally ill person resides and not where his/her property is situated.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha made the clarification while setting aside an order dated 02-11-2017, passed by a civil court in Bengaluru and allowing the application made by petitioner P.S. Leelavathi, made under Section 50 (1) (d) of the Act.
Case Title: Karnataka Lokayuktha And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 7122 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 90
The Karnataka High Court has said that recommendation made by Lokayukta for imposition of a particular penalty on a government official after due inquiry made does not take away the power of the disciplinary authority to impose a lesser penalty on the official.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected the petition filed by the Karnataka Lokayuktha questioning an order dated 06.09.2021 by which the second respondent (Chandrashekhar) was imposed a penalty, which falls short of a recommendation made by it for imposition of particular penalty.
Case Title: Belandur GM Pan,Karyalaya And Government of Karnataka
Case No: Wp 13473/1998
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 91
The Karnataka High Court on Friday disposed of a petition filed 25 years ago raising a grievance about certain activities causing pollution in the tank bed area of Bellandur Lake.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Ashok S Kinagi disposed of the petition filed by Belandur Gram Panchayat Karyalaya and others. The bench said “Admittedly when the petition was filed there were no specific laws dealing with the issues of pollution and environmental damage. Further admittedly during passage of time the necessary laws have been framed having the provisions to deal with issues of air/water pollution and damage to ecology and environment.”
Karnataka High Court Upholds NEET For Undergraduate Homeopathy Courses
Case Title: Karnataka State Private Homoeopathic Medical College Managements Association And Union of India & oThers
Case NO: W.P. No.25723 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 92
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the Constitutional validity of provision of the National Commission for Homeopathy Act, 2020, which provides that there shall be a Uniform National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to undergraduate Homoeopathy courses in all the institutions governed under the Act.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil disposed of the petition filed by Karnataka State Private Homoeopathic Medical College Managements Association which had sought to strike down certain provisions of the Act and Regulations framed thereunder, claiming them to be unconstitutional.
Charger Sold Along With Mobile Phone Can't Be Differently Taxed: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The State of Karnataka Versus The Index Technologies India Ltd.
Case No STRP No. 8 Of 202
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 93
The Karnataka High Court has held that the charger, which is sold along with the mobile phone in one set, is taxable at the rate of 5%.
The division bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda has observed that the main intention of a purchaser or seller while buying or selling a "mobile set" is to buy or sell the mobile phone and not the charger alone. The supply of chargers, headsets, and ejection pins is incidental to the sale. Therefore, the dominant intention test would apply, and hence, the charger cannot be differently taxed.
Karnataka High Court Directs Police To Register Visually Challenged Person's Complaint Under PwD Act Instead Of Relegating Him To Common Law Remedy
Case Title: Basavanand Swamigalu And State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 100082/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a disabled person raising a complaint under provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, cannot be directed to seek relief under common law remedy.
A single judge bench of S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition filed by visually challenged Basavanand Swamigalu and set aside a communication issued by the police rejecting his complaint.
Case Title: Syed Ghouse Mohiyuddin Shah Khadri And State of Karnataka
Case No: WA 1110/2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 95
The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order which quashed State's decision to permit only a Mujawar (Muslim Priest) to perform the rituals at the Datta Peeta - a holy cave shrine in Chikmaguluru which is revered both by Hindus and Muslim communities.
The State had ordered that only a Mujawar appointed by Shah Khadri shall be permitted to enter the sanctum of the "Sri Guru Dattathreya Swamy Peeta" otherwise known as "Sree Gurudattathreya Bababudnaswamy Dargha" cave and to distribute 'teertha' to both Hindus and Muslims.
Case Title: ABC & others And XYZ
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200071 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
The Karnataka High Court recently modified an order passed by the Trial court which directed a woman be paid Rs.6,000 as monthly maintenance and a room be given to her for living in the shared house of the estranged husband.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the memo filed by the estranged husband who undertook to pay maintenance amount of Rs.6,000 per month and also pay an additional amount of Rs 5,000 for alternate accommodation to the woman.
Case Title: A Manju And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10435 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Chief Election Commission, State Election Commission and the Police Department to provide proper training to the officials, who are attached to the Election flying squad, on the procedure to be followed while reporting offences pertaining to Election Code violation.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan said most of the cases registered by the Police on the complaint filed by flying squad remain only as an empty formality during the election and finally in most of the cases, the Police files 'B' final report when the candidate is elected or files the charge-sheet against the losing candidate, "even though the police knowing very well that in a non-cognizable offence, the FIR cannot be registered without permission of the Magistrate.”
Cannot Interfere With ED Case Registered In Another State : Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Vihaan Direct Selling India Private Limited And The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.2576 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Kar) 98
The Karnataka High Court has held that it cannot interfere with criminal proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement in Mumbai merely on the ground that the accused is staying and operating a bank account in Karnataka.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by Vihaan Direct Selling India Private Limited which had approached the Court seeking to quash the case registered in 2013 by the Enforcement Directorate and to declare that the search conducted under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as illegal and unconstitutional.
Case Title: M Venkateshappa And The Karnataka Information Commission & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 22745 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
The Karnataka High Court has said if an order is passed by the Karnataka State Information Commission imposing penalty on a Public Information Officer, without considering the written explanation submitted by him or permitting him opportunity to give oral explanation, then the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani allowed the petition filed by M Venkateshappa, and quashed the order of the Commission dated 18.01.2008 by which it imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000 on the petitioner.
Case Title: Nagalinga And The Excise Commissioner in Karnataka & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.23306 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
The Karnataka High Court has held that a partner who files suit seeking dissolution of the partnership firm and which is pending adjudication, cannot seek for renewal of licence under the Karnataka Excise Act, for continuance of the business.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by one Nagalinga and quashed order dated 08.12.2021 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by which it confirmed the order of the Excise Commission renewing the licence on an application made by respondent No.3 (Y B Ramachandra).
Case Title: Murugan T And P. Jayagovinda Bhat & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 554 OF 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that even if a person was intoxicated or smelling with alcohol, the same cannot be an excuse for the driver of a bus for causing the road traffic accident and causing injuries to the injured person.
A single judge bench of Justice Dr H B Prabhakara Sastry allowed the petition filed by claimant Murugan T and set aside the order rejecting the claim petition filed by the petition and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration of the issue regarding entitlement of compensation to the claimant and quantum and from whom.
Case Title: Mallikarjun Desai Goudar And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4761 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 102
The Karnataka High Court has quashed charges of rape levelled against an accused who was booked on the complaint made by the victim, after the accused refused to marry her on being in a relationship with her for over five years.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition filed by Mallikarjun Desai Goudar and quashed charges levelled under sections 376, 376(2)(n), 354, 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The court sustained the charges against him under sections 323 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC.
Case Title: KARNATAKA UNAIDED SCHOOLS MANAGEMENTS ASSOCIATION And State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 5017/2023 C/w 1699/2023, 1668/2023,
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed three circulars issued by the State government by which it prescribed a Board Examination for students of Standards 5 and 8th in schools affiliated to the state board.
A single judge bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, allowed the petitions filed by Organisation for Unaided Recognised Schools and the Registered Unaided Private Schools' Management Association Karnataka and Karnataka Unaided Schools Management Association.
Case Title: ABC Vs XYZ
Case No: W.P.H.C. NO.46 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a man seeking direction to his wife to produce their minor son before the court and then direct his repatriation to Germany.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the petition filed by the father, it said, “The interim custody of the son has been granted to the wife by an interim order dated 08.06.2017 passed by the family court. The aforesaid interim order is still in force. Therefore, in violation of the aforesaid interim order, which binds the parties, this court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction would not direct repatriation of the son to Germany.”
Case Title: ABC Vs XYZ
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5183 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 105
The Karnataka High Court has declared a Christian couple's marriage as null and void holding that the woman had misrepresented and concealed her real age at the time of marriage.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar Patil allowed the petition filed by the husband questioning the order of the family court rejecting his petition filed under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act. The family court had held that petitioner (husband) failed to prove the grounds to declare his marriage with the respondent as null and void.
Case Title: ABC And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.R.P. NO. 1372 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that once an order is passed under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, holding that a child in conflict with law is required to be tried for heinous offences as an adult, the JJ Board has no jurisdiction to consider the bail application pending before it.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty added, "As against the said order, the juvenile has an option to file an appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 101(2) of the Act or he may also choose to file an application under Section 12 of the Act before the Children's Court to which his case is transferred."
Case Title: Jayamma & Others And State of Karnataka & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20671 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
The Karnataka High Court has while quashing an order passed by the Bangalore Development Authority denying TDR Certificates (Transfer of Development Rights) as promised to land owners while acquiring their lands for public purpose, observed, “A bare perusal of the impugned order gives an impression that it is texted with the mindset of a Draftsman of East India Company of the bygone era and not by the one whose heart is at the right place.”
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the petitions filed by Jayamma and Others and quashed the order dated 17.03.2022 issued by the Respondent - BDA whereby, the recommendation of the respondent —BBMP for issuing the TDR Certificates to them has been negatived.
Case Title: Lakshminarayana And Lokesh L
Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1189 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1151 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1153 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1158 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1311 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1346 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1350 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1355 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1356 OF 2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order passed by the appellate court refusing to release interim compensation deposited by the accused convicted under Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of complainants.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed a batch of petitions and directed that 20% of the amount in deposit be released to the petitioners - complainants with due identification, with a condition that they shall refund the amount within 60 days from the date of the order or plus 30 days, as per the proviso to Section 148(3) of the NI Act, if the accused is acquitted by the Appellate Court.
Sexually Harassing In Open Spaces Like Mall & Office Highly Improbable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Sameer Dinakar Bhole And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 697 OF 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a sexual harassment complaint lodged by an employee against her manager three days before her work contract with the private company was to end.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Delivery Center Manager of M/s Mindtree Company Limited and quashed the prosecution against him initiated under section 354 (A) and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Khaleel Ul Rehman & Others And Sharaffunnisa Muniri @ Ashraf Unnisa
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8508 OF 2022 CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION NO.14494 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
The Karnataka High Court has said that a stepmother, to claim maintenance amount from legal heirs of her deceased husband, has to prove before the family court by tendering evidence and submission of documents that her husband was having a lot of properties and they are having income and thus she is entitled for maintenance amount.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan partly allowed a petition filed by Khaleel Ul-Rehman, setting aside and modifying the order passed by the family court granting Rs 25,000 per month maintenance to their step mother.
Case Title: M/s D C B Bank Limited And The Assistant Commissioner
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18206 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
The Karnataka High Court has said that a mortgagee (secured creditor/Bank) gets rights over the compensation amount to be disbursed when the property which is mortgaged with it is acquired by the state government, as per Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed a petition filed by M/s D C B Bank Limited and directed Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to refer the claim of Petitioner – Bank forthwith to the Court of I Additional District Judge, Chitradurga, with all necessary papers, with intimation to the Petitioner. The Court after notice to all the stakeholders, shall adjudge the claim of Petitioner-Bank, within an outer limit of one year.
Case Title: Dr Sanjeev Kumar Hiremath And State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2459 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a case and a counter case have to be tried together by the same court irrespective of the nature of offences involved, to avoid conflicting judgments over the same incident.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the petition filed by one Dr Sanjeev Kumar Hiremath and transferred the case filed by him pending before the Magistrate court in Bengaluru under sections 341, 324, 504 and 506 to the Special Session court where the offence registered by the accused against Hiremath under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 is also pending.
Case Title: Dr Bhanu C Ramachandran And Union of India
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24609 of 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
The Karnataka High court has directed Union of India and the Bureau of Immigration to issue exit permit to a 26-year-old USA born student who misrepresented herself as Indian Citizen and pursued MBBS course under government quota, subject to her paying fees of the MBBS course at the rate that would be charged to NRI/overseas citizen of India.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna took a lenient view and partly allowed the petition filed by Dr. Bhanu C Ramachandran. The bench said “The petitioner has shamelessly resorted to falsehood and achieved her goals by unethical means. The petitioner is not even wanting to pursue her career in this country, having secured benefits throughout her career contending that she is an Indian.”
Case Title: M/S AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED And UNION OF INDIA
Case NO: WP 56621/2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the communication issued by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in 2018 to banks, directing them to freeze accounts of NGO M/s Amnesty International (India) Private Limited, alleging violation of provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, (FEMA).
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha said in view of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, ED's notice was valid only for 60 days. "The impugned notices dated 25/10/2018 at Annexures-F1 and F2 have lost their efficacy by efflux of time as the period of sixty days has expired," it said.
Case Title: The Public Information Officer And The State Information Commissioner & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.24537 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order passed by the Karnataka State Information Commissioner dismissing the second appeal filed by the Public Information Officer, on the ground that the petitioner being the PIO cannot maintain the second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha partly allowed the petition filed by the PIO attached to the Karnataka Lokayukta and set aside the order dated 04.01.2018 passed by Commissioner.
Case Title: Kavitha M And Raghu & Others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.12703 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
The Karnataka High Court has issued directions to be followed by magistrate courts for disposal of applications being made by an aggrieved person under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, within 60 days from the date of its filing.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The law Courts which exist to remedy the wrong when it is brought to its notice has to act swiftly, as it is trite that, actus curiae neminem gravabit that the act of Court should prejudice no person. If an act of the Court should not prejudice any person; the Court should not permit any procrastination of the proceedings before it.”
Case Title: Basangouda And Muddangouda & Others
Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7094 OF 2010
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
The Karnataka High Court has held that a female Hindu becomes the absolute owner of the property on acquisition of property by way of a partition deed agreed upon in the family and the property cannot be termed as acquisition by inheritance and thus would not revert to the siblings on her death.
A single judge bench of Justice C M Joshi sitting at Kalaburagi, allowed the appeal filed by Basangouda and set aside the orders of the trial and first appellate court which held that Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act was attracted in respect of the suit property held by his deceased wife Eshwaramma allotted under a partition deed, and thus it would devolve back to her siblings.
Case Title: Bharatiya Janata Party And Election Commission of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3592 OF 2023 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 2632 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Election Commission of India to act swiftly and conclude the exercise of correcting the electoral rolls in Shivaji Nagar and Shanthi Nagar constituencies in Bengaluru, by identifying voters who have expired and those who have shifted to other areas, by March 26.
Bharatiya Janata Party had approached the High court seeking consideration of their representations submitted on 30-11-2022 and 23-01-2023 to the Commission for corrective measures to be taken in the electoral roll concerning Shivajinagar Assembly Constituency.
Case Title: Master Arya Selvakumar Priya & ANR And Joint Secretary (PSP) and Chief Passport officer & others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.21642 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a 15-year-old child by directing the Passport Officer, Bengaluru to issue him an Indian Passport. The court said the travel document will remain operational till he turns 18 years old, or else he would be rendered Stateless.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said that merely because the minor's father is not traceable and the mother "has been reckless" in not knowing the consequences of renouncement of citizenship, the fate of the child cannot be left in limbo.
Case Title: Renuka Manghnani And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.4821 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that whenever a manual khata (property document) is issued, e-khata is to be issued immediately on an application being made, otherwise, the very purpose of implementing the system of e-khata would be lost.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and the Secretary, e-Governance Department, to institute and put in effect a system for proper methodology of consideration of the application, processing the application and disposal of the application for filing of e-khata, on the website of the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department under each Gram Panchayat.
Case Title: M/s S P Metals Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Case No: Writ Petition No. 1135 Of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
The Karnataka High Court has permitted the Superintendent of Central Tax to pass suitable orders for revocation of the cancellation of the GST registration, if the petitioner/assessee files returns. The single bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad has observed that the cancellation of GST registration was without due opportunity and was arbitrary.
Life Convicts Release Committee Must Meet Once In 2 Months: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Omkarmurthy And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1300 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to ask the Life Convicts Release Committee, headed by the Principal Secretary, State Home Department, to meet once in two months to review and pass orders on applications made for premature release/remission made by convicts serving life imprisonment.
“I deem it appropriate to direct the State Government to henceforth direct the 2nd respondent/Committee to meet at least 6 times a year – once in two months, so that those application/s are considered at the right time on their individual merit and cases being filed only to place the application/s before the committee would be obviated,” said the court.
Karnataka High Court Dismisses Appeal Against 30% Cap On Trade Margin Of 42 Anti-Cancer Drugs
Case Title: HEALTHCARE GLOBAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WRIT Appeal No: 83/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal filed challenging a single judge bench order dated November 30, 2022, which had upheld a 2019 order issued by the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers imposing a cap of 30% on trade margin of 42 anti-Cancer Drugs.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal dismissed the appeal filed by Healthcare Global Enterprises Ltd. “For reasons to be recorded separately, appeal is dismissed,” said the court.
Order XXI Rule 11 CPC | Judgment Debtor Cannot Be Arrested In Proceedings For Execution Of Arbitration Award: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The Principal Secretary & ANR And Tejasco Techsoft Private Limited
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 4525 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commercial Court, Bengaluru, ordering the arrest of the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Department of Health and Family Welfare in an execution proceeding.
A single judge bench Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar set aside the order dated 15-02-2023, saying it is "patently illegal”. The respondent Tejasco Techsoft Private Limited had sought to execute the award passed in arbitration and they made an application under section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking attachment of movables and immovables found in the office of the petitioners.
Case Title: K. Madal Virupakshappa And State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 1976/2023
Citation 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by BJP Leader Madal Virupakshappa in the alleged bribery case. The court had granted him interim anticipatory bail on March 7.
Virupakshappa was the Chairman of KSDL but resigned after his son V Prashanth Madal was allegedly caught red-handed by the Lokayukta while accepting a bribe in relation to a contract.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan had reserved the order on March 17, after hearing both parties. The petitioner's counsel had contended that there is absolutely no material to attract the provisions of Section 7 (a) (b) or (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case Title: T Roopeshkumar @ Roopi And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.392 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, the report based on which a person is to be externed must be mandatorily supplied to such person along with the notice so issued.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by T Roopeshkumar @ Roopi and said “The provision makes it mandatory for grant of reasonable opportunity and also permits the person against whom order of externment is to be passed to call any witness and examine him by filing an application.”
Service Benefits Do Not Form Bequeathable Estate Of Any Government Servant: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Sujata & Others And Nehru @ Kamagond Patil & others
Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7144 OF 2011
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
The Karnataka High Court has held that service benefits do not form the bequeathable estate of any government servant.
A single judge bench of Justice C M Joshi sitting at Kalaburagi dismissed the appeal filed by Sujata and others challenging the judgment of the trial court which was confirmed by the Senior Civil Judge vide its order dated 04.03.2011. The trial court and appellate court had decreed the suit filed by the appellants holding that Will of deceased Kalpana is proved by the plaintiffs but deceased could not have bequeathed the service benefits to the appellants, her sisters.
Case Title: Siddu And State of Karnataka
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 102074 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
Coming to the aid of a student pursuing B.Sc course, the Karnataka High Court has stayed for two weeks the execution and operation of the externment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, against him, to enable him to appear for examinations.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum sitting at Dharwad bench disposed of the petition filed by Siddu (20), who had approached the court questioning the Assistant Commissioner's order passed under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, externing him from Jamakhandi to Sedam Taluk on the ground that there is reasonable apprehension that he would engage in commission of offences.
Case Title: Anoop Bajaj And Jayanna
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6639 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 129
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash the defamation proceedings pending against the President of Bowring Institute, who allegedly circulated objectionable cartoons defaming the complainant (an expelled member of the institute), in the newsletter to other members of the institute.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by Anoop Bajaj and said “Sending the defamatory statement and the cartoons directly insulting the respondent by way of such statement, attracts Section 499 of IPC and it is not sent in good faith by the public authority in order to attract Exception 8 to Section 499 of IPC.”
Case Title: KM And KC & ANR
Case No: CRL.R.P. NO. 919 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 130
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 216 of Criminal Procedure Code, a trial court can only alter the charge or add to the charge which is already framed. It cannot delete a charge which has been already framed by it, said the court
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said: “If a charge is framed by the Trial Court for an offence which is not made out by the prosecution by producing sufficient material during the course of the trial, the Court can always acquit the accused for the said offence or the Court can punish the accused for lesser offences but after framing of charge before pronouncement of final judgment, the Court has no power to delete any charge which is framed by it.”
Case Title: The Director (Exams) & Others And Ravishankar & ANR
Case No: WA 363/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed the Director of Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board's appeal against an order of the Single judge bench that permitted a 10th standard student of Vidya Bharathi English School to take exams without opting for Kannada as one of the three languages.
The State government has introduced Kannada Language Learning Rules, 2017. All schools, be it CBSE or ICSE, have to mandatorily impart Kannada as one of the subjects.
Case Title: Himayath Ali Khan v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24074 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 132
The Karnataka High Court has permitted a businessman,against whom a look out notice was issued by the Bureau of Immigration in connection with a loan default case, to travel to UAE and Saudi Arabia.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna disposed of the petition filed by Himayath Ali Khan and said. “The petitioner is authorized to travel to United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia for a brief period, which is made subject to filing an affidavit of undertaking before this Court that he would complete his work and come back to the shores of the nation within the time as indicated in the said affidavit from the date he starts his journey.”
Case Title: M/S Patanjali Foods Limited Versus Union Of India
Case No: Writ Petition No.14963 Of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
The Karnataka High Court has held that only the Central Government can make provision for prohibiting, restricting, or regulating the import or export of goods or services, or technology and not the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).
The single bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar has observed that only the Central Government can formulate and announce the Foreign Trade Policy by 'Notification' in the Official Gazette and may also, in like manner, amend that policy. The power of the Central Government to formulate and amend the Foreign Trade Policy cannot be exercised by DGFT. As per Section 3(2) of Foreign Trade (Regulation and Development Act), 1992 (FTDR Act), only the Central Government can by Order published in the Official Gazette make provisions for prohibiting, restricting, or regulating the import or export of goods or services or technology and the power of the Central Government cannot be exercised by the DGFT.
Case Title: M/S Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India
Case No: Writ Petition No. 13185 Of 2020 (T-Res)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
The Karnataka High Court has an amendment to Rule 89(4) (C) of the CGST Rules by Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, unjust, and ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST Act.
The Bench of Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar has observed that Rule 89(4)(C) of the CGST Rules is ultra vires Section 54 of the CGST Act and Section 16 of the IGST Act. The very intention of the zero-rating is to make the entire supply chain of "exports" tax-free, i.e., to fully 'Zero-rate' the exports by exempting them from both input tax and output tax. Section 16(3) of the IGST Act allows a refund of input taxes paid in the course of making a Zero-rated Supply, i.e., supplies that cover exports as well as supplies to SEZs. The rule in whittling down such refund is ultra vires in view of the well-settled principle of law that rules cannot override the parent legislation.
Case Title: Manje Gowda And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 50646 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Principal Secretary to the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj to explore the possibility of making available hybrid hearings through video conferencing, at all quasi judicial authorities.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “In this age when courts have also installed hybrid hearings through video conferencing, the Prl. Secretary to explore the possibility of making available similar facilities at all quasi judicial authorities, so as to enable easy access to justice to the citizens of the country.”
Case Title: Rathnamma & ANR And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 7270 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
The Karnataka High Court has directed the prison authorities to consider the representation of a woman and release a murder convict on parole leave, for him to marry her or else she would be given in marriage to someone else.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Neetha G and Rathnamma and directed the authorities to release the convict Anand. It said “The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioners and release the detenue/Anand (convict Prisoner No.11699) on parole from the forenoon of 05.04.2023, till the evening of 20.04.2023.”
Case Title: Bujji @ Babu G And State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12080 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
The Karnataka High Court has refused bail to an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, who claimed that the victim minor girl was a consenting party and that there was absence of element of force.
Justice V Srishananda said the "consent, if any, of the victim girl for the penetrative sexual assault said to have taken place between the petitioner and the victim girl is immaterial while considering the scope of Section 3 of POCSO Act which is punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.”
Case Title: Nanjappa And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.573/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
The Karnataka High Court has said that a gift deed executed by a senior citizen can be declared as null and void under the Senior Citizens Act only if a stipulation is contained therein that the transferee shall maintain him or her in return.
A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice K S Hemalekha, while dismissing an intra-court appeal filed by Nanjappa, said, “On careful perusal of the document executed by the appellant in favour of the 3rd respondent, who happens to be the brother of the appellant, it does not contain any stipulation that the 3rd respondent is under the obligation to maintain the present appellant. In the absence of any condition stipulated in the documents, the provisions of Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act are not attracted.”
Case Title: Khadar Basha & others And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104219 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated last year against workers of now-banned Campus Front of India (CFI) for holding a meeting and gathering people at Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Bhavan, Bagalokot, when the authorities had prohibited such meetings on account of third wave of COVID-19.
Justice J M Khazi sitting at Dharwad bench allowed the petition filed by Khadar Basha and others who were charged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 270, 448 R/W Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 5 of Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance 2020.
Case Title: M P Renukacharya And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2098 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an alleged case of disproportionate assets against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Leader M P Renukacharya.
Justice K Natarajan, while dismissing the petition filed by the legislator, said the petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. On the private complaint filed by one Gurupadaiah, the police earlier registered FIR on 30.11.2015, wherein it was alleged Renukacharya had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income while he was a Member of Legislature Assembly during 2004 to 2008, again from 2008 to 2013 and also from 25.12.2009 to 23.12.2013 when he was Cabinet Minister of Government of Karnataka.
Case Title: Sudarshan Ramesh And Union of India & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.30 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to consider the representations made by Sudarshan Ramesh, brother of bitcoin scam accused Sirkrishna, seeking to recall the Look Out Circular issued against him, thereby not allowing him to leave India.
The representation is to be considered after completing the investigation in the money laundering case against Sudarshan, for his alleged involvement, within 6 weeks. However, it reminded petitioner that an accused or any other person who is connected with the proceeds of crime, but may not be accused in the predicate offence, has a bounden duty to co-operate with the investigation.
Case Title: T N Shivaraju & others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6419 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
The Karnataka High Court has said that if resignations tendered by Directors of a cooperative society are withdrawn within 15 days, then there is no resignation which can be said to have been taken place and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, in such circumstances cannot appoint a Special Officer for the society.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by T N Shivaraju and others, who are Directors of the Town Cooperative Society Ltd, and quashed the order dated 6.3.2023, passed by Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies appointing a special officer to the society under Section 31 (1) of the Act.
Case Title: Aisha Mallik & Others And Union of India & Others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.14333 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
The Karnataka High Court has refused to issue a direction to the Union of India to consider the representation of two minor Pakistani Nationals, for issuance of Indian passport and grant of Indian citizenship to them
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Aisha and Ahmed Mailk and said, “If the law elsewhere i.e., Pakistan does not permit renunciation of citizenship by minors up to a certain age, the law of this nation would not permit grant of citizenship to such persons.”
Case Title: Ramamurthy N And Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 22305 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
The Karnataka High Court has advised the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to be careful with complaints made by a party to a civil proceedings against its opponent, and initiate action only in accordance with law.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by one Ramamurthy N and quashed the order passed by the corporation issued under Section 321 (3) of the Municipal Corporation act against him on the complaint made by his brother.
Case Title: Isthiyak Ahmed And Election Commission of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6865 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that Returning Officer or the election officials would not get any jurisdiction to search or seize any material before announcement of elections.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “The Returning Officer or the election officials would not get any jurisdiction to search or seize any material before the announcement of elections. Merely because they are appointed as Officers for conduct of elections, they cannot use the said power before the declaration of elections. After the declaration of elections, the entire domain would be open, but not till then.”
Case Title: K. Shankarlal v. Post Master, India Post & Ors.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 2042 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
The Karnataka High Court recently came to the rescue of a 48 years old Bengaluru resident who was denied interest on PPF deposits, stating that his HUF PPF account was opened irregularly after the scheme was amended.
Stating that it was for the authorities to detect such irregular accounts and inform the investors immediately, a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna cautioned the Postmaster and the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices that failure to do so will lead to the Officers who manage such accounts being held responsible for dereliction of duty.
Caset Title: Roopa D And Rohini Sindhuri &ANR
Case No: WP 5814/2023.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday vacated the temporary injunction order passed by a Civil court in Bengaluru, restraining IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil from publishing any defamatory content against IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri.
A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar allowed the petition filed by Moudgil questioning the order dated March 7, by which the trial court had extended the life of injunction order.
Case Title: ABC And XYZ
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4290 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a woman challenging an order of the family court granting divorce on the grounds of desertion as the wife failed to counter the averments made by the husband in the petition.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil said “It is trite law that if a witness is not subjected to cross-examination by the other side, his testimony is deemed to have been accepted.”
Case Title: Coolulu Sports Private Limited And Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15087 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs to consider afresh whether the word “lulu” in the title of Coolulu Sports Private Limited company is identical to Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited a well known trademark.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Coolulu Sports Private Limited and set aside the order passed by Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, date 30-03-2022, restraining the company from using the word “lulu” from the title of its name. The court has directed the Regional Director to pass orders afresh within three months and till then it has directed the parties to maintain status quo.
Case Title: Kanchan Srinivasan And Bangalore Cyber Crime Police Station & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6532 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
The Karnataka High Court has accepted the submission made by an advocate that the amount received by her from a client who is accused in a cheating case is towards professional fee and has directed the police to instruct the bank to defreeze his account.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna disposed of the petition filed by Kanchan Srinivasan and said “In the light of the explanation so submitted and there being no material, I deem it appropriate to direct the Investigating Officer to direct the concerned Bank to defreeze the account that has been debit frozen within the next one week.”
Case Title: THE SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT AND MONITORING COMMITTEE And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.21595 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to forthwith identify/approve identified land for construction of a school building in Maddur Taluk, which was demolished after land on which it stood was acquired for widening and upgrading Bangalore – Mysore Highway.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was irked by the three year delay at the hand of the state government officials in constructing the new school building and on perusal of the photographs highlighting the conditions in the makeshift schools which the children are attending. It said “This Court would not permit the State to reduce the fundamental right of children under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, to a “mere rope of sand”".
Case Title: MOHAMMED SHARIFF And NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.5547 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused in the Bengaluru riots case of 2020, questioning the cognizance taken by Special NIA court of offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by accused Mohammed Sharif and said, “The ingredients of Section 15 (Terrorist Act) of the Act, in the considered view of this Court, are prima facie met.”
Case Title: H D Naveen And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.912/2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld a husband's conviction under Section 498-A (Cruelty) IPC for harassing his wife, stating that he perhaps developed an inferiority complex.
A single judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D.Huddar while dismissing the revision petition filed by H D Naveen observed, “Accused No.1 is unemployed. Perhaps he must be having an inferiority complex as his wife complainant is a BA., B.Ed. graduate, working as a teacher. That must have made the accused No.1 and his family members to harass the complainant by making unlawful demands and harassed her physically and mentally.”
Case Title: Thirakavva & ANR Ratnavva & Others
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1659 OF 2007 (PAR-) C/W RFA CROSS OBJ NO.101 OF 2008
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
The Karnataka High Court has suggested amending provisions of the law relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court and the District Court to hear the first appeals filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, which is governed under Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act of 1961 and Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, to ensure expeditious disposal of appeals.
The bench gave the suggestion while deciding on an appeal filed by one Thirakavva who had to wait for 16 years for the court to take up for final hearing the appeal filed by her. It observed “Ideally, the final verdict in an appeal should not take more than 2 years after admission. An appeal from the stage of filing till the disposal does not involve elaborate time consuming procedures like a suit.”
Case Title: Sudarshan V Biradar And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15800 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
The Karnataka High Court has declared the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Rules, 2022 by which it amended Rule 9 of the Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, and conferred powers on Revenue officials to decide on application for delayed registration of births and death, as ultra vires, the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.
The State Government by the amendment had substituted the words in sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 which hitherto read “a Magistrate of First Class or a Presidency Magistrate” with the words “an Assistant Commissioner (Sub-Divisional Magistrate)”. The State Government had taken away the power of the Magistrate of the First Class and placed it at the mercy of the Assistant Commissioner.
Case Title: M/s TTK Healthcare Ltd And P V Ravi
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29197 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
The Karnataka High Court has said that the Labour Court before coming to a conclusion that domestic enquiry conducted by the employer against terminated employee is not fair and proper, it has to grant opportunity to the employer to establish the Articles of Charge, levelled by it against the employee.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by M/s TTK Healthcare Ltd and set aside the award dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Prl. Labour Court, Bangalore. It remanded the matter back to the Labour court for fresh disposal by providing an opportunity to the employer to lead evidence to establish the charges against the workman.
Case Title: Kousalya And Government of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.RP.NO.764/2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 157
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the conviction handed down to a woman for cheating villagers and collecting money from them on the pretext of distributing gas cylinders to them.
A Single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar partly allowed the appeal filed by Kousalya and modified the sentence of two years imprisonment imposed on the accused to six months.
However, the court rejected the prayer of the convict that since she is a lady, some leniency may be shown by remitting the sentence and praying to enlarge her under the provisions of the Probation of Offender Act, (PO) 1958.
Case Title: XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WP 19973/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 158
The Karnataka High Court on Friday rejected the petition filed by Xiaomi India challenging an order passed by the Competent Authority appointed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act,1999 (FEMA), confirming the order issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seizing Rs.5,551.27 crores of the company.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna though upheld the maintainability of the petition, it dismissed the same on merits. The company had approached the court challenging the constitutional validity of section 37A of FEMA Act contending it to be violative of Article 14, 20 read with Article 300A and 301 of the Constitution of India. The provision empowers Centre's authorised officer to seize an entity's assets in India on suspicion of violation of FEMA.
UAPA Case: Karnataka High Court Upholds Rejection Of Alleged PFI Members' Default Bail
Case Title: Mohammad Bilal & others And Police Sub-Inspector Law and Order & others.
Case No: W.P.H.C. NO.10 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 159
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by five alleged members of the banned organisation Popular Front of India, (PFI), and upheld the order of Special court designated to try offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which rejected their application for grant of default bail.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil found no merits in the habeas corpus petition filed by Mohammad Bilal and Others. The Central Government had in September 2022 banned the organisation. The petitioners were arrested on October 12, 2022 for the offences punishable under sections 121, 121A, 121B, 153A 5 and 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 13 and 18(1)(B) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, on the allegation that they were engaged in unlawful activities.
Case Title: Rudresha And The Management of M/s TVS Motor Company.
Case no: WRIT PETITION NO.52668 OF 2014 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.37496 OF 2014.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 160
The Karnataka High Court has said that in cases where employer expresses loss of confidence in the workman, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, would have to consider the said contention in light of the surrounding facts and circumstances and ascertain if such a suspicion is based on objective set of facts or on the basis of any extraneous factor.
A single judge bench of Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the petition filed M/s TVS motor company (the employer) seeking to set aside the Labour court's order by which it set aside the punishment of dismissal imposed by the company and directed reinstatement of the workman. It also allowed the petition filed by workman Rudresh and set aside punishment of withholding two increments imposed by the Labour court.
Karnataka High Court Sentences 80-Yr-Old To One Day In 36 Yrs Old Misappropriation Case
Case Title: Hanumanthrao And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.R.P. No. 856 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
The Karnataka High Court recently modified the sentence of one year imprisonment imposed on a 80-year-old, former government servant who was convicted for misappropriating public funds and commuted it to one day–till the rising of the court.
A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by Hanumanthrao in part and said “The judgment and order of conviction passed by the courts below convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 409 & 477A of IPC is upheld. The order of sentence passed by the courts below against the petitioner for the said offences is modified and the petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs.10,000.”
Case Title: H Siddaraju & ANR Union of India & others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 5861 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
The Karnataka High Court has evolved a triple test theory to permit a couple to undertake the procedure of surrogacy, which otherwise was not permitted to them as the husband being 57-year-old has crossed the age eligibility criteria, under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed in part the petition filed by H Siddaraju and his wife and directed the State Surrogacy Board or prescribed authority to consider their application for grant of an eligibility certificate as is necessary in law for the petitioners to become parents by way of surrogacy, on the triple tests as indicated – genetic; physical and economical.
Case Title: M/s National Insurance Company Ltd And Mrs Asha & others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2603 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
The Karnataka High Court has said that the onus is on the claimants to prove that there was rash and negligent driving only by the alleged offending vehicle driver causing the accident. However, in case if the respondent/Insurer are able to show that the road traffic accident has not occurred in the manner as agitated by the claimants, then, the Tribunal should not hesitate in fixing the contributory negligence, on the part of the deceased.
A single judge bench of Justice Dr H B Prabhakara Sastry partly allowed the appeal filed by M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd and modified the award passed by the Tribunal dated 27-01-2017, and reduced compensation amount awarded from Rs 22,03,000 to Rs 21,00,000, to the claimants.
Case Title: B L Adishesh & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16906 OF 2022 (CS-EL/M) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 18949 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
The Karnataka High Court has held that erstwhile office members of a private club cannot process an election on the ground that the Administrator so appointed by the Government, has not taken charge.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by B L Adishesh and others who are members of the Vontikoppal Club, in Mysore. It quashed the final list circulated by the erstwhile office bearers and restrained the erstwhile office bearers from conducting election to the executive committee.
Case Title: Central Public Information Officer/Deputy Director General, Doordarshan Kendra And Central Information Commission & ANR.
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 2346 OF 2011 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 663 OF 2011
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 165
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that under the Right to Information Act, a Public information Officer has no authority to prefer an appeal against an order passed by the Appellate Authority, directing him to furnish information to an applicant under the Act. The power to prefer an appeal challenging an order passed by the Appellate authority has been conferred only on the persons who had sought for information, it held.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda has said, “There is no provision under the Act which enables any of the parties, let alone a Public Information Officer, to prefer an appeal against the order to the Second Appellate Authority.”
Case Title: D K Shivakumar And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.10479 OF 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
The Karnataka High Court last month dismissed a petition filed by Congress leader D K Shivakumar seeking to quash the sanction for prosecution granted by the State to the CBI, to investigate the offences alleged against him under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan said the impugned order was merely a consent given by the State under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, "it is not a sanction as required under either Sections 19 or 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.”
Section 87 NI Act | Cheque Not Invalid If Altered With Consent Of Drawer: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: D B Jatti And M/s Jamnadas Devidas
Case No: CRL.R.P No. 964 OF 2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 167
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if the payee or holder of the cheque had made alteration with the consent of drawer on cheque, such alteration cannot be a ground to resist right of payee or holder thereof.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar dismissed a revision petition filed by accused D B Jatti who had challenged the conviction order passed by the trial court for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and upheld by the Appellate court.
Karnataka Elections 2023: High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Permission For NRIs To Caste Vote From Abroad
Case Title: Ravi M And Union of India & others
Case No: WP 9720/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday rejected a PIL filed by a Non Resident Indian (NRI) seeking grant of voting rights to NRIs from the countries they reside in, during the Karnataka Assembly Elections, scheduled to be held on May 10.
A vacation bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil rejected the petition filed by Ravi M. In doing so, it accepted the submission made by the Election Commission of India that “The Right to vote is not a fundamental right and it is a creature of law. Therefore unless law is shown which provides for voting, the Right to vote cannot be sought for.”
Case Title: B Prashanth Hegde And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.18864 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 169
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Inspector General and Director General of Police (DG and IGP), to instruct all Investigating Officers of the Investigation Agencies to communicate the final report prepared by them to the first informant, as per Section 173(2)(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Section 173(2)(ii) obligates investigating officer to communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
Case Title: ABC And XYZ
Case No: M.F.A. NO.8527 OF 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with the order of a family court granting visitation rights of a minor daughter to her father. The mother of the child had objected to it on the grounds that her ex-husband had remarried twice after being divorced from her.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil observed, “The assertion of the appellant is that the respondent has married twice after getting divorce from the appellant and his second wife has a child out of her earlier wedlock and son is in custody of the respondent, the grant of any visitation rights would affect the health, well being of the minor daughter. The apprehension of the appellant has been taken care of by the Family Court, keeping in mind that the minor child being the female child of the appellant and respondent, the permanent custody is given to the appellant-mother.”
Case Title: Karnataka Golf Association And Karnataka Information Commission & ANR
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 55173 OF 2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
The Karnataka High Court has declared that the Karnataka Golf Association is a public authority as contemplated under the Right to Information Act (RTI). A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda dismissed a petition filed by the Association challenging the order of Karnataka Information Commission by which it declared the Association as a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Act.
Karnataka High Court Refuses To Stay PM Narendra Modi's Road Shows In Bengaluru
Case Title: N P Amruthesh And State of Karnataka & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9952 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Karnataka High Court on Friday refused to stay the roadshows to be held by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Bengaluru this Saturday and Sunday, ahead of assembly elections in the State on May 10. A vacation bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Vijaykumar A Patil held a special hearing today in the PIL filed by Advocate Amruthesh N P, raising concern over roadblocks and traffic jams due to the rally.
Case Title: Dilshad And Athaulla Khan & others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5640 OF 2018 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2018 (MV-D), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 334 OF 2018 (MV-I)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
The Karnataka High Court recently said that once a competent criminal court has found the driver of an offending vehicle guilty and convicted him for charges of rash and negligent driving and causing death, findings of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal that the driver of the car was another person, cannot be accepted.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda set aside the finding of the tribunal that had held the insurance company was not liable to pay as Athaulla Khan (driver) was not involved in the accident because in the MLC register and the wound certificate, the name of the driver was shown as Akthar, son of Ameer Jan Khan who had caused accident.
Case Title: Emmanuel Michael And Union of India.
Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1469/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 174
The Karnataka High Court recently reflected upon the huge pendency of cases before a Special NDPS Court, while refusing bail to a Kenyan citizen who was held under the Act over two years ago for allegedly attempting to smuggle drugs in the country via foreign routes.
A single judge bench of Justice M G Uma noted that pendency before the Trial Court as on April 1, 2023 is 1,308 special cases and remarked, “It is humanly impossible to dispose of all those matters in a time bound manner since invariably in all these cases there will be lengthy evidence that is being led by the prosecution and equally lengthy cross examination on behalf of each of the accused. There will again be lengthy arguments even on bail applications and on merits. Under such circumstances, the practicability of disposing of the matter expeditiously within a few months would be a herculean task.”
Case Title: Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited Versus Directorate General Of Goods
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 19570 Of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the GST Intimation Notice to the tune of Rs 21,000 crore and held that online/electronic/digital Rummy games and other Online/Electronic/Digital games played on Gameskraft's platforms are not taxable as "betting" and "gambling".
The bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar has observed that online, electronic, and digital games, which are also substantially and preponderantly games of skill and not of chance, are also not gambling.
Case Title: Vinod Damji Patel And The Hoskote Yojana Pradhikara & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.15103 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an endorsement issued by the Planning Authority of Hoskote Taluk in rural Bangalore, directing a private landowner to surrender a portion of his land free of cost, claiming it has been earmarked for widening of National Highway, and only then it would approve the construction plan submitted on the remaining land.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by one Vinod Damji Patel and directed the authority to consider and approve the plan submitted by the petitioner without insisting for such surrender free of cost. It remarked,
Case Title: Gajaraja And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.16978 OF 2022 c/w WRIT PETITION NO.1142 OF 2022, WRIT PETITION NO.3171 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against three officials of the Bengaluru Central Jail, charged with allegedly acting as broker in facilitating luxury amenities inside prison to former AIADMK General Secretary Sasikala Natarajan (VK Sasikala). Sasikala was lodged in prison in the year 2017 on being convicted by the Supreme Court in a disproportionate assets case.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petitions filed by Police Inspector Gajaraja; then Assistant Superintendent of Prisons Dr. Anitha R; and Chief Superintendent of Prisons Krishna Kumar.
Case Title: Social Democratic Party of India And Union of India & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 23167 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) seeking to unseal its properties in Mangalore which came to be sealed by the State government following the ban imposed by the Central Government on the organisation Popular Front of India (PFI).
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the notifications to seal the premises were issued under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. "Therefore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy which is statutory and necessarily to be availed of, in the peculiar facts of this case, as recording of evidence for the acts of the State is imperative.”
Case Title: ABC And XYZ
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.23969 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
The Karnataka High Court recently declined interference with a family court order refusing custody of the minor daughter to her father as he failed to create a congenial atmosphere in his house for the child to stay.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected the petition filed by the father and said, “It is a fact that there is nobody to take care of the child when the father is not around and the child is handed over to a male stranger. The mother has narrated that on several occasions the child had expressed her anguish getting too anxious about a stranger continuously photographing and videographing the child. If these facts are noticed, it becomes unmistakably clear that the father has not created a congenial atmosphere to the girl child, who is now 9 years old, he cannot therefore be heard to contend that he has a right to claim custody of the child, despite the afore-noted glaring facts.”
Case Title: Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Vidhya Peetha & ANR And The Chief Secretary & others.
Case No: WP No. 25316/2022 c/w WP No.25318/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a Government Order which appointed an Administrator to run the affairs of Sri Jagadguru Murugharajendra Bruhan Mutt at Chitradurga. The administrator was appointed as the pontiff- Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru was arrested in September 2022 following cases registered against him under the POCSO Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit observed that interference of the State in Religious Institutions, goes against its professed secular credentials. "In secularism, State neutrality qua religion is inherent and this requires the governance to maintain a distance from the affairs of religious institutions of all faiths, equally and further to respect their autonomy...The State and its functionaries should realise that by their very nature they can not be a can not, be panacea to all the evils in society. As of necessity, it should leave religious institutions to solve their problems on their own by appropriate measures, such as community mediation/conciliation or judicial process, of course subject to all just exceptions,” it said.
Case Title: Siddappa B H And The State By Lokayukta Police
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2954 OF 2023 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2906 OF 2023, CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2908 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
The Karnataka High Court has said that reports prepared by an investigating officer in discussion with his higher officers, before filing chargesheet, cannot be produced before the court for the purpose of evidence.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan said “Except the documents produced by the investigation officer under Section 161 of CrPC, the remaining documents cannot be summoned except for contradiction under Section 145 of Evidence Act.”
Case Title: ABC And XYZ
Case No: W.P.H.C. NO.34 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
The Karnataka High Court has directed a woman to comply with the settlement arrived at with her husband in regard to guardianship, custody and visitation rights of their minor son.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed by the father to produce the minor son and directed the mother to handover the custody of the son to the petitioner during the summer vacation, as per their settlement.
Case Title: Karnataka General Labour Union And Government of India & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9465 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
The Karnataka High Court has once again referred for Conciliation the matter regarding re-employment of 80 contract workers of Indian Telephones Limited who have been refused employment since December 2021, though they had been employed in the services for a period of 3 to 38 years.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that without prejudice to the issue of regularisation, the management had undertaken in the conciliation proceedings to immediately take back some workers and rest as early as possible. It noted that though this settlement was only interim in nature, its non-compliance halted further progress in the conciliation proceedings.
Case Title: Gangamma & ANR And Pratibha & ANR
Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.200010/2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
The Karnataka High Court has said that a court considering application for grant of Succession Certificate has no power to go into the substantial and intricate question of facts and law.
A single judge bench of Justice C M Joshi sitting at Kalaburagi bench, dismissed a petition filed by parents of one deceased Nagappa, challenging order of the trial court and appellate court granting succession certificate to the wife and son of the deceased. The court permitted the parents to approach the appropriate Court of law for determination of their grievance and for their share in the death benefits of the deceased.
Case Title: C Manjunath And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3560 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
The Karnataka High Court recently refused bail to a Government primary school teacher charged for allegedly sexually harassing the minor girl students studying in IV to VI standard.
A single judge bench of Justice Umesh M Adiga while rejecting the petition filed by C Manjunath observed, “Guru or teacher are considered as God in this Country and respected like a God. However, because of the alleged behaviour of the petitioner, even the parents think twice about sending their girl child to the school. It may spoil the name, fame and future of the said girl students. It is not a crime against the individual but crime against a society.”
Case Title: Sharnavva @Kasturi and Shivappa
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200044 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
The Karnataka High Court has held that courts while dealing with maintenance applications under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act or Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), should not go into the validity of marriage.
A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah sitting at Kalaburagi bench confirmed the trial Court's order directing petitioner's husband to pay Rs 3,000, per month as maintenance.
Case Title: Raman Sundaresan And Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 16821 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
The Karnataka High Court has said an employee recruited by a company outside India, if not paid salaries, cannot raise a belated complaint against its Director of running a recruiting agency without a valid certificate under Section 10 of the Emigration Act.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by one Raman Sundaresan, questioning the internal communication between Joint Secretary to the Protector General of Emigrants and Director General of Police, stating that the complaint made by him is beyond the purview of Section 10 of the Act
Blinkhit v. Blinkit: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Interim Injunction Order Against Blinkit Citing Non-Use Of Registered Trademark By Blinkhit
Case Title: Blink Commerce Private Limited And Blinkhit Private Limited
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5756 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
The Karnataka High Court last month set aside an interim injunction order of the trial court, temporary restraining the use of 'Blinkit' trademark- a famous online groceries delivery platform- for alleged violation of the rights of a software services firm Blinkhit.
Blinkhit claimed to have registered the marks 'BLINKHIT' and 'iBLINKHIT' since 2016.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar observed that the main ground on which the trial court has granted temporary injunction is that Blinkhit had obtained the registered trademark much prior to the appellant starting the use of word BLINKIT for its business. However, the profit and loss account statement and balance sheet of Blinkhit would clearly indicate that no business was being carried on and no income was generated by the respondent by using the trademarks.
Case Title: Town Essentials Pvt. Ltd. v. Daily Ninja Delivery Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: WP No. 15830 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
The Karnataka High Court has held that the non-signatory defendants cannot be exposed to arbitration under Section 8 of the A&C Act by allowing the dispute to be referred to arbitration.
The bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar held that when the cause of action against all the defendants is stated to be the same, it cannot be bifurcated so to allow arbitration proceedings against few of the defendants and continuation of the suit against the others as it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and delay in adjudication. It would also increase the cost of litigation and harassment to the parties and on occasions there is possibility of conflicting judgments and orders by two different forums.
Case Title: NG & others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P.NO.201257/2019 C/W CRL.P.NO.200660/2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered by a woman alleging cruelty and dowry harassment, against her in-laws and other relatives of the husband.
A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah, sitting at Kalaburagi bench, allowed the petition seeking quashing of the case and said: “The criminal case filed by the wife, alleging cruelty, dowry harassment against the husband and in-laws loses its significance, in case the complaint is made, after receiving the divorce notice from her husband.”
Case Title: Reeth Abraham And Sunil Abraham
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24842 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the trial court dismissing an application filed by a woman to club two pending suits for a common trial and disposal. The suits filed by her and her ex-husband relate to the same property.
Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the woman's petition and requested the trial judge to allow the subject application of the petitioner for clubbing and try both the suits together.
Attornment By Lessee Not Necessary For Transfer Of Property Leased Out To Him: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: G Jagadish Kumar And K G Murali
Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 650 OF 2011
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
The Karnataka High Court has said that attornment by lessee is not necessary for transfer of property leased out to him.
A single judge bench of Justice Ashok S Kinagi allowed the appeal filed by G Jagadish Kumar and directed the tenant K G Murali to vacate and handover the possession of suit property to the plaintiff. It rejected the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff is not the owner of suit schedule property and defendant is not the tenant under the plaintiff, as such, there is no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as the landlord/lessor and the tenant/lessee.
Case Title: Prasad A A And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1294 OF 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings launched under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) against a man who dropped the minor victim at her home on the instructions of the main accused.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that Petitioner-accused was neither involved in the planning nor commission of the offence. "The allegation is against accused Nos 1 to 4 who have allegedly been a part of the commission of offence. The petitioner was not even present during the commission of offence or in the scene of alleged crime. The petitioner comes into the picture after everything is over and only for the purpose of driving the victim back to her grand-mother's house. No other allegation is made against the petitioner," it observed.
Appellate Authority Can't Cure Jurisdictional Defect Of Original Authority: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Gurushree High-Tech Multi Speciality Hospital And Commissioner For Health And Family Welfare And Chairman Appellate Authority & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 729 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that if the original jurisdiction is not exercised by a competent authority, the Appellate authority even though competent cannot cure the jurisdictional defect of the original authority.
“If the original Authority is corum non-judice, the competent Appellate Authority, by considering the appeal cannot breathe life into such original order and make it corum judice,” a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna has observed.
Case Title: N P Amrutesh And Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.21879/2014
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to strike down as unconstitutional the orders establishing permanent benches of the High Court at Dharwad and Kalaburagi (earlier Gulbarga).
A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice K S Hemalekha observed that the benches had in fact rendered "distributive justice" to all the regions and thus, the petition serves absolutely no public interest.
Case Title: Karnataka State Level Advocates Clerks Association And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 24053 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the State government to formulate a scheme for welfare of the members of State Level Advocates' Clerks Association, within six months.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “The service rendered by the Advocates' clerks is not a service to an individual, but to the system, being attached to the Advocates. Therefore, the Advocates' Clerks play a significant role in the justice delivery system and if they are playing a significant role in the justice delivery system, the system cannot leave them in the lurch, in any eventuality that may ensue in the life of those registered Advocates' Clerks.”
Rape On Woman's Dead Body Will Not Attract Section 376 IPC: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Rangaraju @ Vajapeyi And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1610/2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
The Karnataka High Court has held that sexual assault on the dead body of woman will not attract the offence of Rape punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. It thus acquitted a man of rape charges for committing sexual assault on the dead body of a 21 years old girl, after murdering her.
A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice Venkatesh Naik T partly allowed the appeal filed by convict Rangaraju @ Vajapeyi, thereby setting aside the conviction under Section 376 of the Code. However, the court upheld his conviction for murder and confirmed the life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court.
Case Title: Jameela And Sullia Afsa & Others
Case No: CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO.500 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that in a partnership deed that provides for appointment of Arbitrator, the power of Arbitrator to resolve the dispute flows from the clauses of the partnership deed.
A Single Judge bench of Justice S G Pandit, dismissed a petition filed by one Jameela who claimed to be the second wife of deceased partner Hajee Ibrahim and sought dissolution of the firm and sought share in the assets of the firm of which the deceased was the partner. She sought appointment of sole arbitrator in this regard
Karnataka High Court Grants Parole To Convict For Meeting 75-Yr-Old Mother, Quotes Ramayana Verse 'Janani Janmabhumishcha Swargadapi Gariyasi'
Case Title: Shivappa Bellad And Superintendent of Open Air Prison & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 8631 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Superintendent of the Open Air Prison to grant emergency parole of three weeks to a convict to meet his ailing mother.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the petition filed by convict Shivappa Bellad. “This Court, being conscious of the shortness of human life and the irreplaceable position and bond between mother and children, is inclined to grant a restrictive & conditional indulgence in the matter inasmuch as petitioner's mother Smt. Gangavva, aged about 75 years, an inpatient in General hospital Kushtagi, is stated to be suffering from ailments natural to old age,” said the court.
Case Title: Dr Vinod G Kulkarni And Ministry of Railways & Others
Case No: WP 15520/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday refused to grant any relief and permitted the withdrawal of a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Union Government to restore the concession in fare for senior citizens in Railways.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal said “Ultimately what should be the fare, whether the concession should be given to a particular class, all these are policy issues, how a court can enter that arena. Time and again the Supreme Court has said "please don't do that, it is exclusively in the domain of the executive'. You can make a request to your elected representative.”
Case Title: M/s Mangalore New Sultan Beedi Works And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 10870 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
Observing that the Copyright Act provides for both civil remedy and filing of criminal prosecution, the Karnataka High Court said that merely because a civil dispute is being fought between the parties, the criminal proceedings cannot be halted.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said: “The infringement of a copyright gives rise to a cause of action on which a civil proceeding like an Injunctive Suit can be structured; it also can give rise to a cause of action for the institution of a criminal proceeding; in the former, it is preventive, remedial, compensatory or otherwise, whereas, in the latter, it is primarily punitive. The object, nature & outcome of these proceedings, thus are not the same. That is how the statutory scheme is enacted by the Parliament. Merely because a civil dispute is being fought between the parties, the criminal proceedings cannot be halted, per se, on that ground.”
Proceedings For Guardianship, Custody Of Minor Lie Only Before Family Court: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Nasim Banu & ANR And Shabas Khan & Others
Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.273 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a proceeding in relation to the guardianship of a person or the custody of or access to any minor has to be filed before Family court and it cannot be filed before a district court or any subordinate civil court.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh said, “Section 8 of the Family Courts Act is very clear with regard to exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings where a Family Court has been established for any area. The very proviso of Section 8(a) is very clear that no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to that sub-section.”
Case Title: Diocese of Chikkamagaluru And Lancy J Narona & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.98 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an Appellate court order holding that civil courts have jurisdiction to hear a suit filed in individual capacity by few Catholics, seeking a direction to the Religious head of the church to allow them to offer prayers/mass prayers in Konkani Language.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh dismissed the second appeal preferred by Diocese of Chikkamagaluru and said, “Admittedly, the suit is filed for the relief of worshipping in the church in a particular language. It is the contention that there are 42 Parishes of Chikkamagaluru and out of which Parishes of different places are also allowed to do the prayer in different languages and the same is disputed by the appellant herein. When such being the case, the same has to be decided only in full fledged trial and not at the initial stage of considering the averments made in the plaint.”
Case Title: Kreetams Pro Bono And Centre For Legal Research And Ministry of Secondary and Primary Education & ANR
Case No: WP 5724/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
The Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of a PIL seeking directions to the State's Department of Primary and Secondary Education to issue circulars mandating all educations institutes to establish an internal complaint committee (ICC) in the light of Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal disposed of the petition filed by Kreetams Pro Bono and Centre for Legal Research. In doing so, it relied on Aureliano Fernandes vs State Of Goa whereby the Supreme Court issued a slew of directions to fulfil the promise that the PoSH Act holds out to working women all over the country. Further it directed the Union of India, State Governments and Union Territories to file compliance reports within 8 weeks.
Case Title: Pramod R S And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1511 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a husband seeking to quash the complaint registered by his wife under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, after he sent her a legal notice seeking amicable settlement for dissolution of marriage.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “There cannot be a declaration of law as is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the divorce notice is sent by the husband, the complaint registered by the wife thereafter loses its significance. If this contention is accepted, it would have a chilling effect on all the complaints. Therefore, this submission is noted only to be rejected, as it is fundamentally flawed.”
Hereditary Archakship Conferred Only On Paternal Line Of Succession: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M S Ravi Dixit And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: W.P.No.54745/2016 C/W W.P.No.48392/2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
The Karnataka High Court has held that in order to claim hereditary archakship, the line of succession should be on the paternal side and not on the maternal side.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda dismissed a petition filed by one M S Ravi Dixit and his brother M.S.Venkatesh Dixit, who sought to be appointed as Archaks, of Sri Mahabaleshwara Swamy Temple at K.R.Puram, Bangalore East Taluk.
Karnataka High Court Quashes 8 Yrs Old FIR Against Former CM Yeddyurappa In Land Denotification Case
Case Title: B S Yeddyurappa And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1354 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered in the year 2015, against former Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa, on the basis of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for alleged illegal denotification of land and allotment of sites by the Bangalore Development Authority.
The court was informed that a coordinate bench of the high court had in 2015 considered the very allegations and had held that CAG report cannot be used as a foundation to build up a criminal case and cannot be made a part of investigation.
Case Title: Dr. Chandrashekar T B And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8789 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition moved by a Gynaecologist to quash a case registered against him under Section 21 of the POCSO Act for failure to report the incident of sexual assault on a minor.
Section 19 of POCSO Act mandates every person who has knowledge that sexual assault on a minor has been committed, to report it to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police. Failure to do so is punishable under Section 21 with six months imprisonment.
Case Title: Pavankumar A N & ANR And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3765 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 3764 OF 2023, 3770 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
The Karnataka High Court last month granted bail to alleged cow vigilantes Puneeth Kumar alias Puneet Kerehalli and four others, accused of causing the death of one Idris Pasha on April 1.
In the order made available yesterday, a single judge bench of Justice MG Uma took note of the discrepancy in lodging of FIRs.
The petitioners had lodged a FIR against Idris Pasha, Syed Zaheer and others for illegal transportation of cattle. On the same day, Zaheer is said to have lodged FIR no. 53 against petitioners at 5.30 pm. Court noted that another informant lodged FIR against petitioners at 4 pm alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 324, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, but the FIR was numbered 54.
Case Title: Dr M David And Department of High Education & others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.100234 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single bench order which cancelled the appointment of one Dr M. David to the post of Associate Professor, Zoology Department in the Karnataka University on the ground that he cannot claim caste status since he belongs from Andhra Pradesh.
The order was set aside by division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Umesh M Adiga citing lack of locus standi of the original petitioner, who was declared ineligible in the selection process. Significantly, the contentions regarding caste certificate have not been addressed by the Court.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Case No: WPHC 30/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed the Police to contact the employer of a woman who failed to hand over custody of her minor child to her husband despite a judicial order, and ask the employer to hold back her pay.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said the benefits payable to her be held till custody of the daughter is handed over. The bench was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the father. He was aggrieved by non-execution of Family Court order passed in March last year allowing his petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and directing the mother to hand over their 7-yrs old girl child to him.
Case Title: Abdul Rehman And The Deputy Commissioner & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 202519 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, to institute a mechanism for capturing the progress of applications which are filed under Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act for conversion.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Kalaburagi said it has come across several matters where the applications which had been filed for conversion have not been acted upon by the concerned authority resulting in unnecessary litigation.
Case Title: PG Setty Construction Technology Pvt Ltd And The Managing Director, Karnataka State Police Housing And Infrastructure Development Corporation & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 753 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a private contractor seeking refund of bank guarantee encashed by the Karnataka State Police Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation for carrying out "shoddy construction" of police quarters.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna remarked, “The construction if it is of such poor quality, it is high time that such contractor should be penalised; penalised I mean, in a manner known to law, in terms of the contract. That is what was exactly done by the Corporation. The act of penalising the petitioner for such shoddy construction is done by encashing the Bank guarantee. No fault can be found with the act of the Corporation in encashing the Bank guarantee.”
Case Title: M/s. GE T & D India Ltd. Versus State Of Karnataka
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 20035 Of 2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the recovery from the banker and directed the department to reconsider the application under the Karasamadhana Scheme.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav has observed that in the event that the application is rejected, it is needless to state that the petitioner cannot be placed in a position worse off, and the petitioner is entitled to the restoration of his appeal, which would be a logical course of action.
Case Title: Imran Ahmed And National Investigating Agency
Case No: CRL.A.NO.124/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
The Karnataka High Court has refused bail to an accused charged in the 2020 Bengaluru riots citing primacy of public safety and collective interest of the society over individual liberty as constitutionally guaranteed under the Constitution.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur also refuse to apply the 'bail is the rule and jail is an exception' dicta of the Supreme Court stating, "Firstly, such a dicta has to remain miles away when the class of offences which the accused is ascribed of, arise under a special statute of great significance, like the one at hands; secondly, the Parliament in its accumulated wisdom has enacted the clauses in the 1967 (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, that severely restrict the claim for grant of bail. Thirdly the statute also enacts a 'negative burden' clause, which places the onus on the shoulders of accused, much in variance with the normal rule i.e., the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.”
Case Title: Byluru Thippaiah And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100170 OF 2020 C/W CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE NO. 100002 OF 2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
The Karnataka High Court has confirmed the death sentence handed down to an accused by the trial court for murdering his wife, sister-in-law and three children below the age of 10 years, suspecting the fidelity of his wife.
A division bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice G Basavaraja said the case qualifies the test of rarest of rare cases requiring the award of the death penalty. “The atrocity of the crime resulting in five deaths including of 3 children below 10 years of age and the brutality with which the same has been committed, leaves us no option but to confirm the order of death sentence passed by the trial Court, which we do with a heavy heart,” it remarked.
Case Title: Vipul Prakash Patil And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104152 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
The Karnataka High Court has said that in order to proceed against a person with criminal action, the complainant or prosecuting agency must show prima facie material whereby some nexus could be established to the alleged crime with a person. If such material is not available, very registration of the case against such persons would definitely amount to abuse of process of law affecting the right of a citizen enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda sitting at Dharwad bench allowed the petition filed by one Vipul Prakash Patil and quashed the FIR registered under Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Section 9 of Karnataka Protection of Interest of Deposits in Financial Establishment Act.
Election Campaign: Karnataka High Court Quashes 4 Yrs Old Case Against Congress MP DK Suresh
Case Title: D K Suresh And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10599 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered in the year 2019, under sections 171H of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 133 of the Representation of People Act, against Congress MP D.K. Suresh for allegedly campaigning in an open vehicle without obtaining due permission from the authorities.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Suresh and quashed the proceedings. The bench took into account the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that a coordinate bench of the court had quashed the proceedings against co-accused in the case
Case Title: A Vasudevachar & Others And The District Registrar & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.48476 OF 2013
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
The Karnataka High Court has held that when a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement filed by the proposed purchaser is dismissed, the District Registrar directing registration of sale agreement, ignoring the Civil court order, is contrary to law.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha set aside the order of District Registrar directing Sub-Registrar to register the document despite the civil court refusing relief of specific performance. “On perusal of the order of the Registrar would make it evident that the Registrar is sitting over the judgment of the Civil Court by going to an extent of enquiring into the dispute between the parties when the Civil Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract,” the bench observed.
Case Title: Mrs Divya Ganesh Nallur & ANR And NIL
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 24429 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
The Karnataka High Court has held that just because an estranged couple are residing under the same roof, a court cannot reject their plea seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, on this ground alone.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed a petition filed by a couple and set aside the order of the family court dated 15-10-2022 and remitted the matter back to the family court, requesting the judge to pass a judgment & decree in terms of the Compromise Petition and the report of the Mediator at the earliest.
Case Title: Allauddin & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 200126/2020
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed the proceedings initiated against four persons belonging to the management of Shaheen School in Bidar, where the students belonging to classes 4, 5 and 6 had staged a play on the CAA and NRC in the year 2020.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar sitting at Kalaburagi bench, allowed the petitions filed by Allauddin & others and quashed the prosecution initiated against them under sections 504, 505 (2), 124A, 153A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Case Title: M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9771 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against Samsung India under the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum found the complaint to be self-contradictory and said there is total misinterpretation of relevant provisions of the Act and Packaged Commodities Rules 2011. It said, “This Court is of the view that the complaint does not disclose any offence. The offences indicated in the complaint are applicable to retail packages and not to wholesale packages and therefore, on meticulous examination of the allegations made in the complaint, it is clearly evident that the complaint is tainted with malafides. The allegations made in the complaint are found to be totally frivolous and vexatious. Even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted in entirety, the same does not constitute any substantive offence and prima-facie the allegations are found to be frivolous.”
Case Title: D K SHIVAKUMAR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRL.P 5726/2022, CRL.P 3328/2023, CRL.P 3330/2023, CRL.P 3348/2023, CRL.P 3349/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed the case against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar and others registered under the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code, for carrying out a padyatra in January 2022, demanding implementation of Mekedatu project, when allegedly Covid-19 restrictions were in force.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the case saying, “Whoever would contravene Sub section 1 of Section 5 would be punished is what the statute mandates. In terms of the statute there is no notification was issued by the State government then barring such activities. The notification which the State relies upon is the one issued under the Disaster Management Act and not under the Epidemic Diseases Act. Therefore unless notification under Epidemic Diseases Act is issued barring such activities, taking recourse to the Disaster Management Act and bring it into Epidemic Diseases Act is unavailable.”
Case Title: Coffee Day Resorts (Msm) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 9594 Of 2023 (T-IT)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
The Karnataka High Court has held that a notice and assessment order passed in the name of a non-existing company is substantively illegal and is an order passed without jurisdiction.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, in which it was held that the assessment order framed in the name of a non-existing person was void ab initio.
Non-Consummation Of Marriage Not Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: ABC & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7067 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal complaint filed by a wife against her husband under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that he did not have physical relations after marriage on account of watching spiritual videos and thus it amounted to cruelty.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the husband and his parents and quashed the proceedings registered against them by the wife 28 days after marriage. It said,“Neither the complaint nor the summary charge sheet narrates any factum/incident that would become an ingredient of Section 498A of the IPC. The only allegation is that he is a follower of Brahmakumari, always was watching videos of one sister Shivani, a Brahmakumari; gets inspired by watching those videos, always told that love is never getting physical, it should be soul to soul. On this score, he never intended to have a physical relationship with his wife. This would undoubtedly amount to cruelty due to non-consummation of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and not cruelty as is defined under Section 498A of the IPC.
Case Title: Mali Rizwan And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9709 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that consideration of objective material and subjective satisfaction of the competent authority is necessary before passing an order of externment.
A single judge bench of Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda partly allowed the petition filed by one Mali Rizwan and quashed the order of Sub-divisional Magistrate, externing him from the limits of Kundapura to Sagara Sub-Division for 3 months. It said, “The objective material relied on is only the police report for subjective satisfaction. Non-compliance of Section 56 of the K.P. Act (Karnataka Police Act) is imminent. The impugned order lacks subjective satisfaction and test of reasonableness.”
Case Title: Gururaj Havanur And The Management of Syndicate Bank & ANR
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 109981 OF 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the dismissal order passed by the Management of Syndicate Bank against a former Manager accused of misconduct. A single judge bench Justice S Vishwajith Shetty sitting at Dharwad said, “While considering the question of proportionality of sentence imposed on a delinquent, the Court should also take into consideration the nature of duty performed by him and other relevant circumstances which go into the decision making process...If the delinquent was holding a responsible post and if he has breached the trust and acted with dishonesty he is required to be dealt with iron hands. If honesty and integrity are in-built requirements for the post held by him, no lenient view can be taken against him.”
Case Title: Sindhu Boregowda And Yashwanth Bhaskar B P
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.24827 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by Family Court allowing application made by the wife to cross-examine her husband subject to a condition that she would bear his travel expense of Rs 1.65 lakhs, from the USA to Bangalore.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the petition filed by Sindhu Boregowda and said “Putting a condition of the kind would virtually amount to foreclosing petitioner's right to cross examine/further cross-examine the respondent that too in a serious matter in which her marriage is at stake. Courts of justice cannot stipulate a condition to a party which he or she will not be in a position to comply with.”
Case Title: Vijesh Pillai And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case N0: WRIT PETITION No.11186 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines for Judicial Magistrates to be followed strictly while issuing orders granting permission to the police to investigate non-cognizable cases on requisition made to it either by the police or the complainant.
The court has issued a warning to the Magistrate courts that any deviation from what is directed will be construed that the Magistrates are contributing to the huge pendency of cases by their callous action of passing inappropriate orders and would be viewed seriously.
Case Title: The City Municipal Council And Akbar Patel
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 87922 OF 2012
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 94(1-A)(i) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, an Educational Institution is exempted from payment of property taxes and the institute is not required to obtain an exemption certificate, every year. It said the exemption applies to all the buildings which are used for the purpose of running educational institutions and/or incidental activity.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Kalaburagi bench dismissed the petition filed by erstwhile City Municipal Council, Bijapur, challenging an order of the appellate court which held that the respondent who is an educational institution is exempted from payment of property taxes.
Case Title: Ramesh Naik. L v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 18915/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday permitted the petitioner Advocate Ramesh Naik L to withdraw the public interest litigation filed by him seeking measures to minimise the weight of school bags carried by students of primary education.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal said “The party in person submits that as the petition was filed in a little hurry the necessary information could not be collected and as such seeks prayer to withdrawal the petition with a liberty to file a fresh PIL with all requisite necessary information. Allowed to withdraw, with liberty as prayed for.
Case Title: Prajith R And XXX & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.544 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 232
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the FIR lodged against a man by a married woman, complaining that she was cheated by the man as he failed to keep his promise of marriage to her.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the man's quashing plea and said, “Cheating is alleged on the ground that the petitioner has breached the promise of marriage. The complainant admits that she is already married and has a child from the wedlock. If she is already married, there can be no question of cheating on the breach of promise of marriage. Therefore, the said offence also cannot be laid against the petitioner.”
Case Title: V V Singara Velu & ANR And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3095 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the prosecution initiated against a couple under section 306 IPC, alleged to have abetted the suicide of their nephew by threatening him over a property dispute.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held, “Proximate to the death must be a dynamic act, be it direct or indirect. It should be proximate to the occurrence of death and it should be instigation of the kind that it drives a person to commit suicide.”
Case Title: Lingasugur Taluk Halumata Abhivrudhi Samiti ( R ) & Others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 201552 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a society and its governing body members registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, challenging an order of the Registrar directing enquiry under Section 25 of the Act, on the complaint made by a third party alleging violations regarding the proper running of the society.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Kalaburagi dismissed the petition filed by Lingasugur Taluk Halumata Abhivrudhi Samiti (R) and its members who had challenged the notices issued by the Enquiry officer to them.
Case Title: Subramani And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2097 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
The Karnataka High Court has held that the trial court has the power to find an accused guilty for the lesser offence even though the charges were framed for major offences. But when the charges are framed for lesser offence, the Court cannot convict and sentence for the major offence punishable with imprisonment more than the offence which were charged, without altering the charges as per Section 216 of CrPC.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan set aside the conviction handed down by the trial court under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, to accused Subramani.
Case Title: B S Kumar Swamy Versus State Of Karnataka
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2130 Of 2022 (T-Res)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
The Karnataka High Court has issued directions determining the tax difference calculation for pre-GST works contracts.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav observed that the "tax difference" should be calculated on balance works executed or to be executed after July 1, 2017, separately. The petitioners sought the declaration that the provisions of the GST Act are inapplicable in respect of works contracts where provisions of service are made prior to 01.07.2017.
Case Title: K P Pushpesh & Others And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 879 OF 2016 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2118 OF 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
The Karnataka High Court has acquitted three youths convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for charges of murder, holding that there were material contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses to the incident and the prosecution failed to corroborate their evidence with any other material.
A division bench of Justice K Somashekhar and Justice Rajesh Rai K acquitted KR Pushpesh, PV Vinaya and KR Radish who were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for life, for murdering one Nousheer. The bench said, “The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that, if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused persons and the other to their innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused persons should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice should be prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is not less than the conviction of an innocent.”
Case Title: Pramod Mutalik And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200528 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 238
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated in the year 2017, under Section 153A and Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code, against the Founder President of Sri. Ram Sene, Pramod Mutalik for allegedly making provocative statements while addressing a public gathering.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar sitting at Kalaburagi quashed the proceedings stating, “Section 196 of Cr.P.C. specifies that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 153-A of IPC and Section 295-A of IPC, except the previous sanction of the State Government. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance for the aforesaid offences without there being previous sanction by the State Government. Hence, in the absence of previous sanction, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the above said offences, is one without authority of law.”
Case Title: Parameshwarappa And The State
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2012
Citation; 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 239
The Karnataka High Court recently modified the conviction handed down to an accused for attempt to murder charge and convicted him for a lesser charge of grievous hurt under Section 325, for squeezing the testicles of the complainant during a fight.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan partly allowed the appeal filed by convict Parmeshwarappa who was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. It sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for three years under Section 325 of the IPC.
Case Title: Mrs Gauramma & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4725 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 240
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the Principal and others officials of a school in Kodagu district, challenging the order of the Magistrate court rejecting the 'B summary report' filed by the police in relation to alleged abetment to suicide of a student.
The "mischievous" student was suspended for allegedly carrying alcohol to school. Upon his parent's request, he was allowed to appear for examinations online from his home. However, it is alleged that the student kept waiting for the exam link but did not receive the same. After the exam and answer sheet collection time got over, he committed suicide, the complaint states.
Case Title: Aniruddh v RGUHS & connected matters
Case No: WP 7019/2023, c/w 9985 OF 2023 (EDN-RES), 7577/2023, 8381/2023, 8655/2023, 8837/2023, 9032/2023, 9433/2023, 9577/2023, 9702/2023 & 9834/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 241
The Karnataka High Court has directed Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) to re-conduct practical/clinical exams in respect of over 70 students, for failing to conduct the practical exams as per regulations prescribed by the Medical Council of India.
A single judge bench of Sachin Shankar Magadum said it is a settled principle of law that MCI which is now known as NMC has prescribed a set of four examiners for theory and practicals. "It goes without saying that every examiner has to independently assess and assign marks which is lacking in the present batch of petitions. Therefore, it is unfortunate that respondent-University and examiners in gross violation of the findings recorded by co-ordinate Bench are again repeating the same mistakes,” it held.
Case Title: M R Seetharam And State By Anti Corruption Bureau & others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7524 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 242
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the proceedings initiated against former legislator and Educationist, MR Seetharam under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 of the IPC.
He is charged in connection with a disproportionate assets case involving TN Chikkarayappa, former Managing Director at the Cauvery Neeravari Nigam.
Seetharam, in the capacity of President of MS Ramaiah Education Society, had signed off Rs. 50 lakh interest free education loan in favour of Chikkarayappa's daughter. When the Lokayukta sought details of the transaction, it was informed that the Society had become defunct and therefore, no records could be traced. Following this the Lokayukta completed its investigation and filed a charge sheet against five persons, naming Seetharam as an accused.
Case Title: Jairam Ramesh & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 25123/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 243
The Karnataka High Court today refused to quash the FIR registered by music company MRT Music against Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi, Jairam Ramesh and Supriya Shrinate over the alleged copyright infringement by the use of song from the Kannada movie "KGF Chapter 2" in the promotional video for the "Bharat Jodo Yatra".
A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "Petitioner appeared to have tampered with source code, which would amount to infringement. Copyright of complainant is taken for granted and therefore prima facie all this requires investigation."
Case Title: X Corp v. UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WP 13710/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 244
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Twitter Inc, challenging the blocking orders issued to it by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY) under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit also imposed a cost of Rs. 50 lakh on the microblogging platform, citing its conduct. It also refused Twitter's request to stay the operation of the order. "Your client (Twitter) was given notices and your client did not comply...Punishment for non-compliance is 7 years imprisonment and unlimited fine. That also did not deter your client. So you have not given any reason why you delayed compliance, more than a year of delay...then all of sudden you comply and approach the Court. You are not a farmer but a billion dollar company," the Bench said while pronouncing the verdict.
Sales-Tax Exemption Certificate Has Overriding Effect Over VAT Notification: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: State of Karnataka Versus Aishwarya Fort
Case No.: S.T.R.P. NO. 45 Of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 245
The Karnataka High Court has held that the sales tax exemption certificate is valid for 7 years and could not have been rescinded before the period of eligibility expired as it is a sovereign assurance.
The bench of Justices P.S. Dinesh Kumar and C.M. Poonacha has observed that the State Government discontinued sales tax-based incentives. However, the incentives already offered and committed were saved. By issuing a subsequent Notification under the Karnataka Sales Act, 1957 (KST Act), it was clarified that the incentives offered earlier would remain unaffected.
Case Title: Kailash S Raj & others And State of Karnataka
Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3371 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.3314 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 246
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by owners and two employees of the Karnataka Aromas Company for quashing the FIR filed by Lokayukta police on allegations of offering to pay bribe to Prashanth, son of former Legislator Madal Virupakshappa, in relation to an alleged tender scam.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “It is high time the menace of corruption is plugged and nipped in the bud by making the bribe giver susceptible for such prosecution, like the bribe taker.”
Karnataka High Court Allows Tax Exemption On Voluntary Donation Received By Educational Institution
Case Title: Pr Commissioner Of Income-1 Tax (Exemptions) Versus M/S Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust
Case No.: Income Tax Appeal No. 554 Of 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 247
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a tax exemption on voluntary donations received by educational institutions.
The bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda has observed that the educational institution is carrying out education that is charitable within the meaning of Section 2(15), it has applied or accumulated sums as required by Section 11(1)(a), the explanation thereto, and Section 11(2), it is duly registered under Section 12A, and it has not violated Section 13. There is no private gain, and all the funds are plowed back only into education. Thus, accumulations and applications are as per the provisions of Section 11. Therefore, exemption under sections 11 and 12 has to be granted to the assessee.
Karnataka High Court Directs Nursing College To Pay ₹10 Lakh Each To 10 Students For Year Loss
Case Title: Mother Marry College of Nursing & Others And The Registrar
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO.200583 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 248
The Karnataka High Court has directed a Nursing college to compensate ten students a sum of Rs 10 lakhs each for causing the loss of one year by admitting the students post the deadline for admissions set by the University.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the Mother Marry College of Nursing to compensate the students. Further, it directed the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, to initiate such action against the College as may be available in law including filing of criminal complaint and administrative action against charter of the respondent-University.
Case Title: ABC And XYZ
Case NO: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4378 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 249
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a petition filed by a woman seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty, after the husband failed to challenge the petition or the evidence led by the wife.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde set aside the family court order rejecting the divorce petition. It said, “When there is no challenge to the petition as well as to the evidence led by the wife, this Court is of the view that the Family Court erred in rejecting the petition.”
Case Title: Francis Xavier Crasto And State of Karnataka
Case NO: Criminal Petition No. 4781 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 250
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that on an accused being acquitted by the trial court, his passport cannot be withheld on the ground that period for preferring an appeal against the order of acquittal is yet to get over.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Francis Xavier Crasto and directed the concerned court to release his passport.
