Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: January 10 to January 15, 2022

Judgments1: Karnataka High Court Upholds GST & Central Excise Duty On Tobacco; Says 'Articles 246 & 246A Can Be Simultaneously Exercised' Case Title: M/s.V.S.Products v. Union of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 7 The Karnataka High Court upheld the notification dated July 6, 2019 issued by the Union of India by which Central Excise Duty has been levied on tobacco and tobacco products. Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav said, "It needs to be kept in mind that taxation is not merely a source of raising revenue but is also recognised by the fiscal tool to achieve fiscal and social objective." 2: Live Streaming Of Court Proceedings: Karnataka High Court Directs State To Provide Requisite Infra At Subordinate Courts Case Title: Dilraj Rohit Sequeira v. Union Of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 8 The Karnataka High Court directed the State government to expeditiously consider and resolve the infrastructure requirements at district courts in Karnataka, for effective implementation of the Live streaming rules of judicial proceedings.3. Won't Give Effect To Google Play Billing Policy Clarification Till Oct 31 : Google Tells Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Google India Private Limited v. Competition Commission Of IndiaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 9The Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of the petition filed by Google India challenging an order of the Competition Commission of India rejecting its request for access to the identity of app developers/ start-ups allegedly suffering harm on account of Google Play store payments policy 2020. A single-judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit took on record the joint memo filed by the parties–Google, Competition Commission of India and Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF).4: S. 482 CrPC| Can't Appreciate Evidence In Quashing Petition: Karnataka High Court Reiterates Case No: Criminal Petition No.2860/2021 Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 10 The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a Court hearing a petition for quashing of FIR/ charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC cannot appreciate evidence as the same lies within the domain of the trial Court. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "It is a settled principle that while deciding the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, evidence cannot be appreciated as it lies within the domain of the Trial Court."5: Person Working At Mutt Can't Claim 'Tenancy Rights' Over Appurtenant Land Granted For Residential Use: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Sr Admar Mutt v. YashodaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 11The Karnataka High Court has held that a cook, working for the Sr Admar Mutt in Udupi district, cannot claim occupancy over appurtenant land which was granted to him by the Mutt for residential use. A division bench of Justice P S Dinesh Kumar and Justice P Krishna Bhatt allowed the appeal filed by the Mutt challenging the single judge bench order dated April 21, 2011, by which it had confirmed the Land tribunal order granting occupancy to the cook. 6: CID Not Authorized To File Charge Sheet, Proceedings Vitiated: Karnataka High Court Upholds Seer's Acquittal Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shree Shree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 12 The Karnataka High Court has upheld a 2016 order of the trial court by which it discharged/ acquitted Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji, pontiff of the Shree Ramachandrapura Math, accused in a rape case. Justice V. Srishananda noted that the charge sheet in the matter was not filed by the authorized person. It thus observed, "If the charge sheet is filed by a person who is not the authorised person to file a final report as is contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, entire proceedings would definitely stand vitiated. Consequently, the further proceedings in pursuance of the said charge sheet is to be declared as non est." 7: Victim Can't Invoke Revisional Jurisdiction Against Each & Every Order Of Trial Court, May File Appeal Against Final Order: Karnataka High Court Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shree Shree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 12 The Karnataka High Court has held that a victim/ complainant does not have the right to challenge each and every order that is passed by the trial Court. The filing of a revision petition itself is not a right which is granted to a party to a criminal trial, Justice V. Srishananda said while dismissing the revision petition filed by the alleged rape victim against the trial court acquitting Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji, pontiff of the Shree Ramachandrapura Math. 8: Essential Commodities Act: Karnataka HC Upholds State's Prerogative To Impose Conditions For Grant Of Authorization/Compassionate Appointment. Case Title: Manmohankumar V.C v. The State Of Karnataka Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 13 The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: January 10 to January 15, 2022

Mustafa Plumber

Tags