- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Karnataka High Court Half Yearly...
Karnataka High Court Half Yearly Digest: January To June 2022 [Citations 1 - 237]
Mustafa Plumber
11 Oct 2022 12:45 PM GMT
![Karnataka High Court Half Yearly Digest: January To June 2022 [Citations 1 - 237]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/10/10/750x450_438516-karnataka-high-court-half-yearly-digest.jpg "Karnataka High Court Half Yearly Digest: January To June 2022 [Citations 1 - 237]")
PS Mohan v. State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 1 Dr. R. Chandrashekara v. State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 2 Malappa @Malingaraya v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 3 Anish Mohammed Rawther v. The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 4 Chepudira Madaiah v. Mallengada Chengappa. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 5 Bandenawaj v. The State Of...
PS Mohan v. State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
Dr. R. Chandrashekara v. State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
Malappa @Malingaraya v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
Anish Mohammed Rawther v. The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
Chepudira Madaiah v. Mallengada Chengappa. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
Bandenawaj v. The State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
M/s.V.S.Products v. Union of India. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
Dilraj Rohit Sequeira v. Union Of India. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
Google India Private Limited v. Competition Commission Of India. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
Pradeep Moparthy v. State Of Karnataka. 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 10
Sr Admar Mutt v. Yashoda. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
State Of Karnataka v. Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shree Shree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji. 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 12
Manmohankumar V.C v. The State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
The Member Secretary v. Chief Secretary, Govt of Karnataka. 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 14
K Mallikarjuna v. H A Sudha Mallikarjuna. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
Dr Ganesh Nayak v. V Shamanna. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
Parvathamma v. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
Suresh v. D Ramesh. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
The Governor Reserve Bank Of India v. Velankani Information Systems Limited. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
Yashihirao Horinouchi v. The Deputy Director Of Factories. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
Abrar Kazi v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
Lalitha v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
High Court Of Karnataka v. The State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
Yamuna and another versus The State. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
Venkatesh And State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
Amrusha Das v. State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
Gaurav Raj Jain V. State Of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
Basavaraj v. Umesh. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. Shekar B S. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
Ramesh v. State Through Dy RFO. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
Srinivas Murthy H.N. And State Of Karnataka. 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 32
Mrs Kiran Iccha Kaur Bhasin And Director-General. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
Devendrappa H v. The State. 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 34
ANI Technologies Private Limited v. State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
Surrayya Parveen @ Annapoorna v. Labour Officer Cum Minimum Wages Enquiry Authority, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
Dr Vaibhav Khosla v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
Jeetendra Kumar Rajan v. T. G. Shivashankare Gowda, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
Kamal Pant v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
Joswin Lobo v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
Ramesh Malli v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Wireless, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
Resham & Anr v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish v. Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar)43
Indian Institute of Management Bangalore v. Daivanti Thakare, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
Dr Arun Kumar B C v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
M.S. Kadkol v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
All India Gaming Federation v. State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
Karnataka State Law University v. Mahantesh, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
Somashekara @ Soma v. State Of Karnataka, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 49
Sunil Kumar v. State By Periyapatana Police Station, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 50
Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. K.Koteswar Rao, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 51
Hemalatha v. Venkatesh, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 52
Shivanand S/O Karabasappa Gurannavar v. Basavva @ Laxmi W/O Shivanand Gurannavar 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
M/S SAPL-GCC JV v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 54
Dhondiba Anna Jadhav v. The State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 55
Padmanabha v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 56
Michael Graham Prince v. Mrs. Nisha Misra 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 57
L.S. Tejasvi Surya v. State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
Bibi Ayesha Khanum v. Union Of India 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 59
Rabiya Abdul Hamid Bepari v. The Chairman, School Managing Committee, Volkart Academy. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
K T Naveen Kumar And The State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 61
Dr S Srinivasa v. Mandya University 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
Devendra Pai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
Dr Shantha Raj T R v. The State By Sub Inspector of Police 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
M/s. Prashanthi Affiliates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
Meera Ajith v. John Doe Alias Ashok Kumar 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
Thippeswamy @ Thipeshi v. State By Jagalur P.S 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 67
Kumari M. v. The State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 68
Chiranjeevi M. Kulkarni v. Karnataka State Law University 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
Amol Kale v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
Darshan And State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
Kum. Mayavathi v State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
Union of India and Ors. v. M/s Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
Mahantesh v. Netharavati, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd V State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
Narendra Prasad P. V N. Sujatha, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
Sunil Chajed v State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
Navodaya Medical College V. The State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
Kasturi Rajupeta V. Union Of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
Bhavith Sheth V. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 81
Vijaya v Shekharappa 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 82
Law Students Association v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
Archana M G v. Abhilasha 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
Mrs. Prachi Sen v. Ministry Of Defence 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
State Of Karnataka v. Somanna 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
Praveen Surendiran V. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 87
Dasari Chakradhar V The Registrar (Evaluation) 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 88
Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
Prabhuraj V. The State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 90
Varavara Rao @ Pendyala V. State Of Karnataka: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 91
State Of Karnataka v. Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 92
Muthanna Mapangada vThe State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 93
S. SHYAMALA @ KATHYAYANI v. B. N. MALLIKARJUNAIAH 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
Tanaji S/O Nayaku Nikam v. Bharati W/O Tanaji Nikam 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 95
Irfan Pasha v State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
MRS DEPHNY GLADYS LOBO v. ASST COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT SENIOR CITIZEN MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
P.C.Padmamba v Channaveeramma R, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 98
Rehan Khan v. Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
A B Devaraju and Others v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
NANJAPPA v. STATE BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
Faheem Ahmed V Union Of India 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 102
Xxxxxxxx V The Registrar General 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
M. Surendra Rao v M. Raveendra Rao and others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
Shanti Dhama College v The Principal Secretary 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 105
PRABHAMANI v. HEMALATHA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
CTI Future Corporation versus Ducgiang Chemical and Detergent Powder Joint Stock Company 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
Sayyad Mohammad @ Nasim V State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 108
Wing Commander G B Athri (Retired) v Union Of India 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 109
Iqbal Ahmed v C.B.I. SCB 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 111
Renuka W/O Anand @ Anantsa Bakale v Ramanand S/O Ramkrishnasa Basawa And Others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
M/S. A. SEATING & Others v. M/S. NANDINI MODULARS 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
J P I Dass School Of Nursing V State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 114
BABU S v. STATE BY KENGERI POLICE STATION 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
D V VENKATESHAPPA v. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
Master Pavan S v. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 117
Letzkit Foundation v. The State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
Kumaresh K and Others v Union Of India and Other 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
SOHO PUB AND GRILL And STATE OF KARNATAKA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
Zuhab Hameed Shakeel Manna @ Zohib Manna v. The National Investigation Agency 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
Rajkumar And The State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 122
WE CARE CHARITABLE TRUST v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
Lakshmikanta and Other v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
Ms Padmavathi Subramaniyan v The Ministry Of Civil Aviation 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 125
Dr. UMESH P.G v. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
VASANTH ADITHYA. J v. STATE BY KARNATAKA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
Mohamed Ikbal v. Secretary to the Government of India 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 129
K Srinivas V The Karnataka State Election Commission 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 130
Shanthi Nikethan High Court v other v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
P Balaji Babu v. State Bank of India 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 132
Srikanth L Ghotnekar and Other v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
THE MEMBER SECRETARY OF A P P CUM AGP RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE v. THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
JANARDHANA PUJARI S And Karnataka State Law University, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 135
Murali Krishna Brahmandam v. Chief Electoral Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
SALEEM KHAN v STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
Comanduru Parthasarathy v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
Sampada and others v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
Suresh v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
South India Biblical Seminary versus Indraprastha Shelters Pvt Ltd and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
Suo-Motu v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 5781/2021 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SHANKAR URF SHANKRAPPA S/O RAMPPA HUBBALLI, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
HUBBALLI DHARWAD ADVERTISERS ASSOCIATION and others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
MOHAMED ARIF JAMEEL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., v. NAGENDRA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
Stanley Joseph v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
Sathish N v. Ambika J, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
Chennaiah @Doddachennaiah and others v. Bylappa and others Case, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
B S PRAKASH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., and connected matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
Babu A Dhammanagi vs Union Of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
The Management Of Ksrtc v. K.Shivaram, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
Banu Begum W/O Khajasab Alias Mehaboobsab and Others v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
Savithri v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
Pooja S v. Abhishek Shetty, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Praveen Kumar Adyapady and Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 157
Indian Council For Cultural Relations & Others v. Ajay Merchant & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 158
Rashmi Tandon & Anr v. The State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 159
Ashwini v. State of Karnataka, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 160
Prashanth Sambargi v. The State of Karnataka And Anr, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 161
Injamam Shariff v. State of Karnataka, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 162
Good Shepherd Convent v. State of Karnataka And Others, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 163
Chief Executive Officer and Anr v. K.V.Puttaraju, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 164
Sushil Goel And Anr v. State At The Instance Of Drug Inspector, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 165
M/s. Manipal Technologies Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
SHIVAPRASAD @ SHIVA v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 167
N.R. Sugandaraju v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
NETHRA v STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 169
V Srinivasaraju v State by Yelahanka Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
E S Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
Shalini and Anr. versus National Highways Authority of India and Ors. Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
CANCER PATIENTS AID ASSOCIATION v CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
SUJIT S/O MADIWALAPPA MULGUND v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 174
Sangeeta Gadagin v. State Of Karnataka, & C/W Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
Vikram Vincent v. State of Karnataka & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
Prakash Sharma S/O Mehdi Sharma v. State By Marathahalli , 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
SATHISH K and others v State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
The Bangalore Development Authority and Others v. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
G.H.Abdul Kadri v. Mohammed Iqbal, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
B.A.HARISH GOWDA v. RAVI KUMAR, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
SRIKANTAIAH v STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU and ANR, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
ITI Limited versus Alphion Corporation & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
DR. K.RAVINDRANATH SHETTY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA & others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
BOPPANDA N. KUSHALAPPA v. BALEYADA K. CHERAMANNA and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
Dr Yasin Khan v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
BHIMAPPA JANTAKAL @ BHIMANNA & others v State of Karnataka and ANR, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
SRINIVASA and ANR v STATE BY BEECHANALLI POLICE STATION, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
The Vice Chairman Settlement Commission & Anr. versus M/s Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
ANAND C. @ ANKU GOWDA & others v. CHANDRAMMA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
ACHUT D. NAYAK & Others v THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE & ANR 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. ABDUL S/O MEHABOOB TAHASILDAR and C/W matter. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
DIVYA & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
M/S. CREST FACILITY MANAGEMENT v UNION OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
K. SRINIVAS & others v. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
DR CHIDANANDA P MANSUR v. UNION OF INDIA & others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
BASAVARAJ ITAGI & others v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
M/s Abhiram Infra Projects Private Limited versus The Commissioner, Karnataka Slum Development Board 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
SAMANTHA CHRISTINA DELFINA WILLIS & ANR v STATE OF KARNATAKA and others 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
Ananda v. State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
MAHAMMAD ALI AKBAR @ ALI UMAR v State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
Sobha Ltd. v. Nava Vishwa Shashi Vijaya and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
Gokaldas Images Private Limited versus Aries Agro-Vet Associates (Pvt) Limited & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
CITIZENS ACTION GROUP v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
MURULY M.S. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
Arun Vincent Rajkumar v S Mala. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
Hanumanthappa v State of Karnataka & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
GANESH PRASAD HEGDE & Others v SUREKHA SHETTY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
T.L. NAGARAJU v THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
RT Rev Prasanna Kumar Samuel v State of Karnataka & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
D.ROOPA v H.N.SATHYANARAYANA RAO. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
MUZAMMIL PASHA v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
XXXX versus XXXX. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
RAJAMMA H v THIMMAIAH V. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
BEML Ltd. v. Prakash Parcel Services Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
RATHNAMMA v. STATE REPRESENTED BY PSI, CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
Umapathi S. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
VISHWAS V v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
Lakshi Venkateshwara Kallu Kutukara Bhovi Shakhara Sangha v. The State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
Vikas Verma & Others v. Union of India & Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
RITHESH PAIS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
ARCHANA GIRISH KAMATH v. UNION OF INDIA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
V.KRISHNAMURTHY v. DIARY CLASSIC ICE CREAMS PVT. LTD, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
B.DURGA RAM v. The State By BENGALURU CITY CENTRAL P.S.=, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
PUBLIC TV (KANNADA NEWS CHANNEL) and ANR v. BANNADI SOMANATH HEGDE, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
XXX versus STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
D M Deve Gowda v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
REKHA & Others versus LALITHAMMA & Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
NELSON RAJ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw 229
Kavitha v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
Mrs Leena Rakesh v Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home Affairs. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
YUSUB S/O MOHAMUSAB SANADI v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 232
SUPRIT ISHWAR DIVATE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
M.AJITHKUMAR v THE STATE BY FOOD INSPECTOR, KOPPA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
XXX v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
SHIVANAND LAXMAN ANCHI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
LAKSHMAIAH REDDY v. V ANIL REDDY & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: PS Mohan v. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
The Karnataka High Court said that no permission of the Central Government was required to construct lodges/ resorts within the reserve forest area at Dubare in Kodagu district as the concerned company- Jungle Lodges and Resorts Limited- is owned and controlled by the Karnataka Tourism Development Corporation.
Case Title: Dr. R. Chandrashekara v. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the State Government to immediately start construction of Gastroenterology Science & Organ Transplantation Institute in Bengaluru and complete the same in a time bound manner. It will be the first hospital only for organ transplant in the country. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition filed by Dr. R. Chandrashekara and Dr. B. Rudrappa, pending which the construction of the hospital had been put on hold.
Case Title: Malappa @Malingaraya v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a rape accused seeking to quash the DNA report which confirmed him to be the biological father of a child born to the victim of sexual assault. Justice HP Sandesh dismissed the petition filed by accused Mallapa @Malingarya. The Court said, "It is clear that ordering for DNA itself should not be as a matter of routine but wherein deserving cases, the Court can direct for DNA test and there is no prohibition for ordering DNA test and the same is subject to each facts and circumstances of the case."
4.Enforcement Directorate May Probe PMLA Cases Throughout India, Including J&K: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Anish Mohammed Rawther v. The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
The Karnataka High Court has said that the Enforcement Directorate can probe a case under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, throughout India, including the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "Sub-section (2) of section 1 of the (PML) Act reads "It extends to the whole of India. Thus, keeping the RPC (Ranbir Penal Code) offences away from the Act would offend the very parliamentary intent of extending this Act "to the whole of India."
5.'Adverse Possession' Of Property vs 'Permissive Possession': Karnataka High Court Explains
Case Title: Chepudira Madaiah v. Mallengada Chengappa
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
The Karnataka High Court has said a person will not acquire adverse possession by simply remaining in permissive possession, for however long it may be. Dr. Justice HB Prabhakara Sastry said, "Article 65 of the Limitation Act presupposes that the limitation starts only if the defendants prove the factum of adverse possession affirmatively from a particular time."
6. Section 427 CrPC -Sentence Of Escaped Life Convict Will Not Run Concurrently : Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Bandenawaj v. The State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
The Karnataka High Court has said that a life convict on being sentenced for escaping from prison on grant of parole leave, cannot claim that his subsequent sentence, less severe in nature, runs concurrently with the prison term he was undergoing. The Court held that an escaped convict cannot seek the benefit of Section 427(2) CrPC, which says that the subsequent sentence of a person already undergoing imprisonment will run concurrently.
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."
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.
Case Title: Google India Private Limited v. Competition Commission Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
The 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).
10. S. 482 CrPC| Can't Appreciate Evidence In Quashing Petition: Karnataka High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Pradeep Moparthy v. State Of Karnataka
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."
Case Title: Sr Admar Mutt v. Yashoda
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
The 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.
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."
Case Title: Manmohankumar V.C v. The State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the state government's power and prerogative to impose conditions such as restriction of 'age' and 'pass in 10th Standard' while considering the applications for grant of compassionate authorization under the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order. Justice P S Dinesh Kumar said, "The State Government's power and prerogative to impose conditions while considering the applications for grant of authorisation is upheld."
Case Title: The Member Secretary v. Chief Secretary, Govt of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 14
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Mental Health Authority to take appropriate and necessary steps for providing proper medical treatment to the mentally ill inmates of rehabilitation centres, aged homes, destitute centres, reception centres, asylums, orphanages centres, etc.
Case Title: K Mallikarjuna v. H A Sudha Mallikarjuna
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
Observing that "the marriage is totally dead" and that nothing would be gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist, the Karnataka High Court recently granted divorce to a couple who lived separately for a period of 21 years. A division bench of
Justice B Veerapa and Justice K S Hemalekha said, "Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time of more than 21 years and one of them presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down."
Case Title: Dr Ganesh Nayak v. V Shamanna
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
The Karnataka High Court has suggested that medical professionals should be protected from legal action just like public servants are protected against bonafide errors in their action. Justice Krishna S Dixit expressed that more often than not, the cases of medical negligence are launched recklessly by the patients and their relatives. The court said "Compensation culture'' which obtains in other jurisdictions is gradually gaining entry to the field of medical services in our society affecting a healthy relationship of doctor & patient.
Case Title: Parvathamma v. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that Payment of Wages Act is a beneficial piece of enactment. The workmen cannot be denied the legal entitlement by applying technicalities while adjudicating the claim application. Justice Jyoti Mulimani thus quashed the order dated January 28, 2015 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner rejecting the claim petition filed by one Parvathamma, who worked as a watcher with the Department of Forest and Environment Department, merely because her signature was missing on the claim application.
Case Title: Suresh v. D Ramesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
Observing that the amount awarded to the parents is the compensation for loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child, the Karnataka High Court recently enhanced the compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) to a couple who lost their 2-year old daughter in an accident. Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar modified the order dated August 16, 2016, by which MACT had awarded a compensation of Rs 3.50 lakh to the petitioners.
Case Title: The Governor Reserve Bank Of India v. Velankani Information Systems Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 19.
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the directions issued to Reserve Bank of India by a single judge bench of the High Court directing it to monitor the implementation of Covid-19 package announced on March 27, 20202, by which RBI had allowed Banks to declare a three-month moratorium on all term loans, outstanding as on March 1, 2020. The High Court also held that the RBI's circular was a guideline and cannot be construed as a mandatory requirement, creating a right in favour of a borrower to avail loan moratorium.
Case Title: Yashihirao Horinouchi v. The Deputy Director Of Factories
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
The Karnataka High Court recently held that non-arraigning of the Company as an accused would not vitiate the proceedings initiated under the Factories Act, against the occupier of the factory. Justice M. Nagaprasanna in its order dated December 6, 2021 observed, "Section 2(n) of the Factories Act and its proviso makes it clear that one of the Directors of the company would be responsible for proper implementation of the provisions of the Act. This ensures that more care is taken for the maintenance of the factory and various safety measures prescribed under the Act, so that the health, welfare and safety of the workers are not neglected. It is the occupier who would become responsible for all such acts of a factory."
Case Title: Abrar Kazi v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
The Karnataka High Court has said that cricket match fixing does not amount to the offence of cheating and therefore the offence under Section 420 IPC cannot be invoked against the alleged offenders. A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "It is true that if a player indulges in match fixing, a general feeling will arise that he has cheated the lovers of the game. But, this general feeling does not give rise to an offence".
Case Title: Lalitha v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order granting bail to a lecturer, accused of sexually assaulting a minor student of his college, as the trial court failed to given an opportunity to the complainant/victim of being heard before passing the order. Justice H P Sandesh set aside the order dated August 10, 2021 granting bail to Gururaj L, and directed that the accused be arrested and commit him to custody under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
Case Title: High Court Of Karnataka v. The State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
The Karnataka High Court on Friday closed its suo moto case, registered for ensuring that elections are conducted to the Corporations/Municipalities in the State in order to comply with the mandate of Article 243-U(3) of the Constitution. The development ensued after the State Election Commission informed the Court that all the elections to the Local Bodies and the Municipalities in the State have been completed by 30.12.2021, except the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Vijayapura Municipal Corporation regarding whom the matter is pending before the Apex Court.
Case Title : Yamuna and another versus The State
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
The Karnataka High Court has held that if persons not belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe obtains a false caste certificate, they cannot be prosecuted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
25. Breaching Promise To Marry Will Not Amount To Offence Of Cheating Under IPC : Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Venkatesh And State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
The Karnataka High Court while quashing the FIR registered against a man and his family has reiterated that not abiding with the promise of marriage will not amount to the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. A single-judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the petition filed by Venkatesh and others said "Absolutely there is no ingredient stated by her in order to show that there is a criminal intention of cheating by petitioner No.1 and thereby, he has promised to marry her but has broken his promise."
Case Title: Amrusha Das v. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
The Karnataka High Court has said that estrangement between a couple should not affect their child's education prospects. Justice Krishna S Dixit thus allowed the petition filed by a mother and her 8-year old daughter, seeking directions to a school in Bengaluru to issue her Transfer certificate.
Case Title: Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
The Karnataka High Court has said that further investigation conducted under Section 173(8) of CrPC must always relate to the incident of alleged crime in respect of which the charge sheet has been filed already. It is not reinvestigation. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while quashing two cases registered under the NDPS Act, against party organiser Virendra Khanna said, "Further investigation is always in accordance with Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C,with a view to collecting further evidence supplemental to the evidence already on record. It is not reinvestigation."
Case Title: Gaurav Raj Jain V. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
Observing that "Litigants and members of the Bar appear to have not understood the importance and seriousness of this extraordinary writ of Habeas Corpus," the Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a father seeking directions to produce his 2 year old girl before the court, who is in safe custody of her mother. A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice M G Uma while dismissing the petition filed by Gaurav Raj Jain, imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on him, stating that no ground to allow the writ petition is made out and (petitioner) has abused the judicial process. The amount is payable within a month to the Police Welfare Fund.
29. Motor Accident| Courts Can Award Compensation Higher Than What Is Claimed: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Basavaraj v. Umesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
Coming to the aid of a 14-year old (at the time) who suffered permanent disability to his pelvic region in an accident, the Karnataka High Court recently modified the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, awarding compensation of Rs 50,000 under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and increased it to Rs 10 lakhs.
A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "Since the marriage prospect of the claimant is wiped out, the claimant is deprived of all the pleasure and benefits of married life. The mental trauma of having to remain single, and answering the curious questions posed by the people around throughout life, for not getting married, are some of the things not easy to cope with. The trauma is going to be perennial and unabated."
Case Title: Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. Shekar B S
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) challenging an order of the Single judge by which it was directed to grant benefit of reduction of interest rate on Home loan to a customer from the date of issuance of the circular for reduction, instead of when the customer applied for seeking reduction. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj was informed by the bank that the circular dated June 30, 2010 was pasted on the notice board of the bank and as such there was due communication to the customers of the bank.
Case Title: Ramesh v. State Through Dy RFO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
The Karnataka High Court has said that once an accused has appeared before the court, either personally or through his counsel, he cannot seek anticipatory bail by invoking section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Justice H P Sandesh thus dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by one Ramesh and granted him liberty to approach the Trial Court by filing the necessary application for recalling the warrant issued against him.
32. Being Govt Employee Not A Ground For Grant Of Bail In Rape Case: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Srinivas Murthy H.N. And State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 32
The Karnataka High court has said that being a government employee is no ground to grant bail to an accused alleged of committing rape. Justice H P Sandesh while dismissing the petition filed by one Srinivas Murthy H.N. said "The fact that petitioner is a Government employee is not a ground to enlarge him on bail, when the serious offence of rape is alleged against the petitioner."
Case Title: Mrs Kiran Iccha Kaur Bhasin And Director-General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
The Karnataka High Court has held that grounds on which subjective satisfaction is based while passing a detention order by the authority under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), cannot be challenged in a court of law, except on the grounds of malafides. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M G S Kamal while dismissing a petition filed by the daughter of a detenu Gurmeet Singh Kohli said, "It is well settled in law that the reasonableness of satisfaction of detaining authority cannot be questioned in a court of law, for the reason that satisfaction of detaining authority to which Section 3(1)(a) of the Act refers to be subjective satisfaction of the Authority."
Case Title: Devendrappa H v. The State
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 34
Granting relief to a bus driver employed with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and convicted for the offence of rash driving, the Karnataka High Court recently reduced his sentence of two months simple imprisonment and confined it to fine only. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while granting relief to petitioner Devendrappa H also said, "The sentence of conviction shall not affect his career and shall not be treated as a remark for his employment with KSRTC."
Case Title: ANI Technologies Private Limited v. State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 63 of the Copyright Act, which prescribes a punishment of minimum 6 months that may extend to 3 years imprisonment, is a cognizable offence and police can register an First Information Report, on receipt of a complaint. Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "Merely because a separate provision under Section 64 of the Act which depicts power of search and seizure by the Police is also found in the statute, it does not take away cognizability of the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act."
Case Title: Surrayya Parveen @ Annapoorna v. Labour Officer Cum Minimum Wages Enquiry Authority
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
The Karnataka High Court has said that it is the duty of the applicant seeking relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act. In the absence of sufficient cause, the Court of the Authority has no power to extend the time Justice Jyoti Mulimani said, "I can say only this much that the law of limitation is not an equitable statute. It is a statute of repose."The court accordingly rejected a petition filed by one Surrayya Parveen challenging the order passed by the Labour Officer, rejecting her claim petition on the ground of delay of 8 years.
Case Title: Dr Vaibhav Khosla v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
The Karnataka High Court has said that educational institutions have only a right to recover the prescribed fee for one semester/year and not recover the entire course fees from a candidate who surrenders his seat. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M G S Kamal relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy Of Education & Anr. v. State Of Karnataka & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 697 said, "It is evident that the institution has only a right to recover the prescribed fee for one semester/year."
Case Title: Jeetendra Kumar Rajan v. T. G. Shivashankare Gowda
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
Observing that "Nobody can be permitted to tarnish the image of the temple of justice," the Karnataka High Court has dismissed 11 contempt petitions filed by one Jeetendra Kumar Rajan seeking action against the High Court Registrar General. A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice M G Uma further observed that no leniency can be shown when it comes to maintaining the the majesty of the Court and hence, imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on each petition, totaling to Rs 11 lakh.
Case Title: Kamal Pant v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.21264 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against Bengaluru Police Commissioner Kamal Pant and two other police officers, for alleged commission of an offence under Section 166A IPC which pertains to disobedience of law by a public servant. It includes refusal of a Police officer to record any information given to him under Section 154(1) CrPC in relation to cognizable offences pertaining to sexual harassment.
Case Title: Joswin Lobo v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.6916/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
The Karnataka High Court has said there is no bar on a police officer, who is a gazetted officer, on carrying out a personal search to draw a mahazar, on an accused/ suspect under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh said, "Assistant Commissioner of Police is also a Gazetted Officer...Search by the officer of the said department is not a bar and no law prescribes that he (suspect/accused) should be subjected to the personal search in the presence of the Gazetted Officer not belonging to the particular department."
Case Title: Ramesh Malli v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Wireless Case No: W.P. No. 104944/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
The Karnataka High Court has said that a probationer in the Karnataka police department cannot be terminated on the grounds of misconduct without carrying out an inquiry under the Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977. A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "It is true that the petitioner has no right to hold the post and he can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the probationary period for general unsuitability, but a probationer cannot be discharged imputing allegations amounting to misconduct. If any misconduct is alleged, then enquiry under Rule 7 of '1977 Rules' is necessary."
Case Title: Resham & Anr v. State of Karnataka
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
The Karnataka High Court on Friday uploaded the interim order passed in the petitions challenging Hijab ban in colleges in the state. The Court has requested the State to re-open the educational institutions at the earliest and has restrained students from wearing any sort of religious clothes in classrooms, regardless of their faith, while the matter is pending hearing. The interim order is only applicable to those institutions which have prescribed a uniform dress code.
Case Title: Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish v. Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling Karnataka Case No: W.P. No.14891 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
The Karnataka High Court has held that an owner of a building can claim tax exemption under the Goods and Services Act (GST) if the residential premises leased out are used as a hostel to house students and working professionals. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M I Arun while allowing the petition filed by one Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish said, "The service provided by the petitioner i.e., leasing out residential premises as hostel to students and working professionals is covered under Entry 13 of Notification No.9/2017 dated 28.09.2017 namely 'Services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence' issued under the Act. The petitioner is held to be entitled to benefit of exemption notification."
Case Title: Indian Institute of Management Bangalore v. Daivanti Thakare Case No: WA 91/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Indian Institute of Management (Bangalore), challenging an order of the Single Judge bench by which it had set aside the order of the Institute, expelling nine students caught for exam malpractice. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and as such, do not consider it to be a necessary case for interference. The writ appeal is dismissed."
Case Title: Dr Arun Kumar B C v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.9408/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the circular issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), dated 29.2.2016 by which it directed property owners to relinquish the properties earmarked for road widening in the master plan, free of cost as a condition precedent for processing their applications for sanctioning of building plans.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar said, "I am of the considered view that the impugned endorsements issued by the respondent - BBMP requiring the petitioners to relinquish the properties in question free of cost as a condition precedent for processing their applications for sanctioning of building plans is without authority of law and the same violate Article 300A of the Constitution of India."
46.Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement For Accepting ₹50 Bribe Disproportionate: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M.S. Kadkol v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.110912 of 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
Almost 18 years after an employee of the State government was subjected to compulsory retirement for accepting a bribe of Rs. 50, the Karnataka High Court recently held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence. It thus set aside the order of compulsory retirement issued in the year 2004.
A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde sitting at Dharwad partly allowed the petition filed by M.S. Kadkol. It confirmed the guilt of the petitioner however, set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order of punishment on the petitioner.
47. Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Law Banning Online Gaming With Stakes
Case Title: All India Gaming Federation v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 18703/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
The Karnataka High Court on Monday held certain provisions of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021, by which the state government has banned online games with stakes to be ultra vires to the Constitution and struck them down. The Act provides maximum imprisonment of three years and penalty up to Rs. 1 lakh for violation of the provisions. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Krishna S Dixit said "In the above circumstances these writ petitions succeed. The Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021 to the extent provisions we have said, not the entire act is struck down is declared to be ultra vires to the constitution and struck down."
Case Title: Karnataka State Law University v. Mahantesh Case No: WA 100319/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday set aside the single judge bench order dated on December 14, 2021, by which the court had quashed the notification issued by Karnataka State Law University, by which it was to conduct offline examinations for the students of 2nd and 4th semester of three year LLB course. A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde while allowing the intra-court appeal filed by Karnataka State Law University said, "In the best interest of legal education. The following order, writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 14/12/2021 passed in writ petition no 104008/2021, is set aside."
Case Title: Somashekara @ Soma v. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 328/2018
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 49
The Karnataka High Court has said that if an advocate representing the accused who is in custody fails to appear before the court, the trial court is bound to appoint a legal aid advocate to defend the accused. A single judge bench of Justice K.S.Mudagal said, "Article 39A of the Constitution of India casts duty on the state not to deny access to justice on the ground of economic or other disabilities. To achieve the object of Article 39A of the Constitution, the Legal Services Authority Act has been enacted. Under the said Act, Legal Services Authorities are constituted right from national level to taluk level. The district courts have the District Legal Services Authority and a panel of advocates for rendering legal aid to the unaffordable as contemplated under Section 304 of Cr.P.C."
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. State By Periyapatana Police Station Case No: Criminal Petition No.4234/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 50
The Karnataka High Court has directed its Registry to post an Additional Session Judge, Mysuru, for training in the Judicial Academy in order to make him learn "judicial discretion", in the interest of the institution and to protect the interest of seekers of justice. A single judge bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh said, "The Registry is directed to seek appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice to post the concerned Judicial Officer to the Judicial Academy for training with regard to applying judicious thought process while exercising judicial discretion before granting bail in heinous offences."
Case Title: Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. K.Koteswar Rao Case No: Criminal Petition No.101127 Of 2015
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 51
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the defamation proceedings against Member of Parliament, Rajeev Chandrashekhar, initiated in the year 2012, when he was the Managing Director of Suvarna News 24/7 Kannada Television Channel. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the quashing petition filed by Chandrashekhar said "The principle of vicarious liability is not applicable to criminal offences in the absence of any provision laid down in the statute. The Managing Director thus cannot be held to be vicariously liable for the acts committed by the Company or its employees merely because he happens to be the Managing Director of the TV news channel."
Case Title: Hemalatha v. Venkatesh Case No: Writ Petition No.39982 Of 2018
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 52
The Karnataka High Court has held that the properties which had been given as dowry or otherwise at the time of marriage of the daughter, would be amenable for partition and the same will have to be included in a suit for partition, instituted by the daughter.
A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "In a suit for partition, the properties which had been given as dowry or otherwise at the time of marriage of the daughter plaintiff, claiming a right of partition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, would be amenable for partition and the same would have to be included in a suit for partition."
Case Title: Shivanand S/O Karabasappa Gurannavar v. Basavva @ Laxmi W/O Shivanand Gurannavar Case No: Criminal Petition No.101378/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
The Karnataka High Court has held that maintenance awarded to an estranged wife under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, cannot be enhanced on an application made by her under section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, "A maintenance that is awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. can be varied in an application filed under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. What is sine qua-non is that an order of maintenance should precede a petition under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., failing which, a petition under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance is not available."
Case Title: M/S SAPL-GCC JV v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.11165 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 54
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the decision of awarding tenders of gigantic value, cannot be readily upset by the Central Government on some baseless allegation being made by the unsuccessful bidders. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit, set aside the order dated 15.04.2021, passed by the Central government by which it had constituted a Committee to conduct a detailed investigation into allegation of some irregularities perpetrated in awarding tender to M/S SAPL-GCC JV, by the New Mangalore Port Trust.
Case Title: Dhondiba Anna Jadhav v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.101392/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 55
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the under section 28 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, a Magistrate court cannot take cognizance of a complaint except it being registered by an 'Appropriate Authority' notified by the Central or the State government. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Dhondiba Anna Jadhav and others who run Sri Dhondida Anna Jadhav Memorial Hospital at Gokak, based on a complaint filed by the Taluka Health Officer.
Case Title: Padmanabha v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal 200043/2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 56
Observing that, "corruption is a distinct type of offence. It is like cancer to society. It eats the social and economical health every second resulting in unimaginable consequences," the Karnataka High Court recently confirmed the conviction handed down to a Commercial Tax officer under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda dismissed the appeal filed by accused Padmanabha challenging an order of the special court dated April 6, 2015, by which it sentenced the accused to 2 and half years of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh under section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to four years simple imprisonment under section 13 (1) (d) of the Act.
Case Title: Michael Graham Prince v. Mrs. Nisha Misra Case No: Writ Petition No.15356 Of 2020
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 57
The Karnataka High Court has held that Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) cardholders can seek matrimonial reliefs before appropriate courts in India, against the estranged partner who is also an OCI cardholder. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "Subsection 2 of section 7B of the Citizenship Act, excludes certain rights from being granted to the OCI Cardholders. However, this exclusion does not cover the right to seek matrimonial reliefs at the hands of the native Courts. The subject statutory notifications do not in so many words vest in them such a right to litigate may be true; but, that per se does not divest them of such a right which otherwise avails even to the OCI Cardholders."
Case Title: L.S. Tejasvi Surya v. State Of Karnataka Case no: Criminal Petition No.9961/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the permission granted by a magistrate court to proceed with the investigation against Member of Parliament, L S Tejasvi Surya, under provisions of the Representation of People Act. A single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav, while relegating the matter back to the magistrate court for fresh consideration said, "In accordance with the mandate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, the informant is to be referred to the Magistrate which is preceded by the officer in-charge of the police station having made out necessary entry of the substance of the information in the book kept as mandated under Section 155. The Magistrate is to examine the informant and the complaint given by him and then proceed further."
Case Title: Bibi Ayesha Khanum v. Union Of India Case No: Writ Petition No.2318 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 59
The Karnataka High Court recently issued directions for the effective implementation of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020, particularly in cases where the accused were to move the Court for grant of bail. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj disposing of a public interest litigation filed by a mother of a survivor, said, "None can have any doubt that offences under the POCSO Act are heinous in nature and are more often than not committed by depraved persons."
Case Title: Rabiya Abdul Hamid Bepari v. The Chairman, School Managing Committee, Volkart Academy Case no: R.F.A.NO.100061/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
The Karnataka High Court has held that a civil court has jurisdiction to hear and decide on a suit filed by a teacher claiming arrears in salary, if she is discharged from her duties on account of closure of the school and no order is passed by the school management on her claims seeking arrears in salary. A Division bench of Dr.Justice H.B.Prabhakara Sastry and Justice S. Rachaiah recently set aside the order dated November 9, 2020 passed by the civil court by which it had rejected the plaint filed by an Urdu teacher, on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Case Title: K T Naveen Kumar And The State of Karnataka Case no: Criminal Petition 10232/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 61
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Superintendent of Jail to shift and provided treatment to K T Naveen Kumar, an accused in the journalist Gauri Lankesh murder case, in a private hospital. A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the petition, set aside the order of Special Court dated December 31, 2021 and said, "The Superintendent of jail is directed to provide treatment to the petitioner in the Columbia Asia hospital HSR Road, Bengaluru which is situated 7.7 kms from Parappana Agrahara Jail. The petitioner is also directed to bear the entire medical expenditures which will be charged by the hospital authority. The jail Superintendent is directed to provide sufficient security forces during the treatment and shifting the petitioner to the hospital and back."
Case Title: Dr S Srinivasa v. Mandya University Case No: WA 105/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Mandya University to continue the services of guest lecturers for another academic year, until the recruitment of full time lecturers as initiated by the University is completed. A Division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj while allowing an intra-court appeal filed by Dr S Srinivasa and others challenging the order of the single judge bench dated December 21, 2021, said, "The Guest Lecturers now working shall be entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated 7.10.2021 for extension of service by one more academic year until the recruitment of lecturers is completed."
Case Title: Devendra Pai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Case No.: Writ Petition No. 52305/2018 (T-IT)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
A bench of Karnataka High Court consisting of Justice Sunil S.Yadav has condoned the delay of 6 years in filing revised Income Tax Return (ITR). A single judge bench of Justice Sunil S.Yadav has observed that the intention of Circular No.014 (XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 was not that tax due should not be charged or that any favour should be shown to anybody in the matter of assessment, or where investigations are called for, they should not be made. Whatever the legitimate tax it must be assessed and must be collected. The purpose of the circular is merely to emphasise that the tax officer should not take advantage of an assessee's ignorance to collect more tax out of him than is legitimately due from him.
Case Title: Dr Shantha Raj T R v. The State By Sub Inspector of Police Case No: Criminal Petition 7980/2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, is prospective in nature and alleged acts committed before its enactment cannot be an offence. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "The offences allegedly been committed ago i.e., on 18.10.1975; complaint was filed with inordinate delay with no plausible explanation for the same. Ordinarily, the stale claims would not be entertained."
Case Title: M/s. Prashanthi Affiliates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No.921/2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
The Karnataka High Court has held that the District Magistrate is empowered to attach the property and not the Commissioner of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner (BBMP). The single bench of Justice S.P.Sandesh has observed that the Commissioner of BBMP, has no authority to attach the property as ordered by the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court and it ought to be enforced under Section 421(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, through the collector of the District.
Case Title: Meera Ajith v. John Doe Alias Ashok Kumar Case No: MFA 806/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
The Karnataka High Court has passed an order of temporary injunction restraining unknown persons (also known as John Doe order) from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property owned by a woman in Bengaluru. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while hearing an appeal filed by one Meera Ajith, said, "Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) CPC states that an order of temporary injunction may be granted against any party to the suit. According to Clauses (b) & (c), injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaint must disclose the names and identity of the parties. But in a situation as has been made out in this case, if there is a threat to the possession of the plaintiff by unknown person/s, is it possible to say that injunction cannot be granted. I do not think that injunction can be denied if circumstances are as such that there is a serious threat to the possession of the plaintiff by unknown persons."
Case Title: Thippeswamy @ Thipeshi v. State By Jagalur P.S Case No: Criminal Petition No.9980/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 67
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Principal Secretary, Health Department to issue a circular and a direction to all Medical officers working in the state, prescribing their duties and responsibilities towards a child victim of sexual assault, who is produced before them.
A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh also directed the Principal Secretary to take action against a doctor working in the Taluk Government Hospital, Jagalur, Davanagere District, who conducted medical examination of the victim in this case and issued a Sexual Assault certificate in this case, without giving any opinion.
Case Title: Kumari M. v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.100875/2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 68
The Karnataka High Court recently permitted a minor rape victim to terminate her 22 weeks 3 days old pregnancy, upon noting that continuation of the same can develop anxiety, which could lead to depression effecting her mental health. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "I am of the opinion that, it would be in the interest of the petitioner-victim, that the pregnancy is terminated." Following which it directed the District Civil hospital (Belagavi) to medically terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner by adopting all required safety considerations for such a procedure.
Case Title: Chiranjeevi M. Kulkarni v. Karnataka State Law University Case No: Writ Petition No.100869/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Law University to conduct offline examinations for students of 3 years LLB Course, studying in the 2nd and 4th semester, twice— once from March 7 onwards and next from May 16 onwards. The direction has been passed as a one time measure, only for this academic year taking into account the various litigations as also the Covid-19 Pandemic.
Case Title: Amol Kale v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal No.537/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by 10 accused allegedly involved in the murder case of journalist Gauri Lankesh, challenging an order rejecting their application for default bail by the special court.
A single judge of Justice K.S.Mudagal while dismissing the appeal filed by prime accused Amole Kale and others said, "The attack on the impugned order was that the charge sheet was not filed on 23-11-2018, but that was ante-dated. The trial Court rejected the said contentions. The appellants did not seek any administrative action against the Ministerial officer who allegedly interpolated the date 23-11-2018 nor the presiding officer on the ground of judicial impropriety. Under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 illustration (e) there is presumption that judicial acts or official acts have been regularly performed. Except for scandalising the office staff and the Judge, nothing was done to rebut the said presumption."
71. His Future Can't Be Put To Jeopardy': Karnataka HC Permits 19 Yrs Old Rape Accused In Judicial Custody To Physically Appear For Annual Exams
Case Title: Darshan And State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition/ 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
The Karnataka High Court recently permitted a 19-years old, who is in judicial custody in connection with the rape of a minor girl, to appear for his annual examination by physically attending the examination centre.
Justice V Srishananda while disposing of the petition filed by the accused said, "Just because, the case is pending against the petitioner herein, which is being investigated in Crime No.8/2022, his future cannot be put to jeopardy."
72. Karnataka High Court Quashes 8 Year Old Case Against BSP Chief Mayavathi
Case Title: Kum. Mayavathi v State of Karnataka Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7626/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an eight year old criminal case pending against Mayavathi, Former Chief Minister & President Of Bahujan Samaj Party and Sathish Chandra Mishra National General Secretary & Member of Parliament, Bahujan Samaj Party.
A single Judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said "In view of the explanation of the petitioners having been accepted by the Election Commission of India, the continuance of the present proceedings would not secure the ends of justice."
73. Karnataka High Court Orders GST Refund of Rs. 27 Crores Illegally Collected from Swiggy
Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. M/s Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Case no: W.A. No.1274 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
The Karnataka High Court has ordered the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department to refund Rs. 27 crore, which was illegally collected from Swiggy. The division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M. G. S. Kamal, while dismissing the appeal of the Central Government, observed, "Article 265 of the Constitution mandates that the collection of tax has to be by the authority of law."
Case Title: Mahantesh v. Netharavati Case No: M.F.A. No.100096/2019 (MV)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
The Karnataka High Court has said that the insurance company will not be liable to pay compensation, if a heavy goods vehicle is driven by a person holding a light motor vehicle license. A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajit Shetty while partly allowing an appeal filed by one Mahantesh, owner of a tipper lorry said, "The vehicle in question which is categorised as a heavy goods vehicle comes within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the gross vehicle weight undisputedly exceeds 12000 kg. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the offending vehicle was used in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore the insurer of the offending vehicle was not liable to pay the compensation."
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
Wearing of hijab is not a part of Essential Religious Practice in Islamic faith and thus, is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court has held today. A Full Bench of the High Court further held that prescription of school uniform by the State is a reasonable restriction the students' rights under Article 25 and thus, the Government Order issued by the Karnataka government dated February 5 is not violative of their rights.
75. Karnataka Education Act Empowers Government To Prescribe Uniform: Karnataka High Court In Hijab Case
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Government order dated February 5, providing for prescription of dress code in educational institutions.
A full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishan S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi said, "Section 133(2) of the (Education) Act which is broadly worded empowers the government to issue any directions to give effect to the purposes of the Act or to any provision of the Act or to any Rule made thereunder."
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, while upholding the ban on wearing hijab in government colleges, observed that prescription of a uniform for all students will promote a sense of "constitutional secularism" within the institution. "The school regulations prescribing dress code for all the students as one homogenous class, serve constitutional secularism", the Court observed.
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court, while declaring that the wearing of hijab by Muslim women is not an 'essential religious practice' in Islamic Faith, said that, "The Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women". The Court also observed that the prescriptions in suras regarding Hijab are not mandatory. "The Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women. Whatever is stated in the above sūras, we say, is only directory , because of absence of prescription of penalty or penance for not wearing hijab, the linguistic structure of verses supports this view", the Court observed.
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court, while upholding the ban on wearing hijab in educational institutions, has said that the insistence on wearing of purdah, veil, or headgear in any community may hinder hinder the process of emancipation of woman in general and Muslim woman in particular. A full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi said, "There is a lot of scope for the argument that insistence on wearing of purdah, veil, or headgear in any community may hinder the process of emancipation of woman in general and Muslim woman in particular. That militates against our constitutional spirit of 'equal opportunity' of 'public participation' and 'positive secularism'."
Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court in its judgement upholding the ban on wearing hijab has said it expects a speedy & effective investigation into the matter against 'unseen hands' who are at work to engineer social unrest and disharmony. A full bench led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi said, "From the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent – Pre – University College at Udupi and the material placed on record, we notice that all was well with the dress code since 2004."
Case Title: Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd V State Of Karnataka, Case No: CRL.P.No.102191/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 76.
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act against Snapdeal Private Limited and its directors Kunal Bahl and Rohit Kumar Bansal for allegedly allowing sale of drug - Suhagra tablets, on its online portal without possessing a valid license.
Justice MG Uma said, "Intermediary as defined under Section 2(w) of IT Act or its Directors/Officers would not be liable for any action or inaction on the part of the vendor/seller making use of the facilities provided by the intermediary in terms of a website or a market place and that the Snapdeal/accused No.2 could not be responsible and/or liable for sale of any item not complying with the requirements under the Act on its platform by accused No.1 since the essential ingredients of Section 18(1)(c) of the Act not having been fulfilled neither Snapdeal nor its Directors can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act."
Case Title: Narendra Prasad P. V N. Sujatha Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No.692/2019
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 77
The Karnataka High Court has said that a private complaint made before the magistrate court alleging offence under section 191 of Indian Penal Code is maintainable, if the forgery of document took place outside the Court before the document was produced as evidence in the court proceedings. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh set aside the order of the magistrate court dismissing a private complaint and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. It said,
Case Title: Sunil Chajed v State of Karnataka Case No: WA 468/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
The Karnataka High Court has said that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has power to determine the boundary of a survey number or a holding. The aforesaid power can be exercised in respect of a survey number or a holding irrespective of the fact whether the same is situated within the Municipal limits or outside the municipal limits. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while setting aside a single judge bench order dated October 1, 20202 said, "Section 140(2) of the Act provides that if any dispute arises concerning the boundary of survey number or a sub division of a survey number or a holding, the Tahsildar shall decide the dispute having due regard to the land records. Thus, it is evident that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Act has power to determine the boundary of a survey number or a holding."
79. Karnataka High Court Quashes Seat Matrix Of Telugu Linguistic Minority In A Medical College
Case Title: Navodaya Medical College V. The State Of Karnataka Case No: W.P.No.200365/2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 79
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the revised seat matrix issued on January 31, for postgraduate and undergraduate courses in medicine for the academic year 2021-22, by which only Telugu Linguistic minority students residing in Hyderabad-Karnataka region are allowed to apply in a Linguistic minority institution located in that region.
A division bench of Justice K. Somashekar And Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "The impugned communication dated 31.01.2022 and revised seat matrix are quashed in so far as it is applicable to the petitioner's institution (NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE).
Case Title: KASTURI RAJUPETA v. UNION OF INDIA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.19203 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
The Karnataka High Court has held that the permission from a trial court is not necessary for renewal of passport when the proceedings are stayed by a higher court. The Court directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider a woman's application for renewal of her passport without insisting upon a facilitative order from the concerned Criminal Court before whom a case registered against her is pending.
Case Title: Bhavith Sheth V. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 19287/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 81
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against Bhavit Sheth and Harsh Jain, the Founders and Directors of Sporta Technologies Private Limited, which promotes the 'Dream 11' gaming app. The duo had approached the court seeking to quash the FIR registered against them by the police under the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021, which bans online gaming and gambling in the state.
Case Title: Vijaya v Shekharappa Case No: Criminal Petition No.100261/2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 82
The Karnataka High Court has said that it is not mandatory for Magistrate Courts to pass orders directing interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, if the accused does not plead guilty.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "The Legislature has cautiously worded sub-section (1) of Section 143A not to make it mandatory in all cases where clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) would empower the learned Magistrate before whom proceedings are pending consideration to award interim compensation. It is the discretion conferred, as the word used is "may"."
Case Title: Law Students Association v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 2125/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a non-profit organisation, Law Students Association, questioning the continuation of Prof. (Dr.) P. Ishwara Bhat as the Vice Chancellor of Karnataka State Law University, allegedly beyond the prescribed age limit of 65 years.
Case Title: Archana M G v. Abhilasha Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3399 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by one Archana M G, a Grama Panchayat Member, challenging the order of the Civil court which unseated her on the ground of lack of social status as a Scheduled Tribe member. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "There is no dispute as to petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe, by birth, although she claims to have acquired the said social status by marriage to a member of scheduled tribe. Ordinarily, caste is determined by birth and caste of a person follows that of his/her father."
Case Title: Mrs. Prachi Sen v. Ministry Of Defence Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.22979 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that maternity benefits such as allowing an employee to work from home, under section 5 (5) of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act 2017, could be given only in case where the nature of work assigned to the women is such that it is possible for her to work from home.
86. POCSO Act | Prosecution Can Cross Examine The Victim On Her Turning Hostile : Karnataka High Court
Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Somanna Case No:. CRIMINAL PETITION No.8167/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
The Karnataka High Court has said that under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the prosecution can cross examine the victim on her turning hostile.
A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, "In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the POCSO Act, the Special Public Prosecutor or as the case would be, the counsel appearing for the accused shall, while recording examination-in-chief, cross-examination or re-examination of the child communicates the questions to be put to the child to the Special Court which shall in turn put those questions to the child. Therefore, the victim is permitted to be cross-examined under the POCSO Act itself on her turning hostile which would also cover the situation under sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the POCSO Act."
Case Title: Praveen Surendiran V. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.1892 Of 2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 87
The Karnataka High Court has said that a court can impound any documents under section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), but not the passport of an accused, as it can be done only under the Passports Act which is a special enactment. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "The power of impounding a document under Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. is available to a Court. This cannot stretch to an extent of impounding the passport. The passport coming within the purview of the Act and it being a special law would prevail over the provisions of Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. The Court can impound any document, but not the passport as it is dealt with under a special enactment. The power of impounding is available only to the Competent Authority under the Act, in terms of Section 10 of the Act."
Case Title: Dasari Chakradhar V The Registrar (Evaluation) Case No: W.P. NO.1120/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 88
The Karnataka High Court has suggested to the Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences to take action against delinquent examiners in-charge of conducting Clinical Examinations for MBBS and MD courses, who are routinely found violating the guidelines issued by the University. A single judge bench of Justice P Krishna Bhat said, "It is necessary to observe that examiners appointed by the respondent- University seem to be routinely violating the guidelines issued by the University for holding the Clinicals examination. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel brought to my notice the order dated 22-12-2020 in Writ Appeal No.615 of 2020 (EDN-RES) (Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences V. Mr. Ramegowda Y. And Others), wherein also this Court had an occasion to notice such malpractice and direct re-conduct of practical examinations."
Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by a husband seeking to drop charges of rape pending against him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code after his wife filed a complaint against him. Justice M Nagaprasanna emphasised that a man who is well acquainted with a woman and performs all the ingredients as is found in pre or post amendment to Section 375 can be proceeded against for offences punishable under Section 376, thereby establishing that a man sexually assaulting or raping a woman is amenable to punishment under Section 376 of IPC.
Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo And State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.48367 Of 2018
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 89
In a significant judgement, the Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a husband seeking to drop charges of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, levelled against him by his wife. The Court did not accept the husband's argument that the charge cannot be framed against him due to the exception to marital rape from the offence of rape as per Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that the exemption cannot be absolute.
Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo V State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.48367 Of 2018
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 89
The Karnataka High Court has said that the trial against the husband accused of rape and charged under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and also of sexually assaulting his daughter and charged under sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act can be held before the Special POCSO Court. While refusing to quash the charges under Section 376 IPC against the husband ,a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said , "The designated Court hearing cases relating to offences under the POCSO Act can try the offences under the IPC as well, in the facts of the case."
Case Title: Prabhuraj V. The State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.415 Of 2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 90
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, on the ground that he was not aware that the premise he had given on rent, was being used for running a brothel. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Prabhuraj, stating, "In the light of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act (Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956) and the police themselves acknowledging that petitioner was not aware as to what was happening in the premises, permitting further proceedings to continue against the petitioner would degenerate into harassment and become an abuse of the process of law."
91. Karnataka Govt To Move Bombay High Court Seeking Permission To Produce Varavara Rao Before A Local Court In Alleged Naxal Attack Case
Case Title: Varavara Rao @ Pendyala V. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.1833 Of 2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 91
The Karnataka government has informed the High Court that it would be moving an application before the Bombay High Court or the National Investigation Agency Court in Mumbai, seeking to relax the bail conditions imposed on Telugu poet P Varavara Rao's to allow him to appear before a court in Karnataka's Tumkuru district, and face a trial pending against him. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was informed by the prosecutor that, "A necessary application before the High Court of Bombay or National Investigation Agency Court, seeking relaxation of the bail conditions with regard to the petitioner not leaving the jurisdiction of National Investigation Agency Court at Bombay would be sought, only to face the trial in S.C.No.5019/2019."
92. Inhuman, Can't Ignore Her Trauma': Karnataka High Court Convicts Father For Sexually Assaulting Minor Daughter
Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi Case No: Crl.A.No.100190/2017
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 92
Observing that, "there is no reason for the victim girl to give false evidence against her own father," the Karnataka High Court recently set aside an acquittal order passed by the trial court and sentenced the accused to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment, for sexually assaulting his daughter when she was a minor. A division bench of Justice H.T.Narendra Prasad and Justice Rajendra Badamikar noted that the victim must have undergone a lot of mental agony and shock by her father's act. It thus allowed the appeal filed by the prosecution and set aside the trial court judgement dated February 3, 2017, acquitting Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi.
Case Title: Muthanna Mapangada vThe State Of Karnataka, Case No: Writ Petition No.12880 Of 2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 93
The Karnataka High Court has permitted two aviation enthusiast/ certified pilots to fly microlight aircraft once a week in accordance with law, from the grass airstrip which they have built on their own lands in Kodagu district.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar while disposing of the petition filed by Muthanna Mapangada and Kudimada Somanna Subbayya, said, "Meanwhile, the petitioners shall be entitled to fly the subject Micro-light Aircraft strictly in accordance with law once a week till the matter is decided by the respondent No.6 (Director General Of Civil Aviation)."
Case Title: S. SHYAMALA @ KATHYAYANI v. B. N. MALLIKARJUNAIAH Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3352/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
The Karnataka High Court has said that merely for the reason that the wife was demanding a separate house and that she was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial house and going to her sister's and parents' house, the same cannot be termed as "cruelty" for the purpose of seeking a decree of divorce by the husband.
Case Title: Tanaji S/O Nayaku Nikam v. Bharati W/O Tanaji Nikam Case No: Regular First Appeal No.100256/2015
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 95
The Karnataka High Court has said that in absence of a specific pleading made by the defendants to a suit before the trial court that properties in the suit were self acquired, it is presumed that such properties acquired subsequently are with the aid of joint family properties and as such they acquire the character of joint family. A division bench of Justice H.T.Narendra Prasad and Justice Rajendra Badamikar said, "When there is no specific plea in the written statement, presumption is that, the properties acquired subsequently are with the aid of the joint family properties and as such, they acquire the character of joint family itself."
Case Title: Irfan Pasha v State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal no 755/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
The Karnataka High Court has said that an order passed by the Special Court on an application filed under section 20 of the National Investigation Agency Act, seeking to transfer the case from the special court, is an interlocutory order and the same cannot be challenged in appeal under section 21 of the Act, before the High Court.
A full bench comprising of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice B Veerappa and Justice P Krishna Bhat while deciding on a reference said, "An interlocutory application rejected by the Special Court vide order dated 22.02.2021 would not give rise to filing of an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008."
97. Only 'Indian Citizens' Can Initiate Proceedings Under Senior Citizens Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: MRS DEPHNY GLADYS LOBO v. ASST COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT SENIOR CITIZEN MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6720/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
The Karnataka High Court has held that only 'Indian Citizens' can initiate proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. A Single Judge bench of Justice P. Krishna Bhat said, "It is evident that one of the essential elements for being designated a 'Senior Citizen' for the purposes of the Act is the person being an Indian citizen."
Case Title: P.C.Padmamba v Channaveeramma R Case No: R.S.A. No.5/2017
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 98
The Karnataka High Court has said that the power conferred on the registering officer under the Registration Act is fundamentally to enable him to satisfy himself about the identity of the person who has presented the document and enquire with him as to whether he has executed the document so presented by him and this power cannot be enlarged by examining the witnesses, scribe etc.
99. Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea To Award Bharat Ratna Award To Late Seer Shivakumara Swami
Case Title: Rehan Khan v. Hon'ble Prime Minister of India Case No: WP 139/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation filed by one Rehan Khan, seeking a direction be issued to the Prime Minister of India through its Principal Secretary to consider the representation made by him for conferring Bharat Ratna award on late Dr Sri Sri Shivakumara Swami.
Case Title: A B Devaraju and Others v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 6386/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Mandya District to consider the representation to be given by petitioners seeking to shift the location of the site proposed for setting up a solid waste management unit. The proposed site is purportedly close to a river. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar said, "We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with the observations that the petitioners may raise their grievance by way of fresh representation within a period of ten days from today before respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, DC Office, Mandya district, who may look into the matter and if need be, take an expert opinion, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order along with the representation is placed before him."
101. Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines To Curb Practice Of 'Fraud On Courts' For Securing Bail
Case Title: NANJAPPA v. STATE BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1653/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
Observing that "Unscrupulous litigants should not be allowed to pollute the stream of justice," the Karnataka High Court has issued directions to the Registry and District courts across the state to evolve mechanisms using modern technology to curb the practice of fraud on the court. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh issued the following guidelines while rejecting the application filed by accused Nanjappa, who had filed multiple proceedings before various courts seeking anticipatory bail.
Case Title: Faheem Ahmed V Union Of India Case No: Writ Petition No.1030 Of 2020
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 102
The Karnataka High court has dismissed a petition seeking to declare as ultra vires the power of the local Registrar to verify and scrutinise the data so as to test the citizenship of an individual and consequently to declare him a doubtful citizen under the Citizenship (Registration of Citizen and issue of National Identity Cards) Rules 2003 as ultra vires.
Case Title: Xxxxxxxx V The Registrar General
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
The Karnataka High Court has directed Indian Kanoon to mask the name of a woman, who has been granted mutual divorce and has subsequently remarried, if the judgment in question has to remain in the company's database.
Case Title: M. Surendra Rao v M. Raveendra Rao and others Case No: WRIT PETITION No.4290 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
The Karnataka High Court has said it is the duty of the trial court which records the evidence to then and there itself (immediately) hear on the objections and decide regarding the marking of the document and its admissibility. It cannot reserve the right of the parties to rake up the point at a later stage and get it marked as an exhibit and include it as evidence.
Case Title: Shanti Dhama College v The Principal Secretary Case No: Writ Petition No.3503/2022 (Edn-Res)
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 105
The Karnataka High Court has observed that applications made by colleges seeking affiliation/ recognition etc. for a specified academic year must be decided with "clock work precision" and final order granting or refusal of affiliation should be issued well before the commencement of that academic year. A single judge bench of Justice P. Krishna Bhat observed, "The filing of application seeking affiliation entails payment of considerably high fees. If decisions on such applications are not taken within a timeframe, they become irrelevant or infructuous due to efflux of time and thereby applicants suffer irreparable hardship."
Case Title: PRABHAMANI v. HEMALATHA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.23811 OF 2021(LB-ELE)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
In a peculiar case, the Karnataka High Court recently allowed counting of ballot papers that belonged to another constituency after finding that there was "irrefutable evidence" to show that they were utilised for election in the constituency to which the parties before the Court belonged. The dispute pertained to elections to Karle Grama Panchayat. The Petitioner had obtained 232 votes and the Respondent had obtained 231 votes. This was on the basis of four votes that were initially rejected as not genuine, for being cast on ballot papers from another constituency.
Case Title: CTI Future Corporation versus Ducgiang Chemical and Detergent Powder Joint Stock Company
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that an international commercial arbitral award rendered between parties that have no connection with India can be enforced by a Court in India if the property against which the award is sought to be enforced lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
Case Title: Sayyad Mohammad @ Nasim V State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.5934 Of 2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 108
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused charged under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act does not get a right to default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC, merely because the charge sheet/ final report filed by the Police after investigation is without FSL report.
109. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Removal Of Alleged Anomalies In Centre's 'OROP Policy'
Case Title: Wing Commander G B Athri (Retired) v Union Of India Case No: Writ Petition No.4237 Of 2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 109
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed seeking directions to the Union Government to implement the recommendation of one-man judicial committee resolving anomalies in the implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) to all the pension drawing persons as on July 1, 2014.
Case Title: Iqbal Ahmed v C.B.I. SCB Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.538 of 2014,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
The Karnataka High Court has said it is not necessary to register FIR whenever a police officer receives information over the phone or in some other way about an offence which is likely to take place. It clarified that the mandate under Section 154 for registration of FIR comes into picture when cognizable offence "has been committed". Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said, "It is not necessary to register FIR whenever a police officer receives information over the phone or in some other way about an offence which is likely to take place. Rather it is the duty of the police officer to take immediate measures to prevent the crime from happening, or if committed in his presence, to take action according to section 41 of Cr.P.C, FIR may be registered later on."
Case Title: Karnataka State Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 18741/1996
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 111
The Karnataka High Court has till April 21, put in abeyance its order directing not to disburse the salary of the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare (Medical Education) for failing to install M.R.I. Scanning Machine at the Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (DIMHANS). A division bench led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi had in November 2021, directed the State Government to upgrade DIMHANS, by March 1, 2022, to a higher psychiatry centre and to install and make operational the MRI Machine in the hospital.
Case Title: Renuka W/O Anand @ Anantsa Bakale v Ramanand S/O Ramkrishnasa Basawa And Others Case No: Writ Petition No. 103766 Of 2018,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by courts and Lok Adalat for ascertaining the genuineness of the parties, before allowing a compromise decree, filed before it. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the directions in a petition filed by a party, claiming that its interest in the suit property was compromised by way of a compromise entered into by a person before the Lok Adalat claiming to be its power of attorney holder, without its knowledge.
Case Title: M/S. A. SEATING & Others v. M/S. NANDINI MODULARS Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1242/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
The Karnataka High Court has said that if a party, opposing the proceedings instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, fails to raise the ground of delay in filing the complaint before the court of first instance, the Court in Appeal is empowered to remand the matter back for fresh consideration on the issue of condonation of delay under Section 142(b) of the Act.
Case Title: J P I Dass School Of Nursing V State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.4980 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 114
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government and the Karnataka State Nursing Council to consider and take final decision on the proposal forwarded by 25 nursing schools seeking to start fresh courses in General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) for the academic year 2021-22.
Case Title: BABU S v. STATE BY KENGERI POLICE STATION Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2119 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a customer found in a brothel at the time when it is raided cannot be prosecuted. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagarpasanna allowed the petition filed by one Babu S and quashed the proceedings pending against him under sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and section 370 (Trafficking of person) of the IPC.
Case Title: D V VENKATESHAPPA v. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE. Case No: W.P.NO.1402/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government and Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to grant Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Certificates to a group of petitioners who surrendered their land to the corporation few years ago and still haven't received the TDR in-lieu of compensation.
Case Title: Master Pavan S v. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No.195/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 117
Observing that whereas the maximum punishment in respect of the alleged offence for which the accused, who was 17 years old at the time, is booked is of 3 years and he has already spent about 2½ years in custody, the Karnataka High Court passed an order granting bail.
The petitioner who was aged about 17 years, along with other accused persons, who are 21 in number, are said to have committed murder of two persons. Hence, the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. The Petitioner herein was booked under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 120-B, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2) of PDPP Act.
Case Title: Letzkit Foundation v. The State of Karnataka Case No: WP 10092/ 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
The Karnataka government on Wednesday informed the High Court that it has published the draft rules which provide for the procedure for inquiry and counselling to be followed by Child Welfare Committees, in cases of surrender of a child by parents/ guardians to the Committee.
119. Karnataka High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Proviso (v) To S.14(1) SARFAESI Act
Case Title: Kumaresh K and Others v Union Of India and Other Case No: WP 5990/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the Constitutional validity of proviso (v) Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
Section 14 provides procedure in which Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate may assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.
Proviso (v) to sub-section (1) thereof states that any application by the secured creditor under Section 14 shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorised officer of the secured creditor, declaring that consequent upon such default in repayment of the financial assistance the account of the borrower has been classified as a non-performing asset.
Case Title: SOHO PUB AND GRILL And STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: WRIT PETITION No.6971 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
The Karnataka High Court has directed a restaurant, Soho Pub & Grill, to earmark a separate area in its premises, after obtaining a licence, for allowing its patrons to smoke hookah. "Smoking of hookah should not cause inconvenience to other customers since smoking has been prohibited in public places, an exclusive area with separate enclosure is required to be reserved for hookah bar," Justice SG Pandit observed.
Case Title: Zuhab Hameed Shakeel Manna @ Zohib Manna v. The National Investigation Agency Case No: Writ Petition No.5913 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
The Karnataka High Court recently rejected a petition seeking default bail filed by an accused alleged to be having links with banned terrorist organizations. The applicant allegedly entered into criminal conspiracy to radicalize and motivate gullible Muslim youths to join Islamic State in Iraq and Syria ('ISIS'). A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while rejecting the plea filed by Zuhab Hameed Shakeel Manna @ Zohib Manna said, "I do not find any error or reason rendered by the Investigating Officer as put forth by the SPP to be contrary to Section 43D(2) of the Act."
Case Title: Rajkumar And The State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.6118 Of 2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 122
The Karnataka High Court has said that Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked merely on the presumption that an accused indulged himself in human trafficking. A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while quashing criminal proceedings initiated against one Rajkumar said, "What can be gathered from the complaint and the chargesheet that is filed by the police is that, it is presumed that the petitioner had indulged himself in human trafficking and therefore, Section 370 of the IPC was invoked against the petitioner."
Case Title: WE CARE CHARITABLE TRUST v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1682/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
The Karnataka High Court has said that applications filed before authorities seeking approval for upgradation of the schools should be decided in a time bound manner as the applications are filed for specific academic year and if the decision making authorities take too long a time for disposing of the applications, the academic year itself would have been over rendering the applications irrelevant or infructuous.
Case Title: Lakshmikanta and Other v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 4457/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
The Karnataka High Court while upholding the constitutional validity of Article 243R (2)(a) of the Constitution has reiterated that nominated members to the Municipal Council shall not have right to vote in the meeting of the Council.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, while dismissing a petition filed by six nominated councillors of the Malur Town Municipal Council said, "The elected members of the Council are chosen by popular vote and carry with them, the mandate of the people, whereas, nominated members of the Council are appointed as Councillors. The elected members and nominated members cannot be said to be belonging to the same class and there is no pleading that differentiation between elected and nominated members is either unreasonable or is arbitrary or that it does not rest on any rational basis. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, challenge to the validity of Article 243R (2) (a) that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, fails."
Case Title: Ms Padmavathi Subramaniyan v The Ministry Of Civil Aviation Case No: Writ Petition No.21448 Of 2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 125
The Karnataka High Court has said that since Air India Limited is now a private Company owned by M/s.Talace Pvt. Ltd., the grievance of the employees can be redressed only before the competent authority which can deal with the question and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A single judge bench of Justice R Devdas made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by petitioner Padmavathi Subramaniyan and two other employees of Air India Limited. The petitioner had approached the court with a grievance in matter of seniority.
Case Title: Dr. UMESH P.G v. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE Case No: W.A.No.148/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the notification dated June 25, 2010 issued by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare by which it de-recognize all the "Vaidya Vidwan" certificates awarded by the Andhra Ayurvedic Parishad from 1975 till 2010 as invalid.
127. Law Intern Allegedly Assaulted At Law Firm: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR
Case Title: VASANTH ADITHYA. J v. STATE BY KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3167/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash a case registered by the police against an Advocate under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act, 2000, on a complaint filed by a Law Intern.
Case Title: Mohamed Ikbal v. Secretary to the Government of India. Case No: WP 5821/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Central and State Governments to ensure proper implementation of schemes launched for providing housing to eligible siteless/houseless urban and rural BPL/EWS families belonging to various categories of weaker sections of the society.
129. After Nudge From High Court, Karnataka Govt Installs MRI Scanning Machine At DIMHANS
Case Title: Karnataka State Legal Services Authority v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 18741/1996
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 129
The Karnataka Government on Thursday informed the High Court that an M.R.I scanning machine has been installed and made operational at the Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (DIMHANS). A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna took on record the compliance affidavit filed by the government stating that installation of the MRI Scanning machine is complete and trial runs are in progress and even the Medical Superintendent has been appointed.
Case Title: K Srinivas V The Karnataka State Election Commission Case No: Writ Petition No.3415 Of 2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 130
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by four persons challenging the order passed by the Karnataka State Election Commission disqualifying them from continuing as the elected members of the Municipality, on failure to lodge a true and correct account of electoral expenditure with the Returning Officer, within prescribed time.
131. Display School Name In SSLC Certificate Issued To Students: Karnataka High Court To State
Case Title: Shanthi Nikethan High Court v other v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 6532/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government and other respondents to show the names of the schools, whose recognition was withdrawn in the middle of academic year, in S.S.L.C. marks card of the students.
Case Title: P Balaji Babu v. State Bank of India Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.46450 OF 2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 132
The Karnataka High Court has directed State Bank Of India to refund the amount forfeited by it from a prospective purchaser of a property being sold under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) as it did not disclose that title of the subject property was not with the original borrower of the loan.
Case Title: Srikanth L Ghotnekar and Other v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition no 2912/2022,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
The Karnataka High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a Former Member of Legislative Council and another person in an alleged case of extortion, registered against them by a civil contractor earlier this year. A single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav while refusing anticipatory bail to Srikanth L. Ghotnekar and Anil Chawhan said, "It must be noted that though an offence under Section 506 IPC and 363 IPC are bailable, the allegation of extortion is serious."
Case Title: THE MEMBER SECRETARY OF A P P CUM AGP RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE v. THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.57977 OF 2016,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the state government challenging an order of the State Information Commission which directed the authority to provide certified copies of answer scripts written by the applicant for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, in the year 2013.
Case Title: JANARDHANA PUJARI S And Karnataka State Law University Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.8775/2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 135
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Law University to consider sympathetically and decided on a representation to be made by a law student who could not complete his Five Year B.A LLB course within the stipulated period of 10 years from the admission to the course.
Case Title: Murali Krishna Brahmandam v. Chief Electoral Officer Case No: WP 8443/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
Observing that the petition is misconceived, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by one Murali Krishna Brahmandam seeking directions to the State and Chief Election Commissioner to not conduct the 2023 Assembly election in the state, but to directly elect people's representatives from all political parties as petitioner will elaborate.
Case Title: SALEEM KHAN v STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 130/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to one Saleem Khan, an alleged member of the Al-Hind Group which is allegedly reported to be involved in terrorist activities.
A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice S. Rachaiah said, "Mere attending meetings and becoming Member of Al-Hind Group, which is not a banned organization as contemplated under the Schedule of UA(P) Act and attending jihadi meetings, purchasing training materials and organizing shelters for co-members is not an offence as contemplated under the provisions of section 2(k) or section 2(m) of UA(P) Act."
Case Title: Comanduru Parthasarathy v. State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2802 OF 2022,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that even when the accused is secured on body warrant, the liberty of the said accused is lost and that period would come to the aid of the accused for seeking default or statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Comanduru Parthasarathy and set aside the order of the trial court, refusing default bail to the accused.
Case Title: Sampada and others v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 8202/2022,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed questioning government notification by which it amended the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instructions) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 and excluded subjects namely Psychology and Journalism at the graduate level as the minimum qualification for recruitment to the post of graduate primary teacher.
Case Title: Suresh v. State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 981/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
The Karnataka High Court has said that if the prosecution fails to prove the presence of the accused at the place of occurence of offence, it is not appropriate to draw adverse inference as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and Court cannot invoke Section 106 of the Act to ask the accused to disclose reasons for the offence.
Case Title: South India Biblical Seminary versus Indraprastha Shelters Pvt Ltd and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that reference of a dispute to arbitration cannot be allowed if it would lead to splitting up of the cause of action and cause determination on matters which were not contemplated for arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad held that there cannot be a complete adjudication of the claimant's rights unless the third parties were also heard, therefore, the matter was demonstrably non-arbitrable.
Case Title: Suo-Motu v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 5781/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
The Karnataka High Court refused permission to a batch of trade unions seeking to hold a peaceful procession in the capital on International Labour Day, i.e. on May 1.
A vacation bench of Justice R Devdas and Justice K S Hemalekha said, "This court is of considered opinion that there is a clear direction passed in order dated 3-3-2022 that the state government authorities will ensure that no protest/procession are held in the entire city of Bengaluru, except freedom park."
Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. SHANKAR URF SHANKRAPPA S/O RAMPPA HUBBALLI Case No: CRL.A. NO.100242/2018,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
The Karnataka High Court recently increased the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to ten years, imposed on an accused convicted for raping a minor girl and charged under sections of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Case Title: HUBBALLI DHARWAD ADVERTISERS ASSOCIATION and others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Others Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 104172 OF 2021,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
The Karnataka High Court has declared that there is no conflict between the power to levy GST under GST Act and power of Municipal Corporation to levy advertisement fee or advertisement tax under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.
Case Title: MOHAMED ARIF JAMEEL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6795 OF 2022 (S-RES-PIL)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed seeking to declare the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act 2022 as unconstitutional, illegal and void. Through the said Act, the government has validated the recruitment of 362 gazetted 'probationers' of the 2011 batch, selected by the Karnataka Public Service Commission.
Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., versus NAGENDRA Case No: MFA NO.8801 OF 2018,
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
The Karnataka High Court has said that a person who is a driver by profession if loses complete vision of one eye in a motor accident, then he would not be able to continue his profession of driving, thus it would have to be considered as permanent physical disability and 100% loss of earning capacity.
Case Title: Stanley Joseph v. State Case No: Criminal Petition no 1172/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
In a cheating case instituted by a woman against film director Stanley Joseph, the Karnataka High Court has said that though going back on a promise to marry will not amount to cheating in this case, but obtaining a loan and not repaying the same will amount to criminal intention to cheating, attracting Section 420 of IPC.
Case Title: Sathish N v. Ambika J Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 474 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that if a wife moves out of the matrimonial house due to ill-treatment meted out by husband, he cannot claim that she moved out by mutual consent and thus he is not liable to pay maintenance amount.
Case Title: Chennaiah @Doddachennaiah and others versus Bylappa and others Case No: RSA No 743/2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
The Karnataka High Court has said that in a suit relating to grant of injunction in respect of an immovable property, the right to sue is not personal to the plaintiff but survives to his legal representative and the suit for injunction would not therefore abate on the death of the parties.
150. Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines For Making Or Continuing Entries In Rowdy Register /History Sheets In Light Of 'Privacy Jurisprudence'
Case title: B S PRAKASH versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., and connected matters, Case No: W.P.NO.4504/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
The Karnataka High Court recently issued guidelines to be followed by the police before entering the name of an individual to the Register of Rowdies, which is maintained by every police station.
Case Title: Babu A Dhammanagi vs Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
A division bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 95, 99 and 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("the Code") as it found no merit to the challenge.
The Court held that the process contemplated under Sections 95 to 100 is a time bound process, which requires the Resolution Professional to firstly give reasons in support of his recommendation. Secondly, the role of the Resolution Professional is limited to giving his recommendation and there is no element of adjudication on the part of the Resolution Professional. It is Adjudicating Authority which takes the final decision on whether the application is to be admitted or rejected, and it is not bound by the recommendation of the Resolution Professional.
152: Karnataka High Court Stays ED Order Seizing Xioami India Assets
Case title: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v. Union of India Case No: WP 9182/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday stayed the order issued by the Enforcement Directorate dated April 29, by which it has seized Rs.5551.27 Crore of M/s Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act,1999.
Case Title: The Management Of KSRTC v. K.Shivaram Case No: Writ Petition No.17583/2017 (L-KSRTC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
The Karnataka High Court has said that a workman who claims compensation due to injuries suffered during the course of employment, his claims under the Employees Compensation Act 1923, would lie before the Employees Compensation Commissioner and not before the Labour Court.
Case Title: BANU BEGUM W/O KHAJASAB ALIAS MEHABOOBSAB and Others Versus State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100659 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
The Karnataka High Court has said that in the absence of a declaration that a child is deserted by his biological or adoptive parents or guardians, filing of chargesheet under section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act 2015, is without any substance.
155. Karnataka HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against 68-Year-Old Woman Charged Under SC/ST Act
Case Title: Savithri v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition 8857/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
Observing that, "She had no criminal intention in the initial stage while obtaining the (caste) certificate and seeking reservation and got (job) appointment, but she bonafidely believed that she will get the caste of her husband in view of marrying the person who belongs to member of SC/ST," the Karnataka High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings pending against a 68-year-old woman (Brahmin by birth), who was charged under provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Case Title: POOJA S v. ABHISHEK SHETTY Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.24220 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
The Karnataka High Court recently directed a husband to pay Rs 25,000 as litigation expenses to allow the wife to engage an advocate and to contest the proceedings filed by him seeking dissolution of marriage.
Case Title: Praveen Kumar Adyapady and ANR v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition 888/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 157
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that as per Section 13 of the Notaries Act, there is a bar for taking cognizance by the Court for offences committed by an advocate and notary while adding that under the Act, the police have to obtain the permission of the Central Government or State Government for filing the charge sheet and taking cognizance.
Case Title: INDIAN COUNCIL FOR CULTURAL RELATIONS & others v. AJAY MERCHANT & Anr Case No: W.P. No.32335 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 158
The Karnataka High Court has said that a person appointed by the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) and placed with the British Council Library, is an employee of the British Council Library and it can investigate and take disciplinary action against the employee on complaint of misconduct.
Case Title: RASHMI TANDON & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6638 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 159
The Karnataka High Court has held that proceedings under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are maintainable even if a complaint has been invoked Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: Ashwini v. State of Karnataka Case No: WRIT PETITION No.755 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 160
The Karnataka High Court has said that once the court accepts the complaint filed under section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and directs particular police to investigate, the police cannot decline to investigate.
Case title: PRASHANTH SAMBARGI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and ANR. Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.349 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), wherein the Magistrate court referred the complaint filed for defamation under section 499, 500 of the Indian Penal Code to the police for further investigation.
Case Title: Injamam Shariff v. State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4045/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
The Karnataka High Court has observed that merely because a person is alleged to be habitual offenders or have criminal antecedents, keeping them in jail for an offence which is yet to be investigated is 'unjust'.
Case Title: GOOD SHEPHERD CONVENT v STATE OF KARNATAKA and Others Case No: WRIT PETITION No.47882 OF 2014 (LB-BMP)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed the order passed by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) demanding payment of betterment charges/ fee from an over 150 year-old school which proposes to construct additional floors on the existing school campus by way of an extension.
Case Title: Chief Executive Officer and Anr v. K.V.Puttaraju Case No: W.P.No.46017/2017
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 164
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an order passed by the Controlling Authority/ Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which directed government bodies to pay gratuity amount claimed by former employees from the time they were employed as daily wage earners till their employment was regularised.
Case Title: Sushil Goel And Anr v. State At The Instance Of Drug Inspector Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6875 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 165
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the Proprietors/ Directors of a drugs manufacturing company for alleged production of sub-standard quality drugs, while observing that they did not play an "active role" in the alleged offence.
166. 18% GST Payable On 'Pattadar Pass Book Cum Title Deed' ; Karnataka High Court Upholds AAR Ruling
Case Title: M/s. Manipal Technologies Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka Case No: WP No. 4866/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice S. Sujatha and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, while upholding the ruling of the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), held that 18% GST is payable on 'pattadar pass book cum title deed'.
167. Karnataka High Court Acquits Murder Convict, Sets Aside Life Term After Man Serves 13 Yrs In Jail
Case Title: SHIVAPRASAD @ SHIVA v. State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.573/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 167
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the conviction of a man, incarcerated since 13 years, for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC. The Court thus set aside the life term imposed by Special CBI Court and ordered his forthwith release.
168. Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To PT Teacher Charged Under POCSO Act For Misbehaving With Student
Case Title: N.R. Sugandaraju v. State of Karnataka, Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2917/2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to a PT Teacher accused of misbehaving with a student studying in the 10th standard of the school and charged under section 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Case Title: NETHRA v STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2306 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 169
Observing that it is not the law that bail should always be denied in a case where the offence punishable is of death or life imprisonment, the Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to a woman accused of murdering her husband. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Netra and granted her bail relying on section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Case Title: V Srinivasaraju v State by Yelahanka Police. Case No: Criminal Petition no 4770/2015.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
The Karnataka High Court while refusing to quash the case of abetment of suicide against an accused, has observed that perception of threatening word differs from person to person and thus, it would not be appropriate in the facts of the case to quash the FIR without a full-fledged trial.
171. Police Sub-Inspector Is Empowered To Investigate & File Charge Sheet: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: E S Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka, Case No: Criminal Petition 2807/2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Police Sub-Inspector is empowered to investigate and file charge sheet. There is no defect in the charge sheet filed by the Police Sub-Inspector after due investigation.
Case Title: Shalini and Anr. versus National Highways Authority of India and Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that an award of compensation passed by an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 does not attract stamp duty.
Case Title: CANCER PATIENTS AID ASSOCIATION v CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
Case no: WP 5861/2022
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by Cancer Patients Aid Association against the movie "KGF-2" for allegedly promoting smoking by displaying the habit as healthy and heroic.
Case Title: SUJIT S/O MADIWALAPPA MULGUND v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Case No: WP 15144/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 174
The Karnataka High Court has issued general directions for speedy conclusion of investigations in criminal matters. A single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav in its interim order said, "There is a requirement to pass directions for speedy conclusion of investigation, that may be applicable to the matters in general."
Case Title: Sangeeta Gadagin v. State Of Karnataka, & C/W Matters. Case No: WP 3522/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to forthwith take necessary steps to implement the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS Scheme) in the state. Otherwise, the Court observed that the fundamental right to nutritious food of 50 lakhs beneficiaries in Karnataka, particularly of pregnant women, lactating mothers and children, stand violated.
Case Title: Vikram Vincent v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
The Karnataka High Court has directed the police to investigate alleged charges of performing unnatural sex, levelled against a husband by his estranged wife.
Case Title: Prakash Sharma S/O Mehdi Sharma v. State By Marathahalli Police Station Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4281 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to an accused who was working as a receptionist at a hotel which was allegedly being used as a brothel.
Case Title: SATHISH K and others v State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4172 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
The Karnataka High Court recently held that closure of proceedings on account of settlement arrived at between the parties even for offence of Rape, punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, is permissible. Observing thus, it quashed the proceedings pending against four persons on the complaint made by a woman belonging to the same family.
Case Title: The Bangalore Development Authority and Others v. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others
Case No: WA 4121/2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
The Karnataka High Court has said that proceedings initiated by a father in respect of a claim of title over a property which is decided by the court will bind the son also. He cannot be permitted to agitate for the same cause, following the principle of res-judicata.
Case Title: G.H.Abdul Kadri v. Mohammed Iqbal Case No: Crl.RP.No.1323/2019
Citation; 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
The Karnataka High Court has said that a criminal trial cannot be held in the absence of an accused unless personal appearance is dispensed with for valid reasons. There cannot be dispensation of examination of an accused under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) if incriminating evidence appears in the evidence of the witness.
Case Title: B.A.HARISH GOWDA v. RAVI KUMAR Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.175/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
The Karnataka High Court has suggested that the Central Government make necessary amendments to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in order to provide an opportunity to victims to approach the Court in appeal seeking enhancement of sentence imposed on a convict.
Case Title: SRIKANTAIAH v STATE BY ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU and ANR Case no: WRIT PETITION No.12/2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
The Karnataka High Court has said that a second petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing the criminal proceedings will be maintainable but only in exceptional cases where there are changed circumstances.
Case Title: ITI Limited versus Alphion Corporation & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that even with respect to a High Court that does not exercise an Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, a Commercial Division is required to be established for the purpose of considering applications and appeals arising out of an International Commercial Arbitration. The Court added that the said Commercial Division must comprise of a Single Judge.
Case Title: DR. K.RAVINDRANATH SHETTY & others v STATE OF KARNATAKA & others Case No: W.P.No.21453/2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in respect of a land in favour of the tenant, on the ground that all the legal heirs of the deceased owner were not arrayed as parties to the proceedings and their right to oppose was snatched away.
Case Title: BOPPANDA N. KUSHALAPPA v. BALEYADA K. CHERAMANNA and Others Case No: C.R.C No.1 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
The Karnataka High Court recently clarified that the notification issued by the High Court in the year 1979, has limited scope and invests the power in Senior Civil Judges only for issuance of Succession Certificates under Part-X of the Indian Succession Act and not for Probate.
Case Title: Dr Yasin Khan v. State of Karnataka and Others Case No: WA NO. 100292/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
The Karnataka High Court has observed that Constitutional Courts cannot be disproportionately harsh to the arguable guilt of the litigants.
187. SC/ST Act Can't Be Invoked Merely Because Victim's Mother Belongs To Scheduled Caste: Karnataka HC
Case Title: BHIMAPPA JANTAKAL @ BHIMANNA & others v State of Karnataka and ANR Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.101825 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
The Karnataka High Court has held that a person, whose one parent belongs to the scheduled caste community and another parent to forward caste, will have to in his complaint under the Schedule Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989, specifically plead that he belongs to the schedule caste.
Case Title: SRINIVASA and ANR v STATE BY BEECHANALLI POLICE STATION. Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.716 OF 2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
Almost 14 years after an Elephant died due to electrocution, the Karnataka High Court has upheld the conviction handed down to two persons who put up electric fencing around their agricultural land which led to the elephant's death.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz upheld the conviction handed down to the accused Srinivasa and Basavaraju under Sections 138(1)(a) of the Electricity Act 2003 and Section 429 of IPC. However, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 9 r/w Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act.
Case Title: The Vice Chairman Settlement Commission & Anr. versus M/s Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that merely because the ratio in which service tax was required to be paid by the service recipient and the service provider was not strictly adhered to, the assessee cannot be made liable to pay double tax by denying him the CENVAT Credit.
190. Bigamy Is A Continuing Offence; Wife's Consent For Second Marriage Immaterial: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: ANAND C. @ ANKU GOWDA & others v. CHANDRAMMA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9849 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
The Karnataka High Court has said that bigamy under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a continuing offence and the consent of wife for the subsequent marriage would become immaterial for consideration of the offence.
Case Title: ACHUT D. NAYAK & Others v THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100284 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
The Karnataka High Court has said that the power under Sections 133, 138 and 139 of CrPC to prevent public nuisance has to be exercised by affording sufficient opportunities to the parties and to record evidence and to arrive at a legal finding that the action of the person has resulted in nuisance to the general public at large.
Case Title: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. ABDUL S/O MEHABOOB TAHASILDAR, and C/W matter.
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103807 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
The Karnataka High Court has held that 'Loss of future prospects' has to be factored in, notwithstanding the fact that it is not a case of death but a case of injury without amputation resulting in whole body disability, which ultimately has a bearing on the reduced earning capacity.
Case Title: DIVYA & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Anr
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.675 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
The Karnataka High Court has said the bar under Section 199 CrPC on a Magistrate from exercising powers under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on a complaint involving offences punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, would be applicable even in cases where offences are alleged for other offences in addition with Section 500 of the IPC.
Case Title: M/S. CREST FACILITY MANAGEMENT v UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.39350/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
The Karnataka High Court has said that blacklisting or debarring of a Contractor from participating in any contract has civil consequences and thus, prior notice indicating the reasons for blacklisting and debarment has to be communicated and on receiving reply, a final order may be passed.
Case Title: K. SRINIVAS & others v. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.408 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of State Election Commission, disqualifying four persons from continuing as the elected members of Municipality over their failure to lodge a true and correct account of electoral expenditure with the Returning Officer within prescribed time.
Case Title: DR CHIDANANDA P MANSUR v. UNION OF INDIA & others
Case no: W.A. NO.100198/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
The Karnataka High Court has observed that fixation of retirement age of public servants has a direct bearing on the state exchequer as well as employment opportunities for others. In view thereof, it dismissed a writ petition filed by the former Dean of a College, seeking directions to the state government to continue his service upto the age of 65 years, instead of 62 years.
Case Title: BASAVARAJ ITAGI & others v. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
Case no: W.P.NO.9494 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the practical examinations conducted for the student-petitioners pursuing their final year MBBS course at certain colleges affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS), in a plea alleging that the same was not conducted in accordance with law and was done in violation of the University guidelines.
Case Title: M/s Abhiram Infra Projects Private Limited versus The Commissioner, Karnataka Slum Development Board
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.4845 OF 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that in the absence of an application filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for correction of typographical errors in the arbitral award, the Court cannot pass an order modifying and correcting the arbitral award on the basis of a Memo filed before it by a party.
Case title: SAMANTHA CHRISTINA DELFINA WILLIS & ANR v STATE OF KARNATAKA and others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24602 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Karnataka High Court has held that a power of attorney holder of an accused cannot maintain a petition be it under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
200. S.216 CrPC | Charge Can Be Altered Anytime During Trial: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Ananda v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1829 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 216 of the Criminal procedure Code (Cr.P.C) the trial court can alter the charge framed even if the trial has progressed to a large extent.
Case Title: MAHAMMAD ALI AKBAR @ ALI UMAR v State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4449 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
The Karnataka High Court has held that on the child attaining 18 years of age, the rigor under Section 33(5) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Act gets diluted and sequentially, will not become a bar for seeking recalling and further cross-examination of the victim under Section 311 of the CrPC on an application made by the accused.
Case Title: Sobha Ltd. v. Nava Vishwa Shashi Vijaya and Ors.
Case No.: C.M.P. No. 24 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
The High Court of Karnataka held that the petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act would be premature when the parties have not complied with the precondition of conciliation.
The Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi dismissed the arbitration petition for the appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the petitioner had directly approached the Court without taking recourse to the precondition of conciliation.
Case Title: Gokaldas Images Private Limited versus Aries Agro-Vet Associates (Pvt) Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the landlord-tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are arbitrable in nature.
The Single Bench of Justice E.S. Indiresh observed that the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia versus Durga Trading Corporation (2020) had overruled its decision in Himangi Enterprises versus Amaljit Singh Ahulvalia (2017). The Court thus held that the landlord-tenant disputes between the parties under the lease deed, which was governed by the Transfer of Property Act, could be referred to arbitration.
Case Title: CITIZENS ACTION GROUP v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others, Case No: WP 38401/2014.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Executive Engineers (designated officers) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to take steps and remove encroachments which exist in the tank area of Subramanyapura lake and Begur lake.
Case Title: MURULY M.S. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.10688 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 40 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 permits private ownership of live elephants and there is no bar in giving them up in adoption, so long as the transaction is of non-commercial nature.
206. S.147 NI Act | Every Offence Under Negotiable Instruments Act Is Compoundable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Arun Vincent Rajkumar v S Mala
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.579 OF 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
The Karnataka High Court recently said that Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes every offence punishable under the Act as compoundable and there is no bar on parties to compound the offence.
Case Title: Hanumanthappa v State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 3997/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to an accused alleged of sexually assaulting a minor girl and marrying her, after the victim and her mother turned hostile in court during the trial.
208. Stridhan Cannot Be Retained By Family Of Husband On Annulment Of Marriage: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: GANESH PRASAD HEGDE & Others v SUREKHA SHETTY
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4544 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
The Karnataka High Court has said that annulment of marriage cannot mean that all the articles that woman carried to the matrimonial house can be retained by the family of the husband.
Case Title: T.L. NAGARAJU v THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
Case No: WRIT PETITION (HC) NO.42/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the decision of the suitability of partners to a marital tie rests exclusively with the individuals themselves. Neither the State nor the Society can intrude into that domain.
210. 'No Material Against Him': Karnataka High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Bishop
Case Title: RT Rev Prasanna Kumar Samuel v State of Karnataka & others
Case No: WP 5923/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated by a Sessions Court against Reverend Prasanna Kumar Samuel under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. He is the Bishop of Church of South India (CSI) Karnataka Central Diocese, Bengaluru.
Case Title: D.ROOPA v H.N.SATHYANARAYANA RAO
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.72 OF 2022
Citation; 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
The Karnataka High Court has held that a pure official communication between two people, without it being referred to any other department or a quarter, cannot become the ingredient of Section 499 of the IPC.
Case Title: MUZAMMIL PASHA v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19012 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
The Karnataka High Court has directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to furnish in two weeks time the documents which include statements of witnesses recorded by the local police investigating the DJ Halli riot case of 2020 (before the probe was transferred to NIA), to an accused in the case.
Case Title: XXXX versus XXXX
Case No: MFA NO.102625/2015 (MC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
The Karnataka High Court has held that a wife calling her husband an impotent without legally substantiating the same by itself would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Case Title: RAJAMMA H v THIMMAIAH V
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.11265 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
The Karnataka High Court has said that an application filed under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, should be decided by the Magistrate within two months (sixty days) from the date of its presentation.
Case Title: BEML Ltd. v. Prakash Parcel Services Ltd. M.F.A. No. 4180 of 2019 (AA).
Citation no: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
The High Court of Karnataka has held that a subsequent Section 8 application would be non-maintainable when the order of the arbitrator accepting objection to its jurisdiction was not challenged.
Case Title: RATHNAMMA v. STATE REPRESENTED BY PSI, CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION.
Case No: CRL.P No.3571/2021
Citation no: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Magistrate or the Special Court (under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act) is conferred with the power/jurisdiction to consider the application for 'interim custody' of the conveyance/vehicle under the provisions of Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases arising out of the provisions of NDPS Act.
Case Title: Umapathi S. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.10789 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
The State Government informed the Karnataka High Court about the appointment of former judge of the High Court, Bhimanagouda Sanganagouda Patil, as the Lokayukta of Karnataka. Following which the bench dismissed the petition filed by Advocate UMAPATHI. S.
Case Title: VISHWAS V v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.5609 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings pending against an Architect, observing that it would be too far to stretch Section 304A of the IPC to contend that a person who had designed the house is responsible for death of a worker while undertaking construction under a contractor.
Case Title: Lakshi Venkateshwara Kallu Kutukara Bhovi Shakhara Sangha v. The State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 11537/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to consider the representation to be made by members of the Bhovi Community, who are involved in traditional stone cutting work and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, in respect of allowing them to continue their work in Meesaganahalli village.
Case Title: Vikas Verma & Others v. Union of India & Others.
Case No: WA 5651/2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the dismissal from service order passed by the Disciplinary Authority against eight constables of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), for allegedly blackmailing and repeatedly raping the wife of another constable. The order was passed without holding regular inquiry.
Case Title: RITHESH PAIS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3597 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against an accused under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, holding that alleged abuses hurled by him to the complainant were in the basement of a building which was not a place of public view or a public place.
Case Title: ARCHANA GIRISH KAMATH v. UNION OF INDIA
Case No: WP 11644/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by Table Tennis Player Archana Kamath, questioning the decision of the Table Tennis Federation in not selecting her in the team which would represent India in the upcoming CommonWealth Games, 2022, to be held in England.
Case Title: V.KRISHNAMURTHY v. DIARY CLASSIC ICE CREAMS PVT. LTD
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.632 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
The Karnataka High Court has directed Magistrate courts to take into consideration conduct of the accused while deciding application filed by drawee in a cheque dishonour case, seeking interim compensation under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Case Title: B.DURGA RAM v. The State By BENGALURU CITY CENTRAL P.S.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2072 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings pending against a man holding that the FIR lodged by the complainant was 45 days after the alleged incident of assault and no plausible explanation was given for the delayed filing of FIR.
Case Title: PUBLIC TV (KANNADA NEWS CHANNEL) and ANR v. BANNADI SOMANATH HEGDE
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.10262 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
The Karnataka High Court has quashed defamation proceedings initiated against Public TV, a Kannada news channel, and HR Ranganath, Chief Patron of the channel, initiated based on a private complaint filed alleging that several media entities has spoken ill about the advocate's fraternity at large.
Case Title: XXX versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2743 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a woman under sections 498-A, 506, 504 and 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by another woman alleging that the accused was having an illicit relationship with her husband.
Case Title: D M Deve Gowda v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Case No: WP 10502/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a land can either be a "forest" or a "forest land", but there cannot be any "deemed forest" in absence of any provision under the Forest Conservation Act.
Case Title: REKHA & Others versus LALITHAMMA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 55337 OF 2018(GM-CPC)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a plaintiff's request for amendment of plaint can be considered even after commencement of trial, in case the fundamental character of the suit is not changed and no prejudice is caused to the responding party.
Case Title: NELSON RAJ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.267 OF 2022 & CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.337 OF 2022.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw 229
The Karnataka High Court has said that courts are bound to take into consideration all the contentions raised by the parties while hearing a bail petition filed before it and then pass an appropriate order.
Case Title: Kavitha v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1372 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on a woman for allegedly causing the death of her two months old girl-child, who was suffering from epilepsy and some respiratory problems, by throwing her into a river.
Case Title: Mrs Leena Rakesh v Bureau of Immigration Ministry of Home Affairs.
Case No: WP 11213/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
The Karnataka High Court has said the request for issuance of a Look out Circular (LOC) or preventing a person (defaulter of loan) from travelling abroad cannot be a mode of recovery of dues by a bank, unless there is an element of fraud and economic interest of the country is involved.
232. Karnataka High Court Orders ₹10 Lakh Compensation For Death Of 2-Yr-Old In Stray Dog Attack
Case Title: YUSUB S/O MOHAMUSAB SANADI v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 110352 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 232
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is a statutory obligation which has been imposed upon the local municipal authorities to safeguard the human beings cohabitating within their jurisdiction, from the danger of any stray dogs and/or any attack by such stray dogs.
Case Title: SUPRIT ISHWAR DIVATE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 115362 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused who is arrested can normally not be handcuffed. It is only under "extreme circumstances", for instance where there is possibility of the accused/ under trial prisoner escaping custody or causing harm to himself or causing harm to others, that handcuffing of an accused can be resorted to.
234. Accused Can't Be Convicted For Charge Which Is Not Framed By Trial Court: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M.AJITHKUMAR v THE STATE BY FOOD INSPECTOR, KOPPA
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1527/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction handed down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the trial court for a charge which it did not frame against the accused, and remanded the matter back to be considered afresh.
Case Title: XXX v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION HABEAS CORPUS No.57 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a transgender person, seeking directions to the police to produce an 18-year old girl, alleged to be his partner.
Case Title: SHIVANAND LAXMAN ANCHI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.16983 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a former Civil Judge, Junior Division questioning the order dated March 22, 2021 passed by the state government ordering compulsory retirement from service.
Case Title: K LAKSHMAIAH REDDY v. V ANIL REDDY & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.10926 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
The Karnataka High Court has held that a counsel/advocate appearing for the parties are entitled to be physically present at the remote point from where the evidence of such party is being recorded through video conferencing.
