Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: February 2022 [Citations 34-52]

Nominal Index: 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 Judgements/Orders: 1. Karnataka High Court Reduces Sentence Of KSRTC Employee Convicted For Rash Driving, Endangering Life Of Others Case Title: Devendrappa H v. The State Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 34 Grating 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." 2. S. 63 Of Copyright Act Is Cognizable Offence, Police Can Register FIR On Receipt Of Complaint: Karnataka High Court 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." 3. Applicant Seeking Relief U/S 5 Limitation Act Must 'Explain Delay For Every Day' That Elapses Beyond Prescribed Period: Karnataka High Court 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. 4. Petitioner Surrendered His Seat Before Last Counselling & Not Mid-Course, Institute Can't Recover Entire Course Fees: Karnataka High Court 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." 5. 'Daring Ride On Court': Karnataka HC Dismisses 11 Contempt Petitions Filed Against Its Registrar General With ₹11 Lakh Cost Case Title: Jeetendra Kumar Rajan v. T. G. Shivashankare GowdaCitation: 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...

Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: February 2022 [Citations 34-52]

Mustafa Plumber

Tags