Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: Feb 27 To March 5, 2023

Nominal Index:XYZ And Karnataka State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 82DR. K.N.Anuradha And Karnataka State Information Commission & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 83The Mysore Electrical Industries Limited And Engineering & General Workers Union. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 84B Ranganath Hegde And Karnataka State Legal Services Authority & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 85Kattemane Ganesha v. State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 86M/s Inditrade Fincorp Pvt Ltd And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 87Jayanna B @ Jayaram And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 88P S Leelavathi v. N Ravi Shankar & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 89Karnataka Lokayuktha And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (kar) 90Belandur GM Pan,Karyalaya And Government of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 91Karnataka State Private Homoeopathic Medical College Managements Association And Union of India & oThers. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 92The State of Karnataka Versus The Index Technologies India Ltd.. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 93Judgments/OrdersKarnataka State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights Not Empowered To Grant Visitation Rights To Parents: High CourtCase title: XYZ And Karnataka State Commission for the Protection of Child Rights & ANRCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 37674 OF 2017Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 82The Karnataka High Court has held that the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights cannot pass an order granting visitation rights of the child to a parent.A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani observed, “The Commission is an advisory body and it could frame or suggest policy decisions with respect to the child’s rights to the State Government. The Act does not empower and conferred with any power of adjudication or to decide adversarial proceedings. The commission has no power to adjudicate any lis between two parties.”PIO Can't Be Compelled To Furnish Information If RTI Application Doesn't Contain Particulars Of Information Sought: Karnataka High CourtCase title: DR. K.N.Anuradha And Karnataka State Information Commission & OthersCase NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 13791 OF 2016Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 83The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by the Karnataka State Information Commission while deciding on applications made before it under the Right to Information Act. A single judge bench of Jyoti Mulimani said “Given the increase of applications, it’s high time the Commission addresses the issue properly and in a right perspective.”Deprived Workers Of Their Dues: Karnataka High Court Directs Mysore Electrical To Reinstate Employees Unilaterally Shifted To Contractual EngagementCase Title: The Mysore Electrical Industries Limited And Engineering & General Workers Union.Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 3788 OF 2012Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 84The Karnataka High Court has held that Mysore Electrical Industries Limited, a State Government Undertaking, which is not registered under Section 7 of the Contract Labour Abolition Act (CLRA) shifted the services of its workmen to private agencies (contractors) without their consent, declaring their employment as contract labour, only for the purpose of depriving the workers their due amounts.A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj upheld the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 03-12-2011, directing the employer to restore the services of the workmen.Legal Services Authority Misinterpreted: Karnataka High Court Quashes Notices Demanding Excess Sitting Fees Drawn By Former Lok Adalat MemberCase Title: B Ranganath Hegde And Karnataka State Legal Services Authority & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 798 OF 2013Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 85The Karnataka High Court has quashed the Demand notice/Communications issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, (KSLSA) and District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), to a former (now deceased) Member of the Permanent Lok Adalat, seeking to recover excess sitting fees drawn by him.A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani allowing the petition filed by B. Ranganath Hegde, quashed the Demand notice/ Communications dated 03.12.2012, 08.11.2012, 12.09.2012 and 31.08.2012 issued by KSLSA and District Legal Services Authority by which an amount of Rs 46,900 was sought to be recovered.Karnataka High Court Orders Trial Court To Pass Fresh Verdict in Murder Case, Says Court Can't Ignore Cross-Examination While Considering Evidence Case Title: Kattemane Ganesha v. State of KarnatakaCase No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.441 OF 2015 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1055 OF 2015Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 86The Karnataka High Court has said trial courts dealing with criminal matters have to appreciate evidence as a whole and cannot ignore the cross-examination.A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice Rajesh Rai K allowed the appeals filed by a murder convict Kattemane Ganesha and the victim in the same case. While Ganesha had challenged the order convicting him in the murder case, the victim...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: Feb 27 To March 5, 2023

Mustafa Plumber

Tags