Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: July 4 - July 10 l, 2022

NOMINAL INDEXPRABHUNAIKA K.T v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 242CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION v K.L.JAYAPRAKASH, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 243Irfan Pasha v. National Investigation Agency, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 244Commissioner of Central Tax Vs ABB Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 245 Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 246 SHABANNA TAJ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 247 Thippeswamy @ Kunta v. State by Challakere Police, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 248 T G VEERAPRASAD & Others v. PRAKASH GANDHI & Others, 2022 LiveLaw 249 DR.S.P.RAGHUNATH v. THE UNION OF INDIA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 250 VENKATESH SETTY & Others v. SAOURAV GANGULY & Others, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 251 Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. versus Mr. Donald Dayanand Donald, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 252M/s Bellatrix Consultancy Services Versus The Commissioner of Central Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 253 Masters Management Consultants (India) Private Ltd. versus Nitesh Estates Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 254 REPORTS1.Doctrine Of Sameness' Not Attracted When Victims Differ: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Multiple POCSO FIRs Against School Teacher Case Title: PRABHUNAIKA K.T v. STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2015 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 242 The Karnataka High Court has observed that the 'Doctrine of Sameness' is not applicable if cases against the accused registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, are filed at different periods of time by different complainants. 2.S.116 Evidence Act | Tenant Who Accepts Induction Into Premises By A Landlord Can't Dispute Landlord's Title: Karnataka High Court Case Title: CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION v K.L.JAYAPRAKASH Case No: M.S.A. No.28/2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 243 The Karnataka High Court has said that in a tenancy dispute, when the tenant does not dispute his induction into the said property by the plaintiff (landlord) under a lease agreement, the question of doubting the title of plaintiff would not arise 3.UAPA | Individuals Not Members Of Any Terrorist Organization Can Also Be Prosecuted For 'Terrorist Act': Karnataka High Court Case Title: Irfan Pasha v. National Investigation Agency Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 673/2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 244 The Karnataka High Court has said that it is not necessary that a person being prosecuted for "terrorist act" defined under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, should be a member of a terrorist organization. 4.No Suppression Of Facts, Show Cause Notice Based On Balance Sheet: KarnatakaHigh Court Case Title: Commissioner of Central Tax Vs ABB Limited Case No: Central Excise Appeal No.16/2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 245 The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice Anant Ramanath Hedge has held that the assessee is not liable for the suppression of facts as the show cause notice was issued on the basis of the disclosures made in the balance sheet. 5.Xiaomi India's Challenge To Seizure Of Assets Before High Court 'Premature';Competent Authority Under FEMA Must Decide: Karnataka HC Case Title: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v. Union of India Case No: WP 9182/2022 Citation no: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 246 The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the Competent Authority appointed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act,1999 (FEMA) to issue a notice of hearing to M/s Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd and hear the parties concerned and pass appropriate orders in regards to the challenge raised by the company on the order passed by the Enforcement Directorate, seizing Rs.5551.27 crores. 6.[Rape] Consent Can't Be Assumed Even If Woman Is Of Bad Character/ Vulnerable:Karnataka HC Cancels Anticipatory Bail Of Accused Police Constable Case Title: SHABANNA TAJ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4320/2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 247 The Karnataka High Court has set aside the anticipatory bail granted to a police constable accused of sexually assaulting a women over a period of three years under the false promise of marriage. 7.'Chance Fingerprints' Tallying With Theft Accused Not Reliable When Spot & Manner Of Lifting Fingerprint Not Disclosed: Karnataka HC Orders Acquittal Case Title: Thippeswamy @ Kunta v. State by Challakere Police Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.911 OF 2012 Citation; 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 248 The Karnataka High Court has said in a case of circumstantial evidence, it is not safe to rely upon the mere report of the Fingerprint expert that the 'Chance Fingerprint' given to him for examination was corresponding to the fingerprint of the accused and proceeding to convict the accused, unless the spot and the manner in which such fingerprint was lifted is disclosed in the Court. 8.Recording Of Evidence Through VC Not Right...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: July 4 - July 10 l, 2022

Mustafa Plumber

Tags