Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up : January 17 to 23

1: The Marriage Is Totally Dead': KarnatakaHigh Court Grants Divorce To Couple Living Separately Since 21 Yrs Case Title: K Mallikarjuna v. H A Sudha Mallikarjuna Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal 4314/2012. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 15Observing 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."2: Medical Negligence Cases RecklesslyLaunched': Karnataka High Court Bats For Legal Protection Of Doctors AgainstBonafide Errors Case Title: Dr Ganesh Nayak v. V Shamanna Case No: Writ Petition No.21688 oF 2009 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 16The 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. 3: Payment Of Wages Act Is Beneficial Piece Of Legislation,Weaker Section Can't Be Denied Legal Entitlement On Technicalities: KarnatakaHC Case Title: Parvathamma v. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests Case No: Writ Petition No.8730 of 2016 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. 4: Greatest Agony Of Parent Is To Lose Child During Lifetime': Karnataka HC Enhances Compensation For Death Of 2YrsOld In Motor Accident Case Title: Suresh v. D Ramesh Case No: M.F.A. No.8030/2016 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.5: Borrower Can't Claim Loan MoratoriumAs A Right Based On RBI's Circular Of March 2020 : Karnataka High Court Case Title: The Governor Reserve Bank Of India v. Velankani Information Systems Limited Case No: W.A.No.625/2020 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. 6: Not Arraigning Company As Accused Would Not VitiateProceedings Initiated Against Occupier Under Factories Act: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Yashihirao Horinouchi v. The Deputy Director Of Factories Case No: Writ Petition No.11451 OF 2018 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 20The 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 ...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up : January 17 to 23

Mustafa Plumber

Tags