Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 18 To July 24, 2022

Nominal Index: AMBADI MADHAV v. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 266 Parveez Pasha v. The State by Tilak Park Police Tumkur. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 267 J SRINIVAS & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 268 Jeetendar Singh v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 269 Y Harish and Anr. versus Y Satish and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 270 M/s. Noorani Properties (P) Ltd. versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 271 Mrs M Dhanalakshmi @ Lakshmi Rajan & Anr. v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 272 SANGEETA W/O BAPU LAMANI & Others v. BAPU S/O SOMAPPA LAMANI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 273 SHOBHA & Others v. KAREWWA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 274 Himanshu Gupta And V Narayana Reddy. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 275 NAZRULLA KHAN @ NAZRULLA And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 276 N R RAVI v. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S. SEM INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 277 Lysosomal Storage Disorders Support Society v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 278 ZAKIR HUSSAIN v STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 279 Dharmrao S/o Sharanappa Shabdi & Others v Syed Arifa Parveen W/o Mushtaq Ahmed. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 280 M/s. D.P.J. Bidar-Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project Pvt Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 281 Godolphine India Private Limited versus UM Projects LLP. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 282 Judgments/Orders/Reports 1. S.21 RTI Act | Public Information Officer Can't Be Penalised For Delay In Furnishing Info If Genuine & Bonafide Reasons Given: Karnataka High Court Case Title: AMBADI MADHAV v. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8288/2013 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 266 The Karnataka HIgh Court has quashed an order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission directing a Deputy Conservator of Forests (deputed as the Public Information officer) to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for delay in furnishing information sought under the Right to Information Act (RTI). 2. Prosecution Can't Omit To Examine Investigating Officer Where Circumstances Warrant: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Parveez Pasha v. The State by Tilak Park Police Tumkur Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.155 OF 2012 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 267 The Karnataka High Court has said that in those cases where circumstances warrant to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, it is necessary to examine the Investigating officer. 3. Karnataka High Court Prohibits BBMP From Constructing Swimming Pool, Gym In 30 Yrs Old Public Park Case Title: J SRINIVAS & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others Case No: W.P.NO.45466 OF 2018 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 268 The Karnataka High Court has restrained the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) from constructing a swimming pool and gymnasium inside a 30 years old public park (Mariappanapalaya Park), situated in city's Rajajinagar area. 4. Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Youth Accused Of Sharing Military Base Photos With Pakistan ISI Case Title: Jeetendar Singh v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No. 1691/2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 269 The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the bail petition filed by a 24-year-old, accused of sharing photographs of important places like Naval Base Army area with Pakistan ISI. 5. Once The Right To Refer The Dispute To Arbitration Is Waived By A Party, It Cannot Be Reclaimed: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Y Harish and Anr. versus Y Satish and Ors. Dated: 01.07.2022 (Karnataka High Court) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 270 The Karnataka High Court has ruled that if a party has disputed the arbitrability of a dispute raised by the opposite party, in its reply to the notice invoking the arbitration clause, it is deemed to have waived its right to seek the reference of the dispute to arbitration. The Court added that if a right is once waived by a party, it cannot be allowed to be reclaimed and hence, the party cannot be permitted to contend that the suit instituted by the opposite party before the Commercial Court was barred by law. 6. Developer Put In Possession Of The Property Under The Development Agreement, Assessee Not Liable To Pay Wealth Tax: Karnataka High Court Case Title: M/s. Noorani Properties (P) Ltd. versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Anr. Dated: 30.06.2022 (Karnataka High Court) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 271 The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order passed by the ITAT holding that the assessee was liable to pay Wealth Tax with respect to a property, despite transferring possession of the said property to a developer under a Joint Development Agreement. 7. S.420 IPC Not Attracted In Absence Of Specific Allegation That Dishonest/ Fraudulent Intention Existed Since Inception: Karnataka High CourtCase Title:...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 18 To July 24, 2022

Mustafa Plumber

Tags