Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 28 To December 4, 2022

Nominal Index: [Citations 482 - 495] UMA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 482 GAJANAN v. APPASAHEB SIDDAMALLAPPA KAVERI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 483 K. SURESH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 484 ANIL KUMAR & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 485 SURESH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA DAMBAL v. THE STATE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 486 MILAAP SOCIAL VENTURES INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR v. GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 487 M.S.UBEDULLA KHAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 488 NASIR PASHA v. UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 489 THE REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. MASTER THARUN C. GOWDA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 490 THE LORD BISHOP & ANR v. THE LAND TRIBUNAL & OTHERS. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 491 CHANDRA SUVARNA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 492 UMAPATHI S v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 493 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. K.N. JAGADISH KUMAR @ JAGADEESH MAHADEV @ JAGADEESH. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 494 Purbayan Chakraborty v. Union of India. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 495 Judgments/Orders Apartment Residents Coming Together To Prevent Public Authority From Discharging Its Duty Amounts To Unlawful Assembly U/S 143 IPC: Karnataka HCCase Title: UMA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6123 OF 2020 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 482 The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a criminal case registered against residents of an apartment who allegedly gathered and prevented officials of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) from surveying and removing encroachment over Rajakaluve (storm water drain), as per Court orders. A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the contention of the petitioners that they are the residents of the Apartment and there is no illegal intention in assembling together. It said, "The petitioners, being the owners of the Apartment, must be in the Apartment, but they all together joined their hands with an intention to prevent the public authority while discharging duty, which attracts Section 149 of IPC i.e. common object and unlawful assembly under Section 143 of IPC for committing an offence on the public servant." Cash Transaction Exceeding Rs. 20K Does Not Nullify The Transaction In S.138 NI Act Case: Karnataka High Court Case Title: GAJANAN v. APPASAHEB SIDDAMALLAPPA KAVERI. Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 2011 OF 2013 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 483 The Karnataka High Court has held that contravention of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes if the transaction amount is more than Rs.20,000, such transaction shall be made through cheque or demand draft, does not make the transaction void and it can be called a legally recoverable debt. Accused Gajanan had approached the court seeking to set aside the judgment of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Magistrate Court, convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,28,000. Will Infringe Vehicle Owners' Choice: Karnataka High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking To Implement "Moving Gardens" Case Title: K. SURESH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.13219 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 484 The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an advocate seeking directions to the Union and State Government to conduct a study into the feasibility of implementing 'moving garden' on all possible vehicless. The petitioner prayed that if the concept is found to be feasible, the State Government be directed to implement it so as to maintain ecology and environment. [Karnataka Civil Services Rules] Enquiry Against Retired Employee Cannot Be Initiated For An Event Which Took Place More Than 4 Yrs Ago: High Court Case Title: ANIL KUMAR & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Case no: WRIT PETITION NO.17708/2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 485 The Karnataka High Court has observed that as per Rule 214 (2) (b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, no enquiry can be initiated against a retired person in respect of an event which had taken place more than four years prior to institution of enquiry. A single judge bench of Justice SG Pandit allowed the petition filed by Anil Kumar and T. Mallanna, former employees of Karnataka Housing Board, and quashed the Charge Memo as well as appointment of Enquiry Officer. 'Trial At Fag End, Certain Answers Elicited': Karnataka HC Refuses Bail To Rape Accused On Ground That Complainant & Victim Turned Hostile Case Title: SURESH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA DAMBAL v. THE STATE Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.102858/2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 486 The Karnataka High Court has denied relief to a rape...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 28 To December 4, 2022

Mustafa Plumber

Tags