Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 24 To October 30, 2022

Nominal Index: MRS. JAYA ELIZABETH MATHEW & ANR v. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN FOR THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 423 M. GOPAL v. GANGA REDDY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 424 DR. SWATHI K.S & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 425 HRISHIKESH DEVDIKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 426 OM PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 427 C.V.RAGHAVENDRA & ANR v. STATE BY MALUR POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 428 Y.N. SREENIVASA & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 429 ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 430 H K SUMA v. M SANTHOSH. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 431 Judgments/Orders 1. Insurance Company Can Repudiate Mediclaim If Insured Fails To Disclose Pre-Existing Illness: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: MRS. JAYA ELIZABETH MATHEW & ANR v. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN FOR THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR Case No: WRIT PETITION No.14346 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 423 The Karnataka High Court has said that a mediclaim policy is an insurance contract of utmost good faith, wherein divulging pre-existing illness is a duty of the insured, having not done so repudiation of the claim by insurance company cannot be found fault. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by a couple against the order of Insurance Ombudsman declining to accept the insurance claim of the petitioners. The petitioners had sought quashing of a letter of repudiation issued by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and a direction to release of an amount of Rs.28,43,684 being the Insurance claim of the petitioners. 2. Shareholder Can't Itself Initiate Proceedings Before Magistrate For Fraud U/S 447 Of Companies Act, 2013: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: M. GOPAL v. GANGA REDDY Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3550 OF 2017 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 424 The Karnataka High Court has held that a shareholder, minority or otherwise, cannot initiate proceedings before the Magistrate by himself or herself for an alleged offence of fraud under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "Sub-Section (6) of Section 212 of the Act specifically deals with the offences covered under Section 447 of the Act and makes it clear that no court shall take cognizance unless a complaint is made by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) or the officer of the Central Government authorised by a general or special order in writing in this behalf by that Government." 3. NEET PG | Quota For In-Service Candidates Reduced In Casual Manner: Karnataka High Court Quashes Govt Notification Case Title: DR. SWATHI K.S & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & others Case No: W.P. No.2O512 OF 2O22 (EDN-RES) C/W W.P. NO.2O2O1 OF 2O22 (EDN-RES) W.P.NO.2O847 OF 2O22 (EDN-RES) W.P.NO.2O91O OF 2O22 (EDN-RES) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 425 The Karnataka High Court has quashed and set aside the government notification dated 06.10.2022, by which seats earmarked for in-service candidates for PG-NEET Examination 2022, was reduced from 30 percent to 15 percent. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while allowing a batch of petitions said, "The quota for in-service candidates has been reduced without assigning any cogent reasons and the decision appears to have been taken in a casual and cavalier manner. The relevant facts while reduction of quota from 30% to 15% have not been considered by the State Government while reducing the quota. The impugned notification dated 06.10.2022 suffers from the vice of non application of mind and is arbitrary." 4. No Default Bail U/S 167 CrPC If Chargesheet Filed Before Arrest: Karnataka HC Rejects Accused Plea In Gauri Lankesh Murder Case Case Title: HRISHIKESH DEVDIKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 2997 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 426 The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Hrishikesh Devdikar, an accused in the journalist Gauri Lankesh murder case, seeking default bail under section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said that the accused would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 167(2) CrPC if the charge sheet was filed before his arrest (since he was absconding). 5. Google Reviews Have No Legal Evidentiary Value, Can't Be Used To Argue That Accused Is Habitual Offender: Karnataka High Court Case Title: OM PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8879/2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 427 The Karnataka High Court recently rejected an argument that 'Google Reviews' against the accused show that he is a habitual offender, by holding that Google Reviews have no legal evidentiary value. A single judge bench ...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 24 To October 30, 2022

Mustafa Plumber

Tags