Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: March 21 To March 27, 2022

Nominal Index Bhavith Sheth V. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 81 Vijaya v Shekharappa 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 82 Law Students Association v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 83 Archana M G v. Abhilasha 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 84 Mrs. Prachi Sen v. Ministry Of Defence 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 85 State Of Karnataka v. Somanna 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 86 Praveen Surendiran V. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 87 Dasari Chakradhar V The Registrar (Evaluation) 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 88 Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 89 Prabhuraj V. The State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 90 Varavara Rao @ Pendyala V. State Of Karnataka: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 91 Judgements/Orders/Reports 1: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Dream11 Co-Founders, Says State's Ban On Online Gaming With Stakes Struck Off Case Title: Bhavith Sheth V. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 19287/2021 Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 81 The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against Bhavit Sheth and Harsh Jain, the Founders and Directors of Sporta Technologies Private Limited, which promotes the 'Dream 11' gaming app. The duo had approached the court seeking to quash the FIR registered against them by the police under the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021, which bans online gaming and gambling in the state. 2: Section 143A NI Act - Not Mandatory For Magistrate To Order Payment Of Interim Compensation : Karnataka High Court Case Title: Vijaya v Shekharappa Case No: Criminal Petition No.100261/2022Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 82 The Karnataka High Court has said that it is not mandatory for Magistrate Courts to pass orders directing interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, if the accused does not plead guilty. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "The Legislature has cautiously worded sub-section (1) of Section 143A not to make it mandatory in all cases where clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) would empower the learned Magistrate before whom proceedings are pending consideration to award interim compensation. It is the discretion conferred, as the word used is "may"." 3: Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Continuation Of Dr. Ishwara Bhat As KSLU Vice Chancellor Case Title: Law Students Association v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 2125/2022Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 83 The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a non-profit organisation, Law Students Association, questioning the continuation of Prof. (Dr.) P. Ishwara Bhat as the Vice Chancellor of Karnataka State Law University, allegedly beyond the prescribed age limit of 65 years. 4: Caste Of A Person Is Determined By Birth, Married Women Acquire Caste Status Of Husband In Rare Circumstances: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Archana M G v. Abhilasha Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3399 OF 2022Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 84 The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by one Archana M G, a Grama Panchayat Member, challenging the order of the Civil court which unseated her on the ground of lack of social status as a Scheduled Tribe member. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "There is no dispute as to petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe, by birth, although she claims to have acquired the said social status by marriage to a member of scheduled tribe. Ordinarily, caste is determined by birth and caste of a person follows that of his/her father." 5: Work From Home' Under Maternity Benefit Act Can Be Availed Only If Nature Of Work Permits So: Karnataka High Court Denies Relief To Woman Case Title: Mrs. Prachi Sen v. Ministry Of Defence Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.22979 OF 2021Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 85 The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that maternity benefits such as allowing an employee to work from home, under section 5 (5) of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act 2017, could be given only in case where the nature of work assigned to the women is such that it is possible for her to work from home. 6: POCSO Act | Prosecution Can Cross Examine The Victim On Her Turning Hostile : Karnataka High Court Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Somanna Case No:. CRIMINAL PETITION No.8167/2020 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 86 The Karnataka High Court has said that under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the prosecution can cross examine the victim on her turning hostile. A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, "In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the POCSO Act, the Special Public Prosecutor or as the case would be, the counsel appearing for the accused shall, while recording examination-in-chief, cross-examination or re-examination of the child communicates the questions to be put to the child to the Special Court which shall in...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: March 21 To March 27, 2022

Mustafa Plumber

Tags