Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 16 To May 22, 2022

Nominal Index: Ashwini v. State of Karnataka, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 160 Prashanth Sambargi v. The State of Karnataka And Anr, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 161Injamam Shariff v. State of Karnataka, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 162Good Shepherd Convent v. State of Karnataka And Others, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 163Chief Executive Officer and Anr v. K.V.Puttaraju, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 164Sushil Goel And Anr v. State At The Instance Of Drug Inspector, 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 165M/s. Manipal Technologies Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 166Judgments/Orders/Reports: 1: Police Can't Refuse To Conduct Investigation After Magistrate Has Accepted Complaint U/S 200 CrPC: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Ashwini v. State of Karnataka Case No: WRIT PETITION No.755 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 160 The Karnataka High Court has said that once the court accepts the complaint filed under section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and directs particular police to investigate, the police cannot decline to investigate. 2: Defamation | Magistrate Can't Refer Complaint About Offence U/S 500 IPC To Police For Investigation U/S 156(3) CrPC: Karnataka High Court Case title: PRASHANTH SAMBARGI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and ANR. Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.349 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 161 The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), wherein the Magistrate court referred the complaint filed for defamation under section 499, 500 of the Indian Penal Code to the police for further investigation. 3: Denying Bail For Offence Yet To Be Investigated Merely Because Accused Is Habitual Offender Is "Unjust": Karnataka High Court Case Title: Injamam Shariff v. State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4045/2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 162 The Karnataka High Court has observed that merely because a person is alleged to be habitual offenders or have criminal antecedents, keeping them in jail for an offence which is yet to be investigated is 'unjust'. 4: Can't Levy Betterment Charges Under Town Planning Act For Mere 'Alterations' To Existing Building: Karnataka HC Grants Relief To 150-Yrs Old School Case Title: GOOD SHEPHERD CONVENT v STATE OF KARNATAKA and Others Case No: WRIT PETITION No.47882 OF 2014 (LB-BMP) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 163 The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed the order passed by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) demanding payment of betterment charges/ fee from an over 150 year-old school which proposes to construct additional floors on the existing school campus by way of an extension. 5: Employees Eligible For Gratuity For Period Before Their Employment Is Regularised: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Chief Executive Officer and Anr v. K.V.Puttaraju Case No: W.P.No.46017/2017Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 164The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an order passed by the Controlling Authority/ Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which directed government bodies to pay gratuity amount claimed by former employees from the time they were employed as daily wage earners till their employment was regularised. 6: Directors Of Manufacturing Company Can't Be Prosecuted For Sub-Standard Drugs Unless They Played An "Active Role" In The Process: Karnataka HC Case Title: Sushil Goel And Anr v. State At The Instance Of Drug Inspector Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6875 OF 2020 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 165 The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the Proprietors/ Directors of a drugs manufacturing company for alleged production of sub-standard quality drugs, while observing that they did not play an "active role" in the alleged offence.7: 18% GST Payable On 'Pattadar Pass Book Cum Title Deed' ; Karnataka High Court Upholds AAR RulingCase Title: M/s. Manipal Technologies Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka Case No: WP No. 4866/2021Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 166 The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice S. Sujatha and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, while upholding the ruling of the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), held that 18% GST is payable on 'pattadar pass book cum title deed'.

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 16 To May 22, 2022

Mustafa Plumber

Tags