Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: May 2 To May 8, 2022

Nominal Index: MOHAMED ARIF JAMEEL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 145 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., v. NAGENDRA, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 146 Stanley Joseph v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 147 Sathish N v. Ambika J, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 148 Chennaiah @Doddachennaiah and others v. Bylappa and others Case, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 149 B S PRAKASH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., and connected matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 150 Babu A Dhammanagi vs Union Of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 151Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 152 Judgments/orders 1. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Challenge To Law Validating Recruitment Of 362 KPSC Gazetted Probationers Of 2011 Batch Case Title: MOHAMED ARIF JAMEEL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6795 OF 2022 (S-RES-PIL)Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 145 The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed seeking to declare the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act 2022 as unconstitutional, illegal and void. Through the said Act, the government has validated the recruitment of 362 gazetted 'probationers' of the 2011 batch, selected by the Karnataka Public Service Commission. 2. Incapacity To Work Has To Be Determined With Reference To Sole Occupation Of Person As On Date Of Motor Accident: Karnataka High Court Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., versus NAGENDRA Case No: MFA NO.8801 OF 2018, Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 146 The Karnataka High Court has said that a person who is a driver by profession if loses complete vision of one eye in a motor accident, then he would not be able to continue his profession of driving, thus it would have to be considered as permanent physical disability and 100% loss of earning capacity. 3. Going Back On Promise To Marry Not Cheating But Failure To Repay Loan Will Attract S.420 IPC: Karnataka High Court On Film Director's Plea Case Title: Stanley Joseph v. State Case No: Criminal Petition no 1172/2018 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 147 In a cheating case instituted by a woman against film director Stanley Joseph, the Karnataka High Court has said that though going back on a promise to marry will not amount to cheating in this case, but obtaining a loan and not repaying the same will amount to criminal intention to cheating, attracting Section 420 of IPC. 4. Wife Leaving Matrimonial House Not Ground To Deny Maintenance If She Moved Out Due To Ill-Treatment By Husband: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Sathish N v. Ambika J Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 474 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 148 The Karnataka High Court recently observed that if a wife moves out of the matrimonial house due to ill-treatment meted out by husband, he cannot claim that she moved out by mutual consent and thus he is not liable to pay maintenance amount. 5. Suit For Injunction In Respect Of Immovable Property Not Abated On Death Of Parties: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Chennaiah @Doddachennaiah and others versus Bylappa and others Case No: RSA No 743/2011 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 149 The Karnataka High Court has said that in a suit relating to grant of injunction in respect of an immovable property, the right to sue is not personal to the plaintiff but survives to his legal representative and the suit for injunction would not therefore abate on the death of the parties.6. Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines For Making Or Continuing Entries In Rowdy Register /History Sheets In Light Of 'Privacy Jurisprudence' Case title: B S PRAKASH versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., and connected matters, Case No: W.P.NO.4504/2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 150 The Karnataka High Court recently issued guidelines to be followed by the police before entering the name of an individual to the Register of Rowdies, which is maintained by every police station.7. Adjudicating Authority Is Not Bound By The Recommendation Of The Resolution Professional Under Section 99 Of The Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016 : Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Babu A Dhammanagi vs Union Of IndiaCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 151A division bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 95, 99 and 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("the Code") as it found no merit to the challenge. The Court held that the process contemplated under Sections 95 to 100 is a time bound process, which requires the Resolution Professional to firstly give reasons in support of his recommendation. Secondly, the role of the Resolution Professional is limited to giving his recommendation and there is no element of adjudication on the part of the Resolution Professional. It is Adjudicating Authority which takes the final decision on whether the application is to...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: May 2 To May 8, 2022

Mustafa Plumber

Tags