Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: May 9 To May 15, 2022

Nominal Index The Management Of Ksrtc v. K.Shivaram, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 153 Banu Begum W/O Khajasab Alias Mehaboobsab and Others v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 154 Savithri v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 155 Pooja S v. Abhishek Shetty, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 156 Praveen Kumar Adyapady and Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 157 Indian Council For Cultural Relations & Others v. Ajay Merchant & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 158 Rashmi Tandon & Anr v. The State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 159Judgments/Orders/Reports 1. Labour Court Has No Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Workman's Claim U/S 33C(2) ID Act In An Undetermined Claim: Karnataka High Court Case Title: The Management Of KSRTC v. K.Shivaram Case No: Writ Petition No.17583/2017 (L-KSRTC) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 153 The Karnataka High Court has said that a workman who claims compensation due to injuries suffered during the course of employment, his claims under the Employees Compensation Act 1923, would lie before the Employees Compensation Commissioner and not before the Labour Court. 2. Adopting Child Directly From Biological Parents Not An Offence U/S 80 Juvenile Justice Act: Karnataka High Court Case Title: BANU BEGUM W/O KHAJASAB ALIAS MEHABOOBSAB and Others Versus State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100659 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 154 The Karnataka High Court has said that in the absence of a declaration that a child is deserted by his biological or adoptive parents or guardians, filing of chargesheet under section 80 of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act 2015, is without any substance. 3. Karnataka HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against 68-Year-Old Woman Charged Under SC/ST Act Case Title: Savithri v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition 8857/2018 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 155 Observing that, "She had no criminal intention in the initial stage while obtaining the (caste) certificate and seeking reservation and got (job) appointment, but she bonafidely believed that she will get the caste of her husband in view of marrying the person who belongs to member of SC/ST," the Karnataka High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings pending against a 68-year-old woman (Brahmin by birth), who was charged under provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. Husband Initiates Marriage Dissolution Proceedings, Karnataka High Court Asks Him To Pay Wife Rs 25K As Litigation Expenses Case Title: POOJA S v. ABHISHEK SHETTY Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.24220 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 156 The Karnataka High Court recently directed a husband to pay Rs 25,000 as litigation expenses to allow the wife to engage an advocate and to contest the proceedings filed by him seeking dissolution of marriage. 5. S.13 Notaries Act | Can't Take Cognizance Of Offences Committed By Advocate, Notary Unless Sanctioned By Centre/State: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Praveen Kumar Adyapady and ANR v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition 888/2018 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 157 The Karnataka High Court has ruled that as per Section 13 of the Notaries Act, there is a bar for taking cognizance by the Court for offences committed by an advocate and notary while adding that under the Act, the police have to obtain the permission of the Central Government or State Government for filing the charge sheet and taking cognizance. 6. ICCR Can Investigate & Take Disciplinary Action Against British Council Library Employees On Complaint Of Misconduct: Karnataka High Court Case Title: INDIAN COUNCIL FOR CULTURAL RELATIONS & others v. AJAY MERCHANT & Anr Case No: W.P. No.32335 OF 2017 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 158 The Karnataka High Court has said that a person appointed by the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) and placed with the British Council Library, is an employee of the British Council Library and it can investigate and take disciplinary action against the employee on complaint of misconduct. 7. Invoking S.138 Of NI Act Does Not Bar Registration Of Crime Under Sections 406, 420 IPC: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: RASHMI TANDON & ANR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6638 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 159 The Karnataka High Court has held that proceedings under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are maintainable even if a complaint has been invoked Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Other reports: 1. Karnataka High Court Extends Stay On ED Seizure Order, Permits Xiaomi India To Avail Overdraft Facility For Payments Except Royalty Case Title: Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited v. Union of India Case No: WP 9182/2022 The Karnataka High Court on Thursday extended its earlier interim order staying the order issued by the ...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: May 9 To May 15, 2022

Mustafa Plumber

Tags