Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 10 To October 16, 2022

Nominal Index: [Citations: 393 - 409] SANJANA FERNANDES @ RAVEERA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 393 VENKATESHWARA DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 394 ABC v. STATE BY T.N.PURA POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 395 M/S EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 396 MUKKARAM JAN v. SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 397 EDURKALA ISHWARA BHAT v. RAGHAVESHWARA BHARATHI SWAMIJI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 398 SHIVAKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 399 H.N. NAGARAJ v. SURESH LAL HIRA LAL. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 400 NARAYANA. B v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 401 B. L. SHANKARAPPA v. FEDERATION OF KARNATAKA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (FKCCI) & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 402 J C MADHUSWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 403 UJJAPPA NINGAPPA KAMDOD & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 404 State of Karnataka by Amruthahalli Police Station v. Swetha. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 405 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD v. SUSILA W/O. SHAMRAO PATIL. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 406 Swathi v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 407 DR. SHAHUL HAMEED VALAVOOR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE, BANTWAL. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 408 NAGARAJ v. ISHWAR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 409 Judgments/Orders 1. Wellness Therapist Or Tinder Date? Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings Against Woman Accused Of Online Cheating Case Title: SANJANA FERNANDES @ RAVEERA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8929 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 393 The Karnataka High Court has said the government should come up with some regulatory measures to check the growth of therapists, who offer their services online including via social media. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "It is in public domain that there are huge mushrooming of so called therapies and therapists on social media i.e., Instagram, Twitter or Facebook as the case would be, wherein therapists pose themselves to be in the field of any therapy. It is also in public domain that they are all pseudo-therapists who are "instagram influencers". 2. Karnataka HC Imposes Cost On Two Dental Colleges Litigating For Non-Admitted Candidates, Deprecates 'Speculative' Litigations Case Title: VENKATESHWARA DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: WRIT PETITION No.12902 OF 2022 (EDN-MED ADM) C/W WRIT PETITION No.12946 OF 2022 (EDN-MED ADM) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 394 The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh each on two dental colleges for having wasted the court's time by filing "speculative" petitions seeking relief on behalf of few students who did not get admission to BDS courses, for the year 2021-2022. 3. DNA Test Report Favouring Accused In Rape Case Not Gospel Truth, Cross-Examination Of Doctor Necessary: Karnataka High Court Case Title: ABC v. STATE BY T.N.PURA POLICE STATION Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6789 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 395 The Karnataka High Court has said that the DNA analysis report, which favours the accused in a rape case, is not a clinching evidence that would result in termination of proceedings against him. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while dismissing the accused's petition against the criminal proceedings, said: "If a positive result of the DNA comes about against the accused, it would constitute a clinching evidence against him for further proceeding. If the result is negative i.e., favouring the accused, then the weight of other materials and evidence on record will still have to be considered for corroboration. Therefore, it does not form such clinching evidence that would result in termination of proceedings against the accused, the petitioner in the case at hand." 6. Sanction U/S 33M Drugs & Cosmetics Act Required Only For Ayurvedic Drugs, Not Allopathic: Karnataka High Court Case Title: M/S EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6919 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 396 The Karnataka High Court has clarified that sanction to prosecute as mandated under Section 33M of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 is applicable only in case of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs and it is not applicable where prosecution relates to Allopathic drugs. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while allowing the petition filed by Emcure Pharmaceuticals and its two Directors for quashing the complaint registered against them by the Drug Inspector under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 5. SEBI Can't Prosecute Company For Delay After Payment of Dividends: Karnataka High Court Case Title: MUKKARAM JAN v. SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 10 To October 16, 2022

Mustafa Plumber

Tags