- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Karnataka High Court : Important...
Karnataka High Court : Important Judgments Of 2021
Mustafa Plumber
31 Dec 2021 5:43 AM GMT
CORPORATE ENTITIES 1: 'Tool Of Harassment' : Karnataka High Court Quashes UP Police Notice To Twitter India MD In Ghaziabad FIR Case Title: Manish Maheshwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh Case no: WP 11028/2021 Calling the notice issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police to the Managing Director of Twitter India as a "tool of harassment", the Karnataka High Court quashed the...
CORPORATE ENTITIES
Case Title: Manish Maheshwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Case no: WP 11028/2021
Calling the notice issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police to the Managing Director of Twitter India as a "tool of harassment", the Karnataka High Court quashed the said notice, issued under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the FIR registered over the videos posted in Twitter showing the assault of a Muslim man in Ghaziabad.
The High Court said that the UP Police issued the coercive notice without ascertaining if Manish Maheshwari, the MD of Twitter Communications India Private Ltd (TCIPL), had any control over the contents posted in Twitter.
"The provisions of the statute cannot be permitted to become tools of harassment. The respondent has not placed even an iota of material which would prima facie show involvement of the petitioner. In that view of the matter petitioner has made out a case. Section 41A notice is issued by malafide and the petition is maintainable. The Annexure A1 notice is quashed", the order passed by Justice G Narender said.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by e-commerce giants Amazon and Flipkart challenging an order passed by the Competition Commission of India for a preliminary investigation into their alleged anti-competitive practices.
A single bench of Justice PS Dinesh Kumar dismissed the writ petition citing the limitations of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with a probe ordered by an expert specialised body. "...it would be unwise to prejudge the issues raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions at this stage and scuttle the investigation", the Court said in the judgement.
Case Title: Sridhar Rao S v. Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP.
Case No: Writ Petition No.18038/2021
The Karnataka High Court has vacated the ex-parte interim order granted earlier by which it had directed Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP to block streaming, broadcasting, telecasting or otherwise making available the content of the Episode No.1 of the Series 1 of the documentary "Crime Stories: India Detective" titled "A Murdered Mother".
A single judge bench of Justice B M Shyam Prasad had on October 1, on the petition filed by an accused Sridhar Rao S, undergoing trial for offences under Sections 302 and 307, 212, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, passed the interim order.
The court referring to the judgement of the apex court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Dr. Kartick Das reported in [1994] 4 SCC 225 and considering the facts of the present case said, "On a conjoint reading of the statements in the plaint and in the affidavit, cannot but opine that there is a definite violation of the rule of 'utmost good faith'."
4: Karnataka High CourtReserves Order On Pleas Challenging State's Ban On Online Gaming
Case Title: All India Gaming Federation v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 18703/2021
The Karnataka High Court reserved its order on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021, by which the state government has banned online gaming and betting. The Act provides maximum imprisonment of three years and penalty up to Rs. 1 lakh for violation of the provisions.
Case Title: ITC Limited v. Cg Foods (India) Private Limited
Case No: Commercial Appeal No.105/2021
The Karnataka High Court laid down guidelines to be followed by trial courts to deal with injunction applications, in a pending suit, seeking relief against passing off and copyright infringement.
A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur said, "In order to make it convenient for Courts to deal with injunction applications, in a pending suit, seeking relief against passing off, we have summarised the principles which must guide the courts in the inquiry into an action for passing off."
Case Title: Flipkart Internet Private Limited v. Competition Commission of India
Case No: WA 562/2021
A division bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeals filed by e-commerce giants Amazon and Flipkart challenging an order of a Single Bench of the High Court which had allowed Competition Commission of India (CCI) to conduct a preliminary investigation into their alleged anti-competitive practises.
A division bench of Justice Satishchandra Sharma and Justice Nataraj Rangaswamy observed, "...in the concerned opinion of this court by no stretch of imagination the inquiry can be crushed at this stage. If the appellants are not involved in violation of any provisions of the Act of 2002 they should not feel shy in facing inquiry by CCI."
SPIRITUALITY/RELIGION/COMMUNITY
Case Title: A V Amarnathan v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: 43414/2019
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition which sought directions to restrain Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev's Isha Outreach Foundation from collecting public funds for the"Cauvery Calling Project", which involves planting of tree saplings along the Cauvery river bed.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while holding that the petition was a frivolous petition and deserved to be dismissed, said, "In our considered opinion that afforestation has become very necessary keeping in view the present scenario and such activities need appreciation rather than putting spokes in carrying out projects like Cauvery calling."
Case Title: P Lathavya Acharya v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 8926/2021
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed a writ petition filed questioning the legality of appointing 16-year-old Aniruddha Saralathaya (now named as Vedavardhana Tirtha) as the Peetadhipathi of the Shiroor Mutt in Udupi.
The bench said "In other religions like Buddhism, children of tender age have become monks. There is no rule as to on which age sanyasa/bhiksha can be given. Also there is no statutory there no statutory much less constitutional bar on a person less than 18 years being initiated into sanyasa. And religious text which have been quoted in the arguments of the amicus curiae makes it very clear that religion permits a person to become a sanyasi before he attain the age of 18 years and there is no such bar and as per the Respondent 6 was certainly empowered keeping in view the essential religious practises to appoint respondent 7 as the peetatdipati of the Shirur mutt.
In the present case Shirur Mutt is a religious denomination and as per the essential religious practises, respondent 7 has become a sanyasi and he has been appointed as peetadhipati of the Shirur mutt. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be presumed that the essential religious practises of the mutt is violative of constitutional rights".
Case Title: Capt. Chetan Y K (Retd) v. Union of India.
Case No: WP 11948/2021
The Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the notification issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs granting exemption to every person of Coorg by race, and Jumma tenure landholders in Coorg (Kodagu district), from the requirement to obtain a licence to carry and possess firearms.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, "The Kodava community which is a marshal community is enjoying the benefit of exemption since pre-independence and Jumma tenure holders are enjoying the exemption since pre-independence period. They have rightly been granted exemption for a period of ten years, it is not the case they have been granted exemption indefinitely. Exemption granted is subject to certain terms and conditions. Therefore, the Constitutional validity of the notification is upheld in the petition."
10: No Fundamental RightIs Conferred On Any Religion To Degrade Other Religions: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Precilla D'Souza vs State Of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court observed that there no fundamental right is conferred on any religion to degrade other religions. While professing any religion, the religious heads or professing by any person should not degrade other religion, Justice HP Sandesh observed while refusing to quash a criminal complaint alleging degradation of religion by the accused.
Case No: Writ Petition No.18752 Of 2018
Date Of Order: September 28, 2021
The Karnataka High Court observed that the Government's order permitting only a Mujawar (Muslim Priest) to perform the rituals at the Datta Peeta - a holy cave shrine in Chikmaguluru which is revered both by Hindus and Muslim communities - amount to "a flagrant violation of rights of both communities guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution of India".
"...the impugned order infringes the right of both communities guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution by preventing Hindus from performing pooja as per their faith and compelling the Mujawar to offer pooja contrary to his faith", the Court said in its order.
The Court quashed the State Government order dated 19.03.2018 by which it permitted only a Mujawar appointed by Shah Khadri to enter the sanctum of the "Sri Guru Dattathreya Swamy Peeta" otherwise known as "Sree Gurudattathreya Bababudnaswamy Dargha" cave and to distribute 'teertha' to both Hindus and Muslims.
12: Karnataka High Court Permits Bull Racing, Directs State To Ensure Animals Are Not Tortured
Case Title: M/S People For Animals Mysuru Animal Welfare Organisation v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: WP 10530/2020
The Karnataka High Court allowed the State government to accord permission to hold bullock/bullock cart races, following the necessary conditions imposed by the Supreme Court.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, "No further orders are required as statutory provisions are already in existence in the state of Karnataka for grant of permission to hold a bullock/bullock cart race. State government shall accord permission in accordance with the statutory provisions subject to the aforesaid conditions."
JUDICIARY/LEGAL PROFESSION.
13: First Case Ever To Be Live Telecasted on Youtube Decided By Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Baithkol Bandharu Nirashrithara Yantrikrut Dhoni Meenugarara Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha v. The Chief Executive Officer Karnataka Maritime Board
The Karnataka High Court has held that the consent for establishment dated 1st July, 2020, granted by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB), for expansion of the existing Karwar Port at Baithkol village in Karwar taluk, Uttara Kannada district is illegal. Thereby, High Court has restrained the state from carrying out the expansion work until fresh consent for establishment is granted by the pollution control board.
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while hearing the petitions filed by Baithkol Bandharu Nirashrithara Yantrikrut Dhoni Meenugarara Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha and Uttara Kannada District Fishermen Association Forum.This was the first case in which proceedings were Live Telecast on the YouTube Channel of the High Court.
Case No: CC 3/2021
The Karnataka High Court directed the Registrar General of the High Court to initiate suo-motu contempt proceedings against the officer bearers of Bar Associations in the state who gave a call to its members for abstaining from court work.
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said: "It must be noted here that in the wake of Covid-19, all courts were adversely affected which brought about suffering to the litigants as well as to the members of the bar. Now that normalcy has been substantially restored, bar associations cannot take recourse to strike/boycott."
Case Title: Thimmanna v. Union Bank Of India
Case No: Writ Petition No.22279 Of 2021
The Karnataka High Court has said that empanelment of an advocate by a Bank is a matter of discretion of the bank concerned and a writ court cannot ordinarily interfere & undertake a deeper examination into it.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while rejecting a petition filed by one Thimmanna said that, "Empanelment is a matter of discretion of the bank concerned; the exercise of such discretion involves a host of factors including the fiduciary relationship of 'client & counsel'; in matters of this kind a Writ Court cannot ordinarily interfere & undertake a deeper examination."
Case Title: Dilraj Rohit Sequeira v. Union Of India
Case No: 50892/2019
The Karnataka High Court directed the state government to immediately notify and publish in the official gazette the Live-streaming and recording of court proceedings rules which have been approved by the government on Wednesday.
Case Title: Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 11759/2020
The Karnataka High Court issued guidelines to be followed by investigating officers regarding the manner of carrying out a search and/or for preservations of the evidence gathered during the said search in respect of smartphone, electronic equipment or email account.
A single bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said: "It would be in the interest of all the stakeholders that detailed guidelines are prepared by the police department in relation to the same. Pending such formulation, it would be required that the following minimum guidelines are implemented."
CHILD AND WOMEN
Case Title: Kumari D v. State of Karnataka
Case No: W.P.No.104344/2021
The Karnataka High Court has said that the right of a woman to exercise her reproductive choice is a dimension of "personal liberty" as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and she has a sacrosanct right to have her bodily integrity protected.
A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda said that,
"The act of forcing a woman to bear with an unwanted intrusion on her body and endure the consequences of that intrusion would be a clear transgression of her inviolable fundamental right of "personal liberty" guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
Case Title: K Santhosha v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited
Case No: WA 2495/2019
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a circular issued by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd by which it denied appointment on compassionate grounds to the second wife and her children of a deceased employee as the marriage has taken place during the subsistence of the first marriage.
A bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar referred to Special Marriage Act, which applies to all marriages solemnised under the said Act and in case of void or voidable marriages under the said Act, legitimacy is conferred on the children of such marriages under section 26 thereof.
"No child is born in this world without a father and a mother. A child has no role to play in his/her birth. Hence, law should recognise the fact that there may be illegitimate parents, but no illegitimate children. Therefore, it is for the Parliament to bring about uniformity in law vis-Ã -vis legitimacy of children. Thus, it is for the Parliament to determine in what way protection could be extended to children born outside a valid marriage," the Court said.
Case No: W.P.NO.16729/2021
The Karnataka High Court has said that breastfeeding a child is an important attribute of motherhood and is protected under the umbrella of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Krishna S Dixit in his order said, "In the light of domestic law and the international law, breastfeeding needs to be recognized as an inalienable right of the lactating mother; similarly, the right of the suckling infant for being breastfed too, has to be assimilated with mother's right; arguably, it is a case of concurrent rights; this important attribute of motherhood is protected under the umbrella of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
EDUCATION
Case Title: E Karthik Patel v. Karnataka State Law University
Case No: WP 15571/2021
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed Clause 7 of the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Law University by which a candidate who secures less than 40% of marks based on an aggregate percentage of total performance including theory and internal assessment of marks in the previous semester shall be considered as 'fail'.
The High Court directed the University to follow its previous order issued in the case of Ritvik Balanagaraj B, in which it had directed the University to assess 1st to 4th year BA LLB students, on the basis of the internal assessments of the students to an extent of 50% and the remaining 50% of the marks on the basis of performance in the previous semester only (if available).
22: 'Decision Taken In Students' Interest' : Karnataka High Court Refuses To Cancel SSLC Exams
Case Title: S V Singre Gowda v. State Of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the State Government to hold SSLC exams in physical form for students of Class X from July 19.
A division bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar observed that the holding of exam was "in the interest of students" and that the state has taken adequate precautionary measures against COVID-19 pandemic.
Case No: W.P.No.11504/2021
Date Of Order: November 8, 2021
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the validity of the Central Government notification dated March 4, by which Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) cardholders are not to be eligible for admission in professional courses against any seat reserved exclusively for Indian citizens.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit, while dismissing a bunch of petitions said, "These writ petitions being devoid of merits fail. However in the special circumstances of the case, all the petitioners are permitted to stake a claim for admission consistent with the interim reliefs made in favour with many of them. Subject to the eligibility & qualification; a period of ten days is granted to the petitioners to produce requisite documents before the Karnataka Examination Authority."
Case Title: Mohammed Arif Jammel v. Union of India
Case No: WP 6435/2020
The Karnataka High Court refused to interfere with the government order, permitting only those students, teachers and staff members who have been vaccinated to attend colleges.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum while disposing off a petition filed challenging the government order dated July 16, said, "We are of the considered view that no students, teacher or staff who has not received vaccination be permitted to attend the colleges where the students gather in large number and risk them. As such no direction can be issued to permit such students, teachers or other staff who have not received at least one dose of covid-19 vaccine to attend the colleges."
Case No: Writ Petition No.4818/2021
Date Of Order: 16th Day Of September, 2021
The Karnataka High Court has modified the Government order dated 29.01.2021, inter alia restraining the educational institutions from collecting fees for the academic year 2020-2021 in excess of 70% of the tuition fees.
A single bench of Justice R Devdas, directed that,
"The petitioner-Institution (school Management of the concerned private unaided school) shall collect annual school fees from their students as fixed under the Act of 1995 for the academic year 2019-20, but by providing deduction of '15 per cent' on that amount, in lieu of unutilised facilities by the students during the relevant period of academic year 2020-21."
Case Title: Samskrita Bharati Karnataka Trust v. Union Of India
Case No: WP 18156/2021
The Karnataka High Court directed the state government to not compel students who do not wish to take Kannada language as a compulsory subject while pursuing degree courses, till further orders.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awashti and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said,
"We have considered the submissions. We are of the prima facie view that matter with respect to Kannada Language being made compulsory language in higher studies on the basis of National Education Policy, is a question which requires consideration. State government at this stage shall not insist on making language compulsory. Those students who have taken the Kannada language on the basis of their choice may do so, all such students who do not wish to take the Kannada language shall not be compelled to pursue the Kannada language, till further orders."
The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the State government to mandate all state universities to implement the Online Digital Evaluation System, from the academic year 2021-22.
A division bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice J.M.Khazi said: "We direct state and its department to mandate the state universities to implement government order dated 15/06/2019, in its true letter and spirit from academic year 2021-22 onwards, so that online digital evaluation system, which has been evolved by the state is implemented and put into practise, so that its benefits could be brought out in the interest of student community and interest of academics and higher education in general."
Case Title: Dr Prathana N and others v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 10079/2021
The Karnataka High Court has held that notification dated June 8 which called upon the fresh doctors to undergo compulsory rural service for a period of one year under provisions of the Karnataka Compulsory Service to Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act 2012 (Compulsory Act), to be 'reasonable' and that the legislation promulgated by the State in regard to compulsory rural service is not in conflict with either the Indian Medical Council Act or National Medical Commission Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum refused interim relief to over 180 MBBS doctors who have filed petitions in the High Court challenging government notification calling upon them for registering online for the Compulsory Rural Service. "The service bonds calling upon the fresh doctors to undergo one year Rural service appears to be reasonable", the Court said.
Further it said, "The legal relationship between the petitioners and the State is that the latter will provide education in medicine by way of subsidized fees on the condition that qualified doctors would serve the rural areas of the State for a specific period of time. This has to be taken as a composite bargain between the State and the students and therefore, the students are bound to undergo compulsory rural service since they have voluntarily executed the Bonds."
Case Title: Mahanatesh v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 104008/2021
The Karnataka High Court on December 14, quashed the notification issued by Karnataka State Law University, by which it was to conduct offline examinations for the students of 2nd and 4th semester of three year LLB course.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar sitting at Dharwad bench also directed that the students be promoted to the next semester. The Court said,
"University is directed to promote the petitioners to the next semester in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14389/2020 disposed of on 08.02.2021. It is made clear that this order is restricted to the students of the three year LLB Course."
POLICY
Case Title: Anivar A Aravind v. Ministry of Home Affairs
Case No: WP 7483/2020
The Karnataka High Court passed an interim order to restrain the Central Government and the National Informatics Centre(NIC) from sharing the response data given by an individual in the 'Aarogya Setu' app (the government's contact-tracing app developed in the wake of COVID19) with other government departments and agencies, without obtaining informed consent of the users.
A division bench comprising Chief Justices AS Oka and Justice Vishwajith Shetty passed the order after prima facie noting that there was "no informed consent taken of users for sharing of response data as provided in the Aarogya Setu Data Access and Knowledge Sharing Protocol, 2020"
The bench noted that the informed consent of the user is limited to the collection and manner of collection information as provided in the privacy policy which is available on the app.
"Prima facie we hold that informed consent of users of app is taken to what is provided in the privacy policy which is available through the app and therefore is informed consent of the user of the app which is limited to collection and manner of collection and use of information and retention of data as provided in privacy policy which is available on the app. However, it is made clear that the use and retention of information and data will be limited to what is provided in the privacy policy", the order said.
Case Title: Sunderam Shettyv. The State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No. 4601/2020
The Karnataka High Court has declared the bye-laws under which the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) demands Ground Rent, Licence Fee, Building Licence Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Security Deposit, from developers to be ultra vires to the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and held them to be unenforceable.
A single bench of Justice M Nagaprsanna while deciding on a batch of petitions filed by developers said:
"There is no power under Act to impose the impugned levies i.e., ground rent, licence fee, building licence fee, scrutiny fee and security deposit. It is trite that fees can be imposed only if there is quid pro quo. Quid pro quo in legal parlance is that 'fee' that can be imposed for a service that is rendered."
The bench also said that, "Imposition of labour cess under the Welfare Cess Act is upheld, but its demand for payment upfront in terms of Government Orders dated 18.01.2007 and 28.02.2007, stands quashed."
32: 'We Must Modernize' :Karnataka High Court Refuses To Stay FASTag Implementation
The Karnataka High Court refused to stay the notification issued to amend the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, by which fitment of FASTag has been made compulsory for all vehicles and a valid FASTag is mandatory while getting a new 3rd Party Insurance.
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said, "Someday we must modernize." Referring to the present COVID-19 situation the Court said, "In the present circumstance should it not be welcomed? People don't need to handle notes which may be handled by 50 other people in a day."
Case Title: Shantharam Prabhu v. Mr. K. Dayanand Rai
Case No: Crp No.96 Of 2021
The Karnataka High Court has declared that, "Once an Apartment, Building, Property is subjected to the provisions of Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act (KAOA) 1972, by execution of Declaration, Deed of Apartment and Bye-Laws, the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972, would stop being applicable."
A single Judge of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, said "Both Acts would apply in different time periods, KOFA would be applicable until the Apartment is subjected to the provisions of KAOA, if the Apartment is not subjected to KAOA, KOFA would continue to apply. Once an Apartment, Building, Property is subjected to the provisions of KAOA by execution of Declaration Deed of Apartment and Bye Laws, KOFA would stop being applicable."
COVID
Case Title: Rev. Elish Kumar v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No.4834 of 2021
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the criminal case registered against a Church priest in Mysuru, for allegedly violating Covid-19 norms while performing last rites over a dead body.
The court noted, "Argument cannot be accepted because the prohibitory orders issued by the Government appear to have been violated. The photograph produced by the petitioners shows that there was a large gathering of people at that time. In view of this, I do not think that a false FIR has been registered. The matter requires investigation. In this view I do not find good grounds to admit this petition. It is dismissed."
35: Following Karnataka High Court Order, Centre Increases Oxygen Allocation To State
Case Title: Mohammed Arif Jameel And State of Karnataka
Case No: 6435/2020
The Karnataka Government informed the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday that the Central Government, as per its decision taken on May 8, has enhanced the daily quota of liquid medical oxygen for the state as 1015 MT with effect from May 11.
Taking note of this development, the Court has directed the Centre to place on record its plan to comply with the order passed last week to increase the supply as 1200 MT per day.
"Let the Central Government place on record how it is going to supply 1200 MT of Oxygen by tomorrow", a bench led by Chief Justice Abhay S Oka said. The court observed that, "Ultimately, we want an adequate supply of Oxygen to the state and no one should die for non-supply of Oxygen."
Case Title: Letzkit Foundation v. State Of Karnataka
Case No: 7708/2020
A report filed before the Karnataka High Court on Thursday stated that a total 116 people were arraigned as accused in a case registered over violation of COVID protocols of wearing masks and maintaining social distancing. The rally was led by Union Home Minister Amit Shah at Belagavi on January 17.
A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj in its order noted that "The report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police Market Yard, Belgavi city records that now charge sheet has been filed in crime no 58/2021, in which is 116 persons are arraigned as accused and cognizance has been taken by the magistrate."
Case Title: Mohammed Arif Jameel v. State of Karnataka
Case No: 6435/2020
The Karnataka Government on Tuesday informed the High Court that it has decided to increase the ex-gratia compensation amount to be given to the legal representatives of 13 people who died due to lack of Oxygen supply at Covid-19 hospitals in Chamarajanagar, in May 2021. The development comes after the High Court observed that the initial compensation announced by the Government was on the lower side.
Case Title: Muzammil Pasha v. National Investigation Agency
Case No: WP 1417/2021
The Karnataka High Court recently granted default bail under section Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to 115 accused in the case regarding violence that took place within the limits of the DJ Halli and KG Halli police station, on August 11, 2020.
In a setback to Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa, the Karnataka High Court vacated the stay granted on investigation and ordered a thorough probe to be conducted in the First Information Report in which he is accused of trying to woo JD(S) MLA Naganagouda Kandkur's son Sharanagouda with promise of money and Ministry in 2019 [Operation Kamala Case]
"As the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR and the contents of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to quash the above complaint and the FIR registered against the petitioners. Resultantly, petitioners being not entitled for the main relief claimed in the petitions, the question of continuing the interim order may not arise at all.",Justice John Michael Cunha said in his order.
40: 'Perjury A Heinous Crime, Complaints On It Shouldn't Be Deferred': Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Dr. Praveen R v. Dr Arpitha
Case No: Writ Petition No.19448 Of 2015
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that consideration of complaints regarding perjury should not be deferred or delayed by courts.
Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "Act of perjury is treated as a heinous offence in all civilized societies; consideration of complaints with regard to the same cannot be deferred or delayed; otherwise there is all possibility of the fountain of justice being polluted."
Case Title: Public Information Officer v. Malleshappa M Chikkeri
Case No: WP 18599/2021
The Karnataka High Court has said that once an investigation is completed and B-Report is filed by the police, there is no prohibition to give information about the same under the Right To Information Act.
A single-judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda while upholding the order of the State Information Commissioner (SIC) said, "In my view, the Commissioner (SIC) was absolutely justified in directing furnishing of B-Report and its enclosures as sought for by respondent No.1 especially when the investigation in the matter had been concluded."
