Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 14 To November 20, 2022 – Live Law – Indian Legal News

Nominal Index: SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT. LTD & others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 457. Syed Ahammed v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 458. HARISH .G & Others v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 459. A.V. GAYATHRI SHANTHEGOWDA v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & others. 2022…
Nominal Index:
SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT. LTD & others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 457.
Syed Ahammed v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 458.
HARISH .G & Others v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 459.
A.V. GAYATHRI SHANTHEGOWDA v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & others. 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 460.
M/s. BASF India Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 461.
ASHWINI GANAPATI HARIKANTRA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 462.
THAHA UMMER v. UNION OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 463.
SUNITA W/O BHARATKUMAR AITAWADE & ANR v. MALIKJAN S/O BHASKAR SANNAKKI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 464.
UMADEVI MURUGESH & ANR VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 465.
NAFEEZA & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 466.
THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION & Others v. COMPETITION COMMISION OF INDIA & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 467
Judgement/Orders
‘Victim’ U/S 2(wa) CrPC Includes Legal Heirs Who May Continue Criminal Case If Victim Dies: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT. LTD & others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2778 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 457
The Karnataka High Court has said that the word ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) of CrPC would include his or her legal heirs and they would have the locus to continue the criminal case in case of victim’s death, before Police files the chargesheet.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “A victim would mean a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression ‘victim’ includes his or her guardian or legal heir.
Not Mentioning Batch Number, Best Before Or Veg/ Non-Veg Symbol On Food Articles Is An Offence U/S 7 Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act: Karnataka HC
Case Title: Syed Ahammed v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1094 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 458
The Karnataka High Court has said that food articles sold without labels mentioning its batch number, ‘best before’ and ‘Veg’ or ‘Non-veg’ symbol, is clearly an offence under Section 7(i) and 7(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, punishable under Section 16(1)(a) thereof.
A single judge bench of Justice Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry said, “Admittedly, the food article sold was not labelled in accordance with the requirement of the Act and the Rules made there under, by mentioning its batch number, ‘best before’ and ‘Veg’ or ‘Non-veg’ symbol, which is clearly an offence under Section 7(i) and 7(ii) punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act.
State Should Prevent Private Medical Colleges Collecting Excess Fee If It Is Really Interested In Citizens’ Welfare:Karnataka High Court
Case Title: HARISH .G & Others v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & others
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.52425/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 459
The Karnataka High Court recently suggested the State government to issue general directions to Medical colleges against collection of excess fees from students over and above what is fixed by the government and the Karnataka Examinations Authority.
A division bench of Justices B. Veerappa and KS Hemalekha said, “It is the duty of the State Government to protect the students and issue directions to all the colleges including respondent No.6, who collected excess amount over and above fee fixed by the State Government, if the State is really interested in the welfare of the citizens of the State.
Nominated Members Of Town Panchayats Cannot Vote In Legislative Council Elections: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: A.V. GAYATHRI SHANTHEGOWDA v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & others
Case No: W.P.NO.1850/2022
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 460
The Karnataka High Court has held that persons nominated as representative of the Government under Section 352(1)(b) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 are not eligible to be included in the electoral roll of the Local Authorities Constituency for Karnataka Legislative Council polls.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, allowing a batch of petition challenging the inclusion of nominated members in the voter list, said: “The term ‘every member of the Local Authority’ means ‘only the elected members who are the councillors of the Town Panchayat and the said term cannot be extended to persons nominated by the Government to the Town Panchayat, who are not the councillors of the Town Panchayat and interpretation otherwise would lead to absurd results and goes against the spirit of Article 243-R Constitution of India and Section 352 of the Act, 1964.”
Open Purchase Orders Are Standing Offers, Movement of goods are mere stock transfers, No Sales Tax Payable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s. BASF India Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No.43797 Of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 461
The Karnataka High Court has held that open purchase orders are only standing offers that do not constitute a confirmed “agreement to sell” and that movements of goods are mere stock transfers.
The division bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar and Justice M.G. Uma has observed that the open purchase orders do not constitute any contract. The Purchase Orders issued from time to time for the supply of goods constituted a contract between the parties. Thus, the sale effected pursuant to such Purchase Orders is an intra-state sale in that state
Karnataka High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Govt Hospital Nurse Accused Of Facilitating Infant’s Sale
Case Title: ASHWINI GANAPATI HARIKANTRA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103215 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 462
The Karnataka High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a government hospital nurse accused of mediating the sale of a new born baby-girl, after the infant’s mother expressed undesirability to raise her on account of financial hardship.
A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar sitting at Dharwad observed that there is no specific averment in the complaint that the Petitioner-nurse facilitated the sale.
‘Drug Menace Affecting Entire Society’: Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Medical Shop Owner In NDPS Case
Case Title: THAHA UMMER v. UNION OF INDIA
Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9450/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 463
The Karnataka High Court has rejected the bail petition filed by one Thaha Ummer, a resident of Kerala, who was arrested on August 25 for allegedly exporting banned Clonazepam Tablets.
Ummer has been booked under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) by the Narcotic Control Bureau.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar while rejecting the bail petition said: “The drug menace is affecting the entire society and especially it is targeting the younger generation and it affects the economy of the country and illicit money is being used for drug trafficking and illegal money is being generated to promote the same. This is a serious aspect and it cannot be taken in a light way.”
NI Act | Complainant Can’t Seek To Prosecute Company’s Former Directors For Cheque Issued To Repay Amount Invested When They Held Office: Karnataka HC
Case Title: SUNITA W/O BHARATKUMAR AITAWADE & ANR v. MALIKJAN S/O BHASKAR SANNAKKI
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100639 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 464
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated against two former directors of a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the complainant claiming that when he invested the money in the company they were directors.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Sunita and Vidya and quashed the proceedings pending against them. A private complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’), alleging that the cheque, which was issued by the Company in favour of the complainant, when presented for realisation was dishonoured for want of funds. The Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and issued summons to the accused.
Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Wife & Son Of Lawyer Accused Of Sending Fake Judicial Orders To Client
Case Title: UMADEVI MURUGESH & ANR VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9966/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 465
The Karnataka High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the wife and child of a practising advocate, who is accused of sending fake orders to his client.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar allowed the petition filed by the woman and her son. The court said: “The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are directed to be enlarged on bail in event of their arrest, in Crime No.44/2022 of Vidhana Soudha Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 of IPC on each of them executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakhs only) with one surety for the like-sum.”
Allottee Becomes Landlord On Receiving Share In Partition, Continuation Of Tenancy Need Not Be In Writing: Karnataka HC Grants Relief To Ex-Serviceman
Case Title: NAFEEZA & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3420 OF 2013 (LR)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 466
The Karnataka High Court has said that if a tenanted land is allotted to the share of a member of the joint family, such allottee becomes the landlord.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishan S Dixit observed the same while dismissing a petition filed by tenants of a land challenging the order of the Tashildar directing resumption of land in favour of Retired Lieutenant Colonel. The bench remarked, “This is a classic instance of how poorly a section of society can treat the very soldiers who risk their lives & limbs to protect the frontiers of our country.
High Court Refuses To Halt CCI Probe Against Karnataka Chemists And Druggists Association, Calls Plea ‘Premature’
Case Title: THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION & Others v. COMPETITION COMMISION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24297/2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 467
The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with the investigation initiated by Competition Commission of India against the Karnataka Chemists and Druggists Association, which is accused of anti-competitive unfair trade practices.
Terming the association’s plea premature, Justice K S Hemalekha granted the union a liberty to submit their objections along with the information and documents to CCI Director General within a period of four weeks, in response to the notice issued to them.
Subscribe to Live Law now and get unlimited access.
Already have an account? Sign In

source

Leave a Comment