The Karnataka High Court has made several significant rulings in recent cases. In the case of Bhagavant Alagur vs. State of Karnataka, the court directed the state government to implement a satellite-based imagery system to monitor changes to river banks and sand bars, in order to prevent indiscriminate river sand mining that affects drinking water supply.
The court also dismissed two public interest litigations seeking an enquiry into the Public Works Department and Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Department over alleged irregularities in issuing tenders. The court held that the petitions were based on general assertions and that the petitioners had alternative remedies available.
In another case, the court rejected the Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation’s (BMTC) claim that it lost 13 days of revenue due to a bus being in repair after an accident. The court held that there was no evidence to support the claim and dismissed the appeal.
The court also ruled in favor of Vijaya Bank, allowing it to retain an indemnity bond amount collected from a former employee who left the bank’s services before completing the mandatory service period.
In a case related to the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court held that a complainant can prefer an appeal against an acquittal order before the Sessions Court, rather than approaching the High Court.
The court also debunked the contradictory actions of the Road Transport Corporation (RTC) in defending a bus driver before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, while taking disciplinary action against the driver for the same incident.
In a case related to a dispute between two religious institutions, the court directed the Police Commissioner to initiate a departmental inquiry against a police inspector for allegedly interfering with the functioning of one of the institutions.
The court also held that an arbitration clause cannot be invoked again over matters that have already been adjudicated upon and concluded by both the Arbitral Tribunal and competent courts.
In a high-profile case, the court quashed summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife and Minister BS Suresh in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case.
The court also ruled that the imprisonment of a husband cannot exceed one month in a single application claiming arrears of maintenance. In another case, the court held that a beneficiary nomination under the Insurance Act cannot override succession law, and suggested "better practices" to follow while enacting or amending laws. Overall, the Karnataka High Court has made several significant rulings that have implications for various aspects of law and governance in the state.
The eleven cases are:
- Bhagavant Alagur vs. State of Karnataka: The court directed the state government to implement a satellite-based imagery system to monitor changes to river banks and sand bars.
- Gurunath Vadde vs. State of Karnataka: The court dismissed two public interest litigations seeking an enquiry into the Public Works Department and Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Department.
- BMTC vs. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR: The court rejected BMTC’s claim that it lost 13 days of revenue due to a bus being in repair after an accident.
- Vijaya Bank vs. Abhimanyu Kumar: The court ruled in favor of Vijaya Bank, allowing it to retain an indemnity bond amount collected from a former employee.
- Thomas Mani vs. G Shankar: The court held that a complainant can prefer an appeal against an acquittal order before the Sessions Court.
- The Divisional Controller vs. Hussainsab: The court debunked the contradictory actions of the Road Transport Corporation (RTC) in defending a bus driver.
- Uttaradi Mutt vs. State of Karnataka: The court directed the Police Commissioner to initiate a departmental inquiry against a police inspector.
- Starlog Enterprises Limited vs. Board of Trustees of New Mangalore Port Trust: The court held that an arbitration clause cannot be invoked again over matters that have already been adjudicated upon.
- Parvathi vs. Directorate of Enforcement: The court quashed summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife and Minister BS Suresh.
- ABC vs. XYZ: The court ruled that the imprisonment of a husband cannot exceed one month in a single application claiming arrears of maintenance.
- Neelavva @Neelamma vs. Chandravva & Others: The court held that a beneficiary nomination under the Insurance Act cannot override succession law.