Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 1 To 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 222Nominal Index:K Lokesh AND THE BANGALORE DISTRICT MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 1M/s Vigneshwara Transport Company v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru North-West Commissionerate. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar)...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 1 To 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
Nominal Index:
K Lokesh AND THE BANGALORE DISTRICT MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
M/s Vigneshwara Transport Company v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru North-West Commissionerate. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
Heritage Basavanagudi Residents Welfare Forum AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
Vanitha M AND The Bangalore Development Authority & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
Rakesh Shetty AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
Muthoot Finance Limited AND State Of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
Brindavan Hydropower Private Limited AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
KARNATAKA FEDERATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS & ANR v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
Organisation for Unaided Recognised Schools & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
Bowring Institute AND Sarwik S and Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
J DEEPA AND Superintendent of Police. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
Kudleepa AND Mahantesh & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
RAGINI DWIVEDI @ GINI @ RAGS AND State of Karnataka And Connected Matter. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
High Court Legal Service Authority AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
The Registrar (Evaluation) AND S V Renu & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
Prajwal Revanna AND State Of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
Amrutha M & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
MD Imran Reza AND NoBroker Technologies Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
Central Warehousing Corporation AND G C Bhat & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
ABC AND XYZ. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
Shekhar AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
The Income Tax Officer & ANR Preeti V. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
K S Vishwa Kiran And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
Shipoil Limited AND MT Standorf. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
B Ashok Kumar AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
The Registrar General AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
Shilpa Kiran & ANR And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
M/s Renram Fashions India Pvt Ltd AND The ESI Corporation. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
Vikas C V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
V Keshavamurthy AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
Hindustan Aeronautics Officers Guild AND Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
Dr Natesha D B AND Directorate of Enforcement. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 32
Sushil Kumar Churiwala AND Akshay Bansal. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
Prafula M Bhat & Others AND Saraswati Shahstri & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
ABC AND State Of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE v. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
Karnataka SC/ST, Backward Classes and Minorities Advocates Federation AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
Rahul H M AND The Registrar (Evaluation) & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
Newspace Research and Technologies Private Limited and Anirudh Putsala & others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
Rajkumar Agarwal AND Income Tax Department. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
Rooda Veershetty AND Union of India & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar AND The Chief Personnel Manager & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
Sarojinin Bhanvi & Others AND Yallappa Kempanna Badiagawad. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
LT.GEN (Retd BNBM Prasad AND The Commissioner & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
Ullas Kotian Yane Ullas K V AND Government of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
Udaya Kumar Shetty AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
Snehamayi Krishna AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
BS Yediyurappa v/s The Criminal Investigating Department CID. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 49
Bhaskar Naidu and Arvind Yadav. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 50
Imran H AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 51
R Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 52
V R Raghunathan AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
Sunil Yadav AND Y C Manju. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 54
Daniya Joy & Others AND The Indian Nursing Council & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 55
S.MUTHAIAH AND State By CBI. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 56
ARNAB GOSWAMI AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 57
Master Adhrith Bhat AND The Registrar of Births And Deaths. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
Central Board Of Secondary Education & Others AND Janani Public School. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 59
High Court of Karnataka AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
Muniyappa A V AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 61.
Sangappa M Bagewadi AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
Directorate of Enforcement AND Union of India & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
Dr Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
Suvarana AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
Annapurna AND Kavita & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
Justice PADMARAJ NEMACHANDRA DESAI AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 67
Anandu & ANR AND The Principal Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 68
Arjun Ranappa Hatgundi AND Sushilabai & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
Devanand Patil & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
RASHTRIYA SURAKSHA JANANDOLAN SAMITHI MYSORE AND The Commissioner of Police, Mysore. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 71.
Kailasam P AND The Karnataka Bank Ltd & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
Chirag Sen & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
Anirudh Suresh AND Honourable High Court of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
M/s Padma Pharmaceuticals & ANR AND State Through Drug Inspector. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
Chandrashekhar AND The Divisional Controller. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
The Branch Manager AND Ramesh Davkatte & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
Hanumanth N Karkun AND Honourable Minister of Finance & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
Pavan Kumar M R AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
Pavankumar AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
Pavankumar AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 81
Dinesh Borkar & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 82
Bhagavant Alagur AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
BMTC AND IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
Vijaya Bank & AND AND Abhimanyu Kumar. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
Thomas Mani And G Shankar. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 87
The Divisional Controller AND Hussainsab. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 88
Uttaradi Mutt And State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
Starlog Enterprises Limited Board of Trustees of New Mangalore Port Trust. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 90
Parvathi AND Directorate of Enforcement (CRL.P 1132/2025) and another. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 91
ABC AND XYZ. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 92
Neelavva @Neelamma AND Chandravva & Others.. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 93
Vinod Kumar M N AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
Devendra Bhatia AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 95
B C Prasad & ANR AND The District Registrar And Deputy Commissioner of Stamps & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
Ismail Jabiulla & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
Prabhu Haveri AND The Commissioner For Social Welfare And Appellate Authority & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 98
Arthi B AND Karnataka State Law University & OThers. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
Munirathna AND State Of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
H Sanna Devanna & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
Moulali Challal AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 102
M.A.DHAVALESHWAR AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
Ramesh Karoshi AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
RAHUL SIVASANKAR AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 105
Karnataka Hire Purchase Association AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
Savitha Gowda AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
PADMA MALINI G. RAO & ANR AND RAVI KARUMBAIAH. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
Avinash AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
Bherya Primary Agriculture Credit Coopearative Society Ltd AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
KARNATAKA KARMIKARA VEDIKE AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
Saraswathi Prakash & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
S Laxmi & Other And THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
The PR. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
The State Of Karnataka v. Tractor And Farm Equipment Limited. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
G. Linganagouda v. General Manager, Karnataka Gramina Bank. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
Prabhat Sharma And State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
Mohanakumar K R & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others . 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
M R Rukmangadha & Others AND State of Karnataka & others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
B G Parmeshwara AND Bangalore Development Authority & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
SAMMAAN CAPITAL LIMITED AND MANTRI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
Prabhu Chavan AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
M/S ENMAS GB POWER SYSTEMS PROJECTS LTD AND MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
R M Manjunath Gowda AND Directorate of Enforcement. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
Ramu Nagabathini Versus Developer Group India Private Limited. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
M/s Yellalinga Electricals v. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
Sanath Kumar Shetty & Others AND Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
Sabeer & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
Mahendra Kumar Mitra AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 129
ROPEEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT LTD AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 130
Samiulla Khan & Others AND Sirajuddin Macci. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
M/S. MAHA RASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD Versus SRI. P.K.MOHAMMED and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 132
SRI JAGADGURU BASAVA JAYMRITYUNJAY SWAMIJI & others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
Mahalaxmi AND Karnataka Public Service Commission & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
S Basavaraj AND Bar Council of India & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
H T Umesh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
State of Karnataka AND B G Prakash Kumar & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
Amit Garg AND Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
The Union Of India and Anr. Versus Sri. Kothari Subbaraju. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
M/s Fortious Infradevelopers LLP V. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 141 to Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
THE MYSORE EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR AND Babu P & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
Divisional Controller AND Shyamala B. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
Dr A A Muralidharswamy And State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
J Ramesh AND M/s Lakshmi Precious Jewellery Private Ltd.. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
Dr S Chandrakala AND State of Karnataka & ANR . 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
P. Junjappa v. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
Sumitra AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
Rudramma & Others
State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
K V Shankara And Siddaramiah. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
K Ganesh Babu AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
Harshavardini Ranya Rao AND Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
Shiv Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
High Court Legal Services Authority AND Principal Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
Hemanth Datta @Hemantha AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
Prof Govindan Rangarajan & Others AND Dr D Sanna Durgappa & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
Newspace Research And Technologies Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Puttanagowda AND Kubergouda. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 157
Dr Madhukar G Anagur AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 158
M MOSER DESIGN ASSOCIATES INDIA PVT LTD AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 159NEIL PATEL DIGITAL LLC Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR RAJARATHINAM. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 160
X & others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
Kanaka Lakshmi B M AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
SRI C T RAVI v/s STATE BY BAGEWADI P S AND OTHERS. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
handrashekhar AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
High Court Of Karnataka AND The Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 165
Mohamed Ikbal AND Secretary to Government of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
CV Rajanna & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 167
ABC AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
Raviraja Rai M And State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 169
Rishi Kumar AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
D S Veeraiah AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
Ashok AND Fayaz Aahmad. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
Anil Kumar S B AND Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
Arbaz Khan AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 174
PhonePe Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
Sandya Anil Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
Rekha Kannan & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
Keerthi Harmony Apartment Owners Association AND M/S KEERTHI ESTATES PVT. LTD & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
N. H. Gowda Versus Mr. Rangarama And Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
Shrishail Irappa Kempwad & ANR And State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
Savinaya AND Mrs Sheela G Bhat & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
Karnataka State Private Management Association of Health Institutions AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
Addanada Karriappa And Philiphose Mathew. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
Athaulla Jokatte & AND And State Of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
Anumandala Rajesh Reddy AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
B R Anand AND V R Gisha. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
Somarapu Vamashi AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
Girish Bharadwaj AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
Ramesh Naik L AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
Vidya M V AND Bhavana S. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
Rait Sena Karnataka AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
Naveen Kumar N & Others AND M/S Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
Shashank J Rai AND National Anti Doping Agency-India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
Puneet H R AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
Rana George AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
Priti Singh & Others AND Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
Denis Crasta AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
Harish AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Karavali Bus Owners Association & Others AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
Taha Husain AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 201.
A V Poojappa AND Dr S K Vagadevi. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
M/S SAPTHAGIRI SHELTERS AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
Manjunath V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
Smt. Manjula & Anr. vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
M/S. IMAGEX TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR AND M/S. GRAINTEC INDUSTRIES & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
Ms Suja Jones Mazurier AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
Surya Sareen AND Central Bureau of Investigation. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
Jayaram B S AND NIL. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
Bhagwan Das & Others AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
GreenPeace Environment Trust AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
Abdul Sattar AND M Khalid & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
Arumugam AND Ananda. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
Basvaraj AND K M Altaf Hussain & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
M/s Sona Synthetics & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
Prabhakaran K AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
P Vasudeva Kamath & ANR AND Jayashri R Kamath. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
Basvaraj Bommai AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
Vikas M Dev AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
Arun Kumar Alva AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
Madiga Dandora AND The State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
Sriramulu AND U Ravi Rao & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
Rachappa Satish Kumar & ANR AND M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 222.
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: K Lokesh AND THE BANGALORE DISTRICT MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No. 254 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
The Karnataka High Court has held that the right of appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, is only available to senior citizens and parents and no such right is extended to children or third parties.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while partly allowing an appeal filed by K Lokesh. The court said “The only reasonable interpretation of Section 16 of the Act is that the right of appeal is vested exclusively in senior citizens or parents, and not in any other individuals, including children or transferees.”
Case Title: M/s Vigneshwara Transport Company v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru North-West Commissionerate
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.18305 OF 2023 (T-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
The Karnataka High Court held that when investigation is substantially completed by improper officer, show cause notice issued by proper officer u/s 74 of CGST Act is liable to be set aside.
The Bench of Justice M.I. Arun observed that “…..substantial part of the investigation including search and seizure of the materials has been done by respondent no.2 who is not the proper Officer and under the circumstances, the said investigation, inspection, search and seizure in respect of the assessee herein has to be considered ab initio void…..”
Case Title: Heritage Basavanagudi Residents Welfare Forum AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 5330 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to stop the Gandhi Bazaar Market Street Redesign project which is at the final stage of completion
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by Heritage Basavanagudi Residents Welfare Forum and said “The Gandhi Bazaar Market Street Redesign project is for better convenience of the public, maintenance of traffic movement, to give better facility to the street vendors and to provide the access to the vehicles.”
Case Title: Vanitha M AND The Bangalore Development Authority & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.61154 of 2014 (LA-BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.50948 OF 2016, 14510 OF 2018, 1201 OF 2020, 8235 OF 2021 & 26090 OF 2022.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the notifications issued by the Bangalore Development Authority to acquire land for construction of Peripheral Ring Road-II, between Hosur-Mysore Road and Tumakur Road.
Single judge Justice E S Indiresh upheld the Preliminary as well as the Final Notifications issued in 2005 and 2011 respectively, under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
It said, “I am of the view that, as the respondent-BDA has laid road in Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) for more than 80% of the project and as such, taking into consideration the difficulties arises in respect of the construction of metro station, service road to enable the nearby habitants to reach main roads as well as taking necessary precaution of the safety of the vehicles and public in general, I am of the view that, no interference be called for in respect of the quashing the impugned notifications issued by the respondent-authorities for the purpose of formation of Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II).”
Case Title: Rakesh Shetty AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.31737 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
The Karnataka High Court has said that the question of considering Higher Secondary (10+2) pass certificate for admission to LLB course would be irrelevant so long as the candidates were to have a First degree issued by any recognised University.
A single judge Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing the petition filed by one Rakesh Shetty and said “In respect of proviso to Rule 5, (Bar Council Rules) the question of considering equivalency of JOC (Job oriented Course) with +2 would not be relevant, since the petitioner holds a B.Com degree, which being a First Degree was sufficient for the University to consider for issuance of eligibility certificate."
Case Title: Muthoot Finance Limited AND State Of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 36201 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
The Karnataka High Court has requested the Law Commission, Karnataka to formulate necessary guidelines/rules in respect of stolen gold being pledged with gold finance companies, the implication of pledging such stolen gold and the procedure for dealing with it when criminal proceedings are initiated.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that there are innumerable matters coming up before this court where stolen gold is pledged with a gold finance company.
Case Title: Brindavan Hydropower Private Limited AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11235 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 22770 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 23729 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 24270 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 28604 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 28659 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 29091 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 1117 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 6100 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 15429 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 15626 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 15805 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 17475 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 19035 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 19665 OF 2024 (GM-KEB
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
The Karnataka High Court has struck down the Electricity (Promoting Renewable Energy Through Green Energy Open Access) Rules 2022 framed by the Central Government for generation, purchase and consumption of green energy i.e., electrical energy from renewable sources of energy.
A single judge, Justice N S Sanjay Gowda observed that the Centre lacks power under Electricity, 2003 Act to frame the Green Energy Open Access (GEOA) Rules since the statute specifically conferred such power on the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC).
Case Title: KARNATAKA FEDERATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS & ANR v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 123/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
The Karnataka High Court today (08 May) orally expressed support towards reservation of seats for women in the Governing Council of Advocates' Association Bengaluru.
Justice R Devdas however declined a plea moved by the women members of the Bar Association and Federation of Women Lawyers in this regard, stating that only the Supreme Court can pass such orders.
"All of us are one with you that reservation is to be given but it has to be in accordance with law...If you put across this request from the side of women advocates then appropriate decision would be taken. This court will not be able to pass any such order, approach the Supreme Court...extra ordinary powers available to SC not with us," the Judge orally observed during the hearing.
Case Title: Organisation for Unaided Recognised Schools & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.23653 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a Circular issued by the Department of Education requiring private schools, amongst others, to obtain and furnish a structural stability certificate and sanction plan relating to the building where the school was being run, along with fire safety requirements/facilities for such schools.
The court passed the order after noting that the circular only required that the school building's structure be stable especially when young children cannot be easily trained in respect of any disaster or emergency issue which could arise.
Case Title: Bowring Institute AND Sarwik S and Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7641/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that before granting an ad-interim temporary injunction without notice to the opposite party, the trial court must assign reasons on whether the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay.
Justice H P Sandesh, said, “The word used in Order 39 Rule 3 (Civil Procedure Code) is the court shall exercise the discretion and when the statue itself requires reasons to be recorded, the Court cannot ignore that requirement by saying that if reasons are recorded, it may amount to expressing an opinion in favour of the plaintiff before hearing the defendant.”
Case Title: J DEEPA AND Superintendent of Police
Case No: CRL.A 1973/2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal challenging a trial court filed by the legal heirs of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, seeking to release her property/assets seized by the authorities in the disproportionate assets case registered against her in 2004, in their favour.
A single judge, Justice V Srishananda, dismissed the appeal filed by J Deepak and J Deepa.
The trial court had vide its order dated July 12, 2023 dismissed the application filed under section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Case Title: Kudleepa AND Mahantesh & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.100030 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
The Karnataka High Court has held that a respondent in an election petition cannot seek for transposition as a petitioner claiming that there is a collusion between the Election petitioner and the successful candidate or any other ground.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Kudleepa Chittaragi who had questioned the order of the trial court rejecting his application made under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure.
It said “The petitioner in the present case being a respondent and not having independently challenged the election of respondent No.2 could not have filed an application for transposition under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.”
Case Title: RAGINI DWIVEDI @ GINI @ RAGS AND State of Karnataka And Connected Matter
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26835 OF 2024 (GM-RES) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9497 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Kannada actor Ragini Dwivedi, who had been arrested by the police for allegedly consuming and supplying drugs at parties and events organized by her and others.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Ragini (accused no. 2) and co-accused Prashant Ranka (accused no. 4). The petitioners were charged for offences punishable under Sections 21, 21(C), 22(C), 27A, 27-B, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, read with Sections 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) and 201(Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of IPC.
Case Title: High Court Legal Service Authority AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 52485 OF 2014
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
The Karnataka Government informed the High Court that the benefit of general holidays and Government holidays as notified by the Court in the calendar is granted to the part-time daily wage manual workers working in the Benches of High Court at Dharwad and Kalaburagi.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anajaria and Justice M I Arun were informed about this during a public interest litigation filed by the High Court Legal Service Committee in 2014.
Case Title: The Registrar (Evaluation) AND S V Renu & Others
Case No: WA 45/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed the Bangalore University to consider the grievance raised by students about the clashing of exams held by the University with examination of other competitive courses.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun said, “The grievance of students that University and other exams often clash, the University will consider the grievance in proper light.”
Case Title: Prajwal Revanna AND State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 206/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
"Just because it is Prajwal Revanna law cannot be changed", said the Karnataka High Court orally on Thursday (January 16) while hearing the former JD (S) leader's plea, who is booked in a rape and sexual assault case, for production of documents and Electronic Evidence collected by prosecution from his driver's phone.
The court said this after noting that he wanted the entire data from the device, adding that it can only allow inspection of images and not the data pertaining to the other women.
It thereafter allowed Revanna's request for inspection and disposed of the plea.
Case Title: Amrutha M & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9924 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
The Karnataka High Court set aside a notification issued by the State Government in 2023, reducing the education assistance amount for children of registered construction workers for pursuing graduation and post-graduation courses.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed “The state should never stifle or smother the rights of the poor. There is no reason whatsoever found in any of the justification projected by the State to do so. The State government must remember that it should take all steps towards educating women, as it is said, educating a man, is educating an individual; educating a woman, is educating a generation.”
Case Title: MD Imran Reza AND NoBroker Technologies Solutions Pvt. Ltd
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29555 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed claiming that NoBroker Technologies Solutions Pvt. Ltd forces its employees to surrender their digital privacy under the threat of losing access to work tools.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun dismissed the petition filed by one MD Imran Reza stating, “This Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. Any individual violation of privacy rights may be a cause of action for initiating appropriate legal proceedings as may be permissible in law, in accordance with law.”
Case Title: Central Warehousing Corporation AND G C Bhat & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.102635 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 19.
The Karnataka High Court has held that in case no proceedings have been initiated against a delinquent employee for recovery of the alleged losses caused to the public institution due to their misappropriation, the question of the employer retaining the gratuity amount of the dismissed employee and forfeiting the same, would not arise.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Central Warehousing Corporation, which had challenged the order of the Controlling Authority. The authority while allowing the application filed by G C Bhat had directed the corporation to pay him a gratuity amount of Rs.7,88,165 with 10% interest from 12.12.2013, till the date of actual payment.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: CIVIL PETITION NO. 370 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
The Karnataka High Court has said that there should be a gender-neutral society which aims at preventing separation of duties according to sex or gender and the focus should be on equal treatment of men and women both in domestic affairs and workplaces.
The court disallowed a plea for transfer of a divorce petition filed by the wife and stated that the husband's convenience cannot be overlooked. Only because the transfer petition is moved by a woman, transfer of the case as sought cannot be effected, it said.
Case Title: Shekhar AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9546 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a criminal case registered against a licensed deed writer accused of writing an agreement for the sale of a land based on a general power attorney (GPA) which was allegedly a forged one.
Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by one Shekar and said “Merely because he is a deed writer, the proceedings against him cannot be quashed, as the offence of forgery and using forged document to be genuine and criminal breach of trust by the petitioner are prima facie met. Therefore, these are matters where investigation would be required”.
Case Title: The Income Tax Officer & ANR Preeti V
Case No:WRIT APPEAL NO. 1407 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
The Karnataka High Court has said proceedings initiated against an Income Tax Assessee by issuing notice after his demise cannot be continued against his/her legal representative.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja said, “Had the proceedings been initiated against the Assessee during his lifetime, they could have continued against the legal representatives of the deceased Assessee.”
Case Title: K S Vishwa Kiran And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3839 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
The Karnataka High Court quashed a case registered against a private bank manager under the provisions of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (SCST) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after noting that it was yet another case of misuse of the special enactment which was enforced to protect the interests of the marginalized.
Justice M G Uma passed the order while allowing the petition filed by K.S. Vishwa Kiran. The petitioner was charged under Sections 420, 354, 354B, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and Sections 3(2) (v) and 3 (2) (va) of the SCST Act.
Case Title: Shipoil Limited AND MT Standorf
Case No: CIVIL PETITION NO. 23 OF 2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
The Karnataka High Court has said that a petition filed seeking a decree against a vessel (ship) would be maintainable before the High Court under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 and not before the Commercial Court.
Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Shipoil Limited, seeking to return the petition filed by M. T. Standorf. The respondent had filed the petition seeking the Court to pass a decree against the vessel by name M.T. STANDORF for recovery of a sum of EUR.506,512.66 equivalent to INR 4,05,21,732.80 (Rupees Four Crores Five Lakhs Twenty one Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Two and eighty paise only) towards outstanding principal amount of EUR.457,149.36 and the accrued interest thereon and other allied reliefs including sale of the vessel by public auction.
Case Title: B Ashok Kumar AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3594 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an attempt to murder case registered against a police officer who is accused to have assaulted a woman with whom he was in a consensual relationship for several years.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said “I deem it appropriate to hold that consensual acts between the accused and the victim for having sexual relationship, can never become a licence to the man to assault the lady. The case at hand projects gross misogynist brutality upon the complainant.”
Case Title: The Registrar General AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 797 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
The Karnataka High Court has directed State Department of Health and Family Welfare, to constitute a three member Committee headed by its Secretary to continuously oversee and implement the mechanism to ensure medical facility and infrastructure–including medical and para-medical personnel at all levels–City, District and Rural.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind issued the direction while disposing of a suo-motu public interest litigation initiated taking cognizance of a news report published in The New Indian Express newspaper, highlighting a shortfall of around 16,500 medical personnel in the State.
The court said, “When the right to health and right to medical-care is treated as fundamental right, it stands enforced only with corresponding Constitutional obligation on part of the State to create medical facilities. For effective enjoyment of this right, the creation of medical cadre, adequate medical personnel, setting up of infrastructure, availability of medicines in sufficient quantity and without interruption, as also establishment of Primary Health Centres in the rural area, are the concomitants. They become inseparable necessities for enjoyment of right to health and right to medicare.”
Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Defamation Case Against News 1 Kannada's Anchor & Head Of News
Case Title: Shilpa Kiran & ANR And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10818 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against a News Anchor and Head of News-1 Kannada TV channel based on the complaint filed by a police sub-inspector.
Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition filed by Shilpa Kiran and Suresha G S and quashed the proceedings pending against them under sections 290(Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for), 505 (1) (Statements conducing to public mischief), 34(common intention), 499(Defamation), 500 (Punishment for defamation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Case Title: M/s Renram Fashions India Pvt Ltd AND The ESI Corporation.
Case No: REVIEW PETITION NO.598 OF 2024 IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3185 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
The Karnataka High Court has said that any objection with regard to jurisdiction of a court in adjudicating an appeal has to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity by a party and it cannot be raised after the passing of the order which has gone against it.
A single judge, Justice H P Sandesh dismissed a review petition filed by M/s Renram Fashions India Pvt Ltd, which had moved after the single judge had set aside an of the ESI court which had partly allowed the plea filed by the company and modified the order passed directing petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.26,34,569, towards damages for the delay in payment of contribution for the period from January 2009 to June 2013.
Case Title: Vikas C V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2730 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
The Karnataka High Court has held that merely because the deceased had scribed that no one is responsible in the death note, a court, while relying on the same, cannot quash the proceedings initiated against husband and in-laws for charges of cruelty and dowry death.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Vikas C V and others who are charged under Sections 498A (cruelty), 304B (dowry death) r/w Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Karnataka High Court Dismisses PIL To Permit Holding Of Bull/ Bullock Cart Race In Kolar District
Case Title: V Keshavamurthy AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 35617/2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Kolar District, to grant permission for conducting a bulls race/bullock cart race, in Dullapalli village of the District scheduled in January 2025.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun dismissed the petition filed by V Keshavamurthy and said “It is entirely for the authorities to consider the subject matter, the court will not intervene in any fashion.”
Case Title: Hindustan Aeronautics Officers Guild AND Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14734 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a circular issued by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), whereby it sought to re-fix the pay of Officers, which came to be increased, in the year 2017.
A single judge, Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the petition filed by 'Hindustan Aeronautics Officers Guild' and set aside the Circular dated 24.07.2021, issued by the employer. It also clarified that the pay fixation (presently being paid) would continue to hold the field.
Case Title: Dr Natesha D B AND Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 32956 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 32
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot give the elements of procedural fairness contained in the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) a go-by in the course of its administration.
A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar made the observation while allowing the petition filed by former Commissioner of Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA), Dr Natesha D B, during whose tenure alleged illegal allotment of land sites was made to Chief Minister Siddaramiah's wife Paravathi.
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Churiwala AND Akshay Bansal
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1043 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that an accused who has suffered an order of conviction in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pertaining to cheque dishonour, should not be equated with that of an accused who has been convicted for other penal statutes.
Justice V Srishananda held thus while setting aside the six-month imprisonment handed down to one Sushil Kumar Churiwala by the trial court along with payment of fine while "maintaining the order of conviction".
"From the directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association supra, it is clear that the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is in the nature of quasi civil and quasi criminal in nature. Therefore, the Courts while exercising its discretion at the time of passing the appropriate sentence in a given case, is entitled to use its discretionary power in awarding imprisonment or fine or with both. At any rate, an accused who has suffered an order of conviction in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, should not be equated with that of a accused who has been convicted for other penal statutes," the court said.
Case Title: Prafula M Bhat & Others AND Saraswati Shahstri & Others.
Case No: RFA NO.100103 OF 2014
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
The Karnataka High Court has said that daughter who was already born at the time of a partition that took place before 20th December 2004 (Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act), between the father and his sons, cannot be elevated to the status of the daughter born after the partition and cannot claim the share in the property allotted to the father or challenge the alienation made by the father, after 2005 amendment.
A single judge, Justice Anant Ramanathe Hegde held thus while dismissing the appeal filed by Prafulla M Bhat and others. The appellants had challenged the trial court order which had dismissed their suit for partition and seeking equal rights in the ancestral property held by their deceased father Mahadev. Challenge was also raised to the gift deed executed by Mahadev in favour of his second wife.
Case Title: ABC AND State Of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.3809 OF 2024 (GM – RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.28591 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
The Karnataka High Court has held that there cannot be an offence of extortion registered against the wife when she initiates proceedings for maintenance and the concerned Court grants maintenance amount to her.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by a wife seeking to quash the complaint registered by the husband under Sections 420, 406, 403, 109, 384 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench said “In the considered view of the Court, there cannot be an offence of extortion when the wife initiates proceedings for maintenance and the concerned Court grants maintenance. Those are legal proceedings, pursuant to which the husband is legally bound to pay, unless it is altered or modified by the superior Court.”
Double Payment For Same Claim Violates Public Policy U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE v. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 427 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
The Karnataka High Court Bench of Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice K. V. Aravind held that the issue of double payment for the same claim would undoubtedly be in direct conflict with the Public Policy of India and would violate the Fundamental Policy of Indian Law, as well as the basic principles of morality and justice.
Additionally, the court held that it is well established in law that double payment for the settlement of a single claim is impermissible.
Case Title: Karnataka SC/ST, Backward Classes and Minorities Advocates Federation AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 2791/2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
The Karnataka High Court on Saturday refused to grant any relief in a petition seeking a direction to the Advocates Association, Bengaluru to take steps for providing overall 50 percent reservation to SC/ST and backward communities, which may also include women reservation in the governing body of the Association, during the ensuing elections.
A single judge, Justice R Devdas disposed of the petition filed by Karnataka SC/ST, Backward Classes and Minorities Advocates Federation and said “This court has to once again reiterate that this court will not be in a position to issue such directions to enable reservation for few of the posts in the office bearers or governing council to members belonging to SC/ST and backward communities. If at all such a direction is to be issued it is only at the hands of the Supreme Court, which can invoke its extraordinary power under Article 142 of Constitution of India.”
Case Title: Rahul H M AND The Registrar (Evaluation) & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 104890 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of the Karnataka State Law University to formulate necessary Rules in relation to safeguard the sanctity of examinations and avoid malpractises indulged by students, so as to make available a level playing field for all students.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj also directed that the rules issued shall be made applicable to all colleges coming within the jurisdiction or affiliated to the said University and be implemented in a time bound manner.
Case Title: Newspace Research and Technologies Private Limited and Anirudh Putsala & others
Case No: WP No.32999 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
The Karnataka High Court has said that in intellectual property rights cases, the ex-parte order of appointment of the Court Commissioner for search and seizure–an Anton Piller order, is to ensure that a surprise element remains intact in the absence of which the respondents can easily remove the infringing products when the commissioner visits the latter's premises.
Anton Piller orders are court orders giving the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning in order to prevent destruction of evidence specially in case of intellectual property right infringement.
Justice H T Narendra Prasad observed this while disposing of a petition filed by Newspace Research and Technologies Private Limited, who had challenged the order of the trial court refusing to appoint a court commissioner on the application made by it to seize the data from the respondents.
Case Title: Rajkumar Agarwal AND Income Tax Department.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201214 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201213 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201215 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201216 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash prosecution initiated by the Income Tax Department against an assessee who had willfully failed to submit his income tax returns in time for the Assessment Years 2012- 13 to 2015-16 and thereby committed the alleged offence.
A single judge, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petitions filed by Rajkumar Agarwal. It said, “Delay in filing of the income tax returns would not only result in payment of penalty, but it also results in prosecution as provided under Chapter 22 of the Act. Therefore, merely for the reason that petitioner has paid the penalty levied by the Competent Authority for the delay in filing of the returns, the same does not exonerate the petitioner from being prosecuted.”
Case Title: Rooda Veershetty AND Union of India & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 33725 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation filed seeking a direction to the Union and State Government, to protect the life, property and other religious places of Hindus and other Minority Community people, residing in Bangladesh.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun while dismissing a petition by Rodda Veershetty said, “The subject matter and the prayer are based on the news item dated 13.08.2024 in Kannada newspaper Prajavani titled "Communal unrest in Bangla".
Case Title: Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar AND The Chief Personnel Manager & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.105244 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
The Karnataka High Court has said that administrative exigency can be a reason for a Corporation to exercise its right of transfer of an employee from one place to another, but it cannot be done in violation of the statute or operative guidelines of service.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar questioning the endorsement issued to him by which he was transferred from Vigilance Department of the North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation to the post of Depot Manager.
Case Title: Sarojinin Bhanvi & Others AND Yallappa Kempanna Badiagawad
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102067 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
The Karnataka High Court has said that once a testator has admitted the execution of a Will in proceedings before the Court and pleadings are filed, there would be no requirement to further establish the authenticity of the Will in terms of Sections 67, 68 and 70 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Sarojini Bhanvi and another challenging an order of the trial court allowing the application made by Yallappa Kempanna Badiagawad, to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased Tayamma.
Case Title: LT.GEN (Retd BNBM Prasad AND The Commissioner & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14296 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the State Consumer Commission and directed Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to allot a site by executing necessary conveyance and deliver possession to a retired defence personnel.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja allowed the petition filed by LT. GEN (Retd) BNBM Prasad and said “The State and its instrumentalities should learned to show deference to the Defense Personnel who guard our country unfazed by enormous difficulties.”
It added “The MUDA has treated with scant respect & regard a Defense Personnel of the kind who has put a long & spotless service of three decades in guarding the frontiers of the nation. The encomia earned by him at the hands of the Central Government & the State Government failed to impress the MUDA officials...A Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent-MUDA to execute & register a sale deed in favour of petitioner and put him in peaceable possession of the site in question or an alternative site of equal dimension & value, within eight weeks.”
Case Title: Ullas Kotian Yane Ullas K V AND Government of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a sibling who is asserting exclusive title based on a Will in his favour cannot get his name mutated in the records based on the Will until it has been substantiated and proved.
A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Ullas Kotian Yane Ullas K V, who had challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and directing Tahsildar to restore the name of the original owner, namely, Kamalamma, mother of the petitioner in the records.
Case Title: Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 1160/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
Karnataka High Court on Thursday (February 6) dismissed a public interest litigation filed seeking a direction to Lokayukta to hold enquiry against the MLA, MPs and MLCs whose assets are disproportionate to their known sources of income, by considering the representation made by the petitioner in December 2023.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun dismissed the petition filed by Gurunath Vadde. It said “The petition and facts stated therein are too general and too vague to be acted upon in PIL jurisdiction.”
Case Title: Udaya Kumar Shetty AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14164 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed an offence registered against a man charged with harbouring a murder accused in his house.
A single judge, Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition filed by Udaya Kumar Shetty and said: “Before alleging any offence punishable under Section 216 of IPC, it is necessary to establish that accused person had knowledge about conviction of the offender and that the petitioner had intentionally and willfully harboured him so as to attract Section 216 of IPC.”
Case Title: Snehamayi Krishna AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 27484/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (February 7) refused to transfer the investigation by the Lokayukta police into the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) "scam" which is stated to involve Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said, "The material on record does not indicate that investigation conducted by Lokayukta is partisan or lood sidedor shoddy for this court to refer the matter to CBI for further investigation or reinvestigation. Petition is dismissed."
Case title: BS Yediyurappa v/s The Criminal Investigating Department CID
Case No: WP 15522/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 49
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (February 7) set aside the trial order taking cognizance of offences alleged against former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa in a case registered under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act
In doing so the court partly allowed his plea for quashing the POCSO Case; it however remitted the matter back to the trial court while saying that the the probe and final report remains intact. The court however allowed his plea seeking anticipatory bail.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said: "Petition is allowed in part. Order of taking cognizance stands obliterated. The crime and investigation and final report remains intact. Matter remitted back to the trial court. All contentions remain open".
Case Title: Bhaskar Naidu and Arvind Yadav
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6985 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 50
The Karnataka High Court has held that a dispute related to the recovery of money in regard to the share purchase agreement is not maintainable before the Commercial Court.
A single judge, Justice H T Narendra Prasad allowed the petition filed by Bhashakar Naidu challenging the order of the Commercial Court which had rejected its application filed under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, for returning the money recovery suit filed by Arvind Yadav.
Case Title: Imran H AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 362 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 51
The Karnataka High Court has said that unless there are exceptional circumstances to file an anticipatory bail application directly before the High Court, bypassing the Sessions Court, it will be prudent for the accused to approach the Sessions Court at the first instance seeking relief.
A single judge, Justice Mohammad Nawaz held thus while disposing of the petition filed by a school teacher, Imran H, who is charged with offences punishable under Section 69, 318(2) of BNS, 2023. It is alleged that the accused with a promise of marriage, committed sexual intercourse with the complainant and later cheated her etc. He directly approached the high court seeking anticipatory bail.
Case Title: R Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy AND State of Karnataka
Case No:CRIMINAL PETITION No.1369 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.2993 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 52
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against legislator R.Akhanda Srinivas Murthy, who was charged after certain cartons of pressure cookers were found in a building which had his sticker pasted, during the State Assembly Election held in 2023.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Murthy and T N R Rohit and quashed the case registered under Section 171-E and 171-F of the IPC and Section 133 of the Representation of People Act.
The bench said, “Perusal of the contents obtained in the complaint does not meet ingredients necessary to bring home the offences as alleged.”
Case Title: V R Raghunathan AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 16634/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
The Karnataka High Court was on Monday informed by the state government that it has constituted a selection committee and begun the process of making appointments to the post of Presidents and Members of all the consumer Forums.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun accordingly disposed of the petition filed by V R Raghunathan seeking a direction to the state government to fill up the vacancies.
Additional Government Advocate Niloufer Akbar filed a memo before the court stating that the state government has constituted a selection committee, under the Rules, for the purpose of filling up vacancies. Also, a notification dated 24-07-2024 was produced, which reflected that under the Chairmanship of a sitting judge of the High Court, a three-member committee was formed.
Case Title: Sunil Yadav AND Y C Manju.
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.664/2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 54
The Karnataka High Court has said that it is the discretion of the trial court to dispense with the accused statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code if the accused does not avail of any opportunity for cross-examining the witness or lead any defence evidence.
A single judge, Justice H P Sandesh dismissed the petition filed by Sunil Yadav who was convicted for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act sought the matter be remanded back to the trial court.
Case Title: Daniya Joy & Others AND The Indian Nursing Council & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 28043 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 55
The Karnataka High Court has declared that the Kerala State or State Nursing Council cannot seek to deny registration of a Karnataka graduate in BSc Nursing, on the ground that the said student has not graduated from a college within the state.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by two natives of Kerala who completed their nursing course in Karnataka but were denied registration by the State Council in Kerala for want of a certificate from the Indian Nursing Council.
The bench said, “Once a citizen of India is qualified and has been conferred a degree, that degree would be valid across the country, which has to be recognized by every institution.”
Case Title: S.MUTHAIAH AND State By CBI
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.577 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 56
The Karnataka High Court has said that an accused cannot be a witness on behalf of the prosecution, and a person who is admittedly guilty cannot run away from punishment, merely because he has been arraigned as a witness in the case by the prosecution.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing the petition filed by one S Muthaiah an accused in a 2011 illegal transportation of iron ore case, challenging a trial court order rejecting his application under Section 319 (Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence) CrPC seeking to make 23 forest officials who are named as prosecution witness, as accused in the case.
Case Title: ARNAB GOSWAMI AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 34162/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 57
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday allowed a petition filed by Republic TV Chief Editor Arnab Goswami and quashed the FIR registered against him for allegedly spreading fake news about Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said “Petition allowed and quashed.” The court before passing the order orally observed “Court wants to know what's the offence against Arnab Goswami, absolutely nothing, abuse on its face.”
The police had registered an offence under Section section 505 (2) (Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) of Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Master Adhrith Bhat AND The Registrar of Births And Deaths
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6370 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
The Karnataka High Court has suggested to Legislature to consider amending Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, permitting change of name in the birth register after it has been entered.
A single judge, Justice N S Sanjay Gowda said “It is common practice in our country that a person decides to give himself a new name or that a parent decides to change the name though he has already been given a name. In fact, it is a practice in our country that multiple names are given, but one name is entered in the records and this, at times, creates confusion regarding the identity of the person.”
Case Title: Central Board Of Secondary Education & Others AND Janani Public School.
Case No: WA 222/2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 59
The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by the Central Board Of Secondary Education (CBSE), challenging an interim order passed by the single judge, directing it to permit 18 students of Janani Public School who have switched over from the State Board to CBSE Board and sought to appear for 10th Standard examination conducted by the board for the academic year 2024-25.
A single judge bench had vide its interim order dated January 27, directed the Board to permit 18 students to take 10th Standard examination for the academic year 2024-25, to be held from 15.02.2025, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition without claiming any equity.
Case Title: High Court of Karnataka AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18593 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
The Karnataka High Court has directed Burhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to impose heavy fines on any individual, any residential society or residential hub if found to be negligent towards clearing the stored water in containers, stagnant water, long accumulated water or solid waste which may result into breeding of mosquitoes and causing the spread of Dengue.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anajaria and Justice K V Aravind said this while disposing of a suo-motu petition initiated by the court in July 2024, taking note of the rising number of Dengue cases in Bengaluru and other districts of the state, especially rural areas.
The bench said “As far as the dengue is concerned, since mosquito breeding is the primary cause, it is expected that the BBMP shall evolve a continuous mechanism to check, control breeding of mosquitoes. Any individual, any residential society or residential hub if found to be negligent towards clearing the stored water in containers, stagnant water, long accumulated water or solid waste which may result into breeding of mosquitoes, shall be subjected to heavy fine by framing proper rules in that regard.”
Case Title: Muniyappa A V AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1519 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 61.
The Karnataka High Court has said that once a Land Grant Committee issues a recommendation for grant of land, Tahsildar is duty-bound to acknowledge it and proceed with the issuance of the Saguvali Chit (Certificate of Grant) in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a petition filed by one Muniyappa A V, who had approached the court seeking a direction to Tashildar to issue saguvali chit in respect of subject land by taking cognizance of the grant order made in favour of his father.
The bench said “The petitioner has already secured a recommendation from the Land Grant Committee which carries legal weight. Once such a recommendation is made under Section 108D(3) (Karnataka Land Revenue Rules), the Tahsildar is duty-bound to acknowledge it and proceed with the issuance of the Saguvali Chit in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure.”
Case Title: Sangappa M Bagewadi AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: REVIEW PETITION NO. 100100 OF 2024 (-) IN WRIT PETITION NO.109307 OF 2016.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
The Karnataka High Court has held that in case of a Central Government employee, whose caste certificate is issued by the Tahasildar–State Government, it will be the District Caste Verification Committee (DCVC) who is the "rightful authority" to verify the certificate of such a Central Government Employee or proposed Central Government Employee.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing the review petition filed by Sangappa M Bagewadi, challenging the order dated January 11, 2024, contending that matter could not be referred to the DCVC, or no direction could have been issued to the DCVC to initiate proceedings against the petitioner.
"What is also not to be lost sight of is that these caste certificates are not issued by any Central Government officer, but by a State Government officer like the Tahasildar and it is for the State Government to establish a proper system for issuance of caste certificates and verification of caste certificates thereof, which has been sought to be done by the State of Karnataka in terms of the Rules 1992. Of course, in view of the numerous litigations, which come up before this Court even those Rules need to be made robust. Especially by implementing the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.2 by holding that, even if a person is a Central Government employee, the caste certificate having been issued by the Tahasildar-State Government, it is the DCVC, which will be the rightful authority to verify the caste certificate of such a Central Government Employee or proposed Central Government Employee," the court said.
Karnataka High Court Allows ED To Access Aadhar Database For Probing Case Under PMLA
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement AND Union of India & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 30424 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a petition filed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) and directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to permit ED to examine the Aadhar database of 21 persons including the identity information or authentication records, while probing a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
A single judge, Justice Hemant Chandangoudar while allowing the petition said “An investigation into an offence of money laundering being legitimate state interest and the petitioner herein being statutorily empowered to investigate into an offence under PMLA, it is appropriate that a Mandamus be granted directing the respondent No.2 to disclose the true identities of those as sought for herein.”
Case Title: Dr Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1639 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
The Karnataka High Court has said that an accused should not be driven for securing documents related to his case under the Right to Information Act, when an application is filed under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by the pontiff of Murugha Mutt of Chitradurga, Dr Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru, who is accused of sexually abusing two minor girls staying in the hostels run by the Mutt.
The petitioner had challenged the order of the trial court rejecting his application seeking the summoning of certain documents related to the investigation in the case. The prosecution had opposed the plea saying the petitioner could have secured them by filing an application Under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Case Title: Suvarana AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1168 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
The Karnataka High Court has said that Revenue authorities act as custodians of land records and are duty bound to comply with injunction orders passed by the civil court even when they are not a party to the suit.
A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed this while allowing a petition filed by Suvarna who had questioned an endorsement issued by the Tashildar declining to reflect the interim injunction granted by the competent civil court.
The bench said “Failure to do so would not only amount to willful disobedience of court orders but would also encourage illegal transactions in derogation of the rights of the litigating parties.”
Case Title: Annapurna AND Kavita & Others
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100004 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
The Karnataka High Court has held that if a nomination is made during the lifetime of a deceased, it does not amount to divesting of title after the death of the deceased, notwithstanding the legal heirs. It stated that after death, whatever the estate/amount is there, it is devolved to the legal heirs of the deceased as per the governing law of inheritance.
A single judge, Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by one Annapurna who had challenged the order of the trial court rejecting her application to be impleaded in the suit filed by the legal heirs of deceased Kantesh Khandagale seeking issuance of succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act.
Case Title: Justice PADMARAJ NEMACHANDRA DESAI AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 2274/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 67
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (February 20), quashed and set aside an order dated November 7, 2024 issued by the Central Government order by which former High Court judge, Justice Padmaraj Nemachandra Desai was debarred for three years from any Government appointments.
Justice R Devdas allowed the petition and said, “If the R2 (MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING) would have followed procedures as contemplated in OM (Office Memorandum) and vacancy circular, the R2 would have never issued such impugned order, debarring the petitioner. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.”
Case Title: Anandu & ANR AND The Principal Secretary & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.100556 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 68
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to regularise service of two workmen who have worked for the State government for 39 years and 32 years respectively as daily wage earners.
In doing so the court observed that if the regularisation is not ordered then it would amount to putting a premium on the act of State in exploiting human labour. It thus issued a mandamus to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners from the dates on which they completed ten years of service.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowing the petition filed by Anandu and Ishwar said “Petitioners have in their prime youth worked for the services of the State, as daily wagers. They are continued to be in that position even today, with certain benefits conferred from time to time. They are in the last leg of their services. If their services are not directed to be regularised today, it would be putting a premium on the act of the State, exploiting human labour, as these petitioners, if left in the lurch, will have to wander for their livelihood after having served the State for 39 years and 32 years respectively.”
Case Title: Arjun Ranappa Hatgundi AND Sushilabai & Others
Case No: MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202179 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
The Karnataka High Court has held that a suit relating to the declaration of a matrimonial status of any person would be a suit falling within the scope of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act and the family court would have jurisdiction to adjudicate them.
A division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Rajesh Rai K held thus while allowing an appeal filed by Arjun Ranappa Hatgundi who had challenged the order of the family court which returned his plaint seeking a declaration that the respondents are not his wife and children. The court had while doing so observed that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Case Title: Devanand Patil & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200937 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against two retail shop/showroom owners under the Insecticides Act, charged after the jurisdictional Agricultural Officer had seized substandard insecticides manufactured by a Company, from the shops of the two men.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by Devanand Patil and another and said “Petitioners being the owners of the shop/showroom, in which products of the Company was stocked/exhibited for sale, cannot be held vicariously liable and be penalized for misbranding of the product in respect of which they were not involved in the manufacturing process.”
Case Title: RASHTRIYA SURAKSHA JANANDOLAN SAMITHI MYSORE AND The Commissioner of Police, Mysore
Case No: WP 5408/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 71.
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (February 24) permitted the Rashtriya Suraksha Janndolan Samithi, Mysore to hold a peaceful march/rally–'Mysore Chalo' inside the football ground in the city, to protest against the recent stone-pelting incident in front of Udayagiri Police Station.
In doing so the court asked the Mysore Police Commissioner to pass orders relaxing Section 144 CrPC order in the area so that the protest can be held. The court has clarified that the protest will be held for one or one hand hour around 3 pm today.
Case Title: Kailasam P AND The Karnataka Bank Ltd & Others
Case No: WP 11273 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
The Karnataka High Court has said that Law of Limitation may harshly affect a particular party; but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. Courts have no powers to extend prescribed periods of limitation on grounds of equity and justice.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Kailasam P challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, rejecting his application to condone delay in filing an appeal against the Sale of his property by the bank.
Case Title: Chirag Sen & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26156 OF 2022 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 25699 OF 2022 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 26136 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a cheating case registered against Badminton players Lakshya Sen, Chirag Sen, their parents and coach U Vimal Kumar, wherein they are accused of fabricating their birth certificates, to enable them to take part in the badminton tournaments and thereby claim benefits illegally from the Government.
Justice M G Uma dismissed the petition saying, “The materials that are placed on record discloses that accused No.1 taking advantage of his position as coach in Badminton Academy colluded with accused No.4, who is also the employee of the Karnataka Badminton Association, accused No.5 being the mother of accused Nos.2 and 3 have fabricated the birth certificates and manipulated the date of birth of accused Nos.2 and 3 to enable them to take part in badminton tournament and claimed the benefit from the Government.”
Case Title: Anirudh Suresh AND Honourable High Court of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 12426/2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
The State Government on Tuesday informed the Karnataka High Court that it had amended the necessary rules allowing service of notices/summons through electronic mail (email) by all courts in Karnataka.
Justice R Devdas was informed that the draft rules forwarded by the High Court were approved and gazetted by the State Government on February 17. Under this, all courts including the High Court, district courts, and tribunals are empowered to order for issuance of notices/summons through electronic mail.
Case Title: M/s Padma Pharmaceuticals & ANR AND State Through Drug Inspector.
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200077 OF 2018
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court has held that trial in a case registered for offences pertaining to manufacture, sale and distribution of drugs and cosmetics under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is triable only by a sessions court and the magistrate court is required to commit the case to the Sessions Judge for trial.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty held thus while allowing a petition filed by Padma Pharmaceuticals and its partner and set aside the conviction order passed against them under Section 27(b)(ii) (sale, manufacture etc., of any drug which doesn't have a valid license is punishable with imprisonment between three to five years with fine not be less than Rs. 1 Lakh or three times the value of the drug whichever is more) of the Act.
Case Title: Chandrashekhar AND The Divisional Controller.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106142 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of suspension imposed on a constable working with the Kalyan Karnataka Road Transport Corporation on the grounds that he was found sleeping on duty.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by Chandrashekhar, highlighted the need for proper sleep and work-life balance for employees. It said, “It is trite, if a person is asked to overwork than his capacity, the body sometimes makes the said person to sleep, as sleep and work life balance is what is necessary today.”
It added, “It may be a constable today, tomorrow it can be anybody. Depriving sleep to any human being, will lead to falling sleep anywhere. Therefore, sleep and leisure are considered an important facet of the balance that is to be struck between work and life.”
Case Title: The Branch Manager AND Ramesh Davkatte & ANR
Case No: MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.200552 OF 2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
The Karnataka High Court has said that Motor Accident Claim Tribunals are expected to mention the nature of the injuries suffered by the accident victim and the manner in which it will translate into functional disability, considering the facts and circumstances, especially with reference to the avocation of the victim.
Justice C M Joshi said “In umpteen numbers of judgments of the Tribunals, this Court observes that the nature of the injuries and the manner how it would translate into functional disability are seldom discussed. The Tribunals are jumping to the conclusion on the basis of the disability stated by a medical officer.”
He added, “A non mentioning of the nature of the injuries suffered; or describing them simply as grievous or simple; would not reflect that the Tribunals had applied their mind to the nature of the injuries.”
Case Title: Hanumanth N Karkun AND Honourable Minister of Finance & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.101714 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a 73-year-old, cancer patient and former employee of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, by setting aside an order of the authorities withholding 100 percent of gratuity and pension due to him.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Hanumanth N Karkun and quashed the order passed by the authorities and directed the release of the entire pension that was withheld and the gratuity that was forfeited to its full, to be paid to the petitioner within 4 weeks.
It said, “The imposition of withholding of 100% of pension and 100% of gratuity, is un-understandable as to under which provision of law, the Disciplinary Authority could impose such penalty of withholding 100% of the pension that too, permanently, that goes with gratuity as well.”
Case Title: Pavan Kumar M R AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 730 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against one person found in possession of certain prohibited articles under the Wild Life (Protection) Act on account of procedural irregularities in the investigation.
A single judge, Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Pavana Kumar M R who was charged under Sections 2(2), 2(31), 9, 39, 42, 44, 47, 48, 48A, and 49B read with Sections 50, 51, 55, and 58(C)(J) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Police Cannot Issue Notice Of Appearance To Accused Via WhatsApp: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Pavankumar AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2249 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
Quashing a notice under Section 35 (3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, directing a 25-year-old man to appear before the Police which was served through WhatsApp, the Karnataka High Court reiterated that issuance and service of such notices via WhatsApp is impermissible in law.
For context, Section 35(3) BNS states the police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under sub-section (1) issue a notice directing the person–against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence–to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.
Justice S R Krishna Kumar while allowing a petition by one Pavankumar, who is a resident of Tamil Nadu, said “The notice dated 14.02.2025 issued by respondent No.1 Police to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in respect of the case in Crime No.193/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, pending on the file of 39th Addl. CMM (CJM) Court, Bengaluru City, is hereby quashed.”
Case Title: THE MANAGEMENT OF MAHINDRA AEROSTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED AND THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY/ DEPUTY SPECIAL OFFICER & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16742 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 81
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the government cannot pass an interim order directing payment of wages in favour of workmen of a company without hearing the company management and the workers union.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held thus while allowing a petition filed by the Management of Mahindra Aerostructures Private Limited, challenging a June 11, 2024 order passed by Principal Secretary/Deputy Special Officer, Child Labour Cell To Department Of Labour, directing payment of Rs.6,000 per month as interim wages in favour of the workman of the petitioner/Management.
The court set aside the order and said “The application filed by the Union pending before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal seeking interim measure shall be considered by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.”
Case Title: Dinesh Borkar & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2845 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2064 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 82
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a case registered against students and faculty members of the Jain Centre of Management Studies (Deemed University) who were booked for staging a skit that allegedly referred to Dr B R Ambedkar and Dalits in a derogatory manner.
Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petitions filed by Dinesh Nilkant Borkar and others and quashed the prosecution initiated against them.
It said, “The skit/short play performed by the petitioner was in the nature of satire/entertainment, which is constitutionally protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression and the impugned FIR clearly does not meet or satisfy the basic ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.”
Case Title: Bhagavant Alagur AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 100263 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
The Karnataka High Court has asked the State government to implement a system which could give real time feedback on any changes, which occur to river banks and or sand bars in the State of Karnataka.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj has said “It is high time that the available technology is harnessed to address these kind of issues and the State of Karnataka implements a satellite based imagery system through the Department of Mines and Minerals and or such other departments like the Revenue Department, Forest Department etc., So that the boundaries of the rivers, Sand Bars and such other details are identified and marked on satellite maps and any change which occurs thereto, is notified to the concerned authorities to take necessary action.”
Case Title: Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 2036/2024 & WP 1040/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed two public interest litigations seeking a direction to the State Government to hold high level enquiry into the alleged illegalities and irregularities committed by the Public Works Department and Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Department, during the period 2016-17 to 2021-22, while calling for tenders, tender process payment of bills making unauthorized advances to the contractor etc.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun dismissed the petition filed by Gurunath Vadde and said “Upon going through the averments and hearing the submission of advocate, the petition is based on general assertions. On the basis of general details, public interest jurisdiction cannot be exercised. Not only that petitioner has the remedy of approaching the Lokayukta or to pursue legal remedy if the individual cases are detected.”
Case Title: BMTC AND IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR
Case No: M.F.A. NO. 3567 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal by Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal towards damages for a bus involved in a road accident.
The court dismissed the plea after noting that the BMTC could not produce cogent evidence to prove that the bus was kept idle for 13 days, for carrying out repairs to the bus after the accident.
Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha dismissed the appeal filed by BMTC and said “This Court is of the view that there are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal. Thus this Court ultimately holds that the appeal lacks merits and deserves dismissal”.
Case Title: Vijaya Bank & AND AND Abhimanyu Kumar
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.138 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single judge order directing Vijaya Bank to refund the indemnity bond amount collected from a former employee, who left its services before completing mandatory service period of three years and preferred employment with SAIL.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind noted that a clause in the employee's joining letter issued by the bank required him to execute an indemnity bond for Rs.3,00,000/- and it was stipulated that the amount will have to be paid, if he leaves the service before the stipulated period.
The employee had joined the bank on 02.11.2011 and put in his papers on on 05.04.2012, i.e. after 5 months. As such, his request to waive of indemnity bond was declined and he was given a relieving letter after making the payment.
Case Title: Thomas Mani And G Shankar
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 851 OF 2016
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 87
The Karnataka High Court has said that a complainant in a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, can file an appeal against an acquittal order before the Sessions Court and need not approach the high court.
In doing so the court set aside a sessions court order which had dismissed the complainant's appeal against an acquittal order as not maintainable and had asked the complainant to file an appeal before the high court instead. Against this dismissal by sessions court, the complainant moved the high court.
The Sessions Court while dismissing the complainant–Thoman Mani's appeal as not maintainable, had relied on a decision by a coordinate single judge of the high court which had held that the complainant under provisions of Section 142 of NI Act and victim under Section 2(wa) of CrPC, are not one and the same.
Case Title: The Divisional Controller AND Hussainsab.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 148260 OF 2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 88
The Karnataka High Court recently said that a Road Transport Corporation cannot take different stands in respect of a road accident involving its driver before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal and in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the driver for the same incident.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “If any accident occurs, in pursuance of which the Corporation were to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a driver. The Corporation cannot take a different stand in a claim proceeding filed in MVC matters.”
It added “The Corporation being a government entity and a State under the Constitution is required to be a model litigant. A model litigant cannot take two contradictory stands, on the one hand, contending that the driver was driving in a proper manner, virtually certifying the driver's conduct and driving abilities and, on the other hand, initiate proceedings against a driver for rash and negligent driving by contending that there is a misconduct.”
Case Title: Uttaradi Mutt And State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.100199 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Police Commissioner, Dharwad to initiate departmental inquiry against a police inspector for allegedly interfering with the functioning of a religious institution.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “There is material in the case at hand to demonstrate that the 3 rd respondent has indulged in abuse of his power. Therefore, it becomes a fit case to direct the Commissioner, to initiate a departmental inquiry against the 3rd respondent. The departmental inquiry shall be guided to unearth the fact as to what led the 3rd respondent; who led the 3rd respondent; why was he led, to show over indulgence in the matter, in which he should not have been interfered, unless there was a law and order problem.”
Case Title: Starlog Enterprises Limited Board of Trustees of New Mangalore Port Trust
Case No: CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 372 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 90
The Karnataka High Court has said the Arbitration clause in the lease agreement cannot be invoked for matters that have already been adjudicated upon and concluded by both the Arbitral Tribunal and the competent courts.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Starlog Enterprises Limited, who had approached the court praying for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes that had arisen between him and New Mangalore Port Trust.
It said, “Given that both critical issues, the legality of the contract's termination and the refund of amounts claimed have attained finality through due legal process, the petitioner cannot invoke the arbitration clause again on the same grounds. The petitioner's attempt to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is therefore fundamentally misconceived and legally impermissible.”
Case Title: Parvathi AND Directorate of Enforcement (CRL.P 1132/2025) and another
Case No: CRL.P 1132/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 91
The Karnataka High Court on Friday allowed the pleas by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's wife Parvathi and Minister B S Suresh for quashing summons issued by Enforcement Directorate for their alleged involvement in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing order said, "Allowed and quashed".
The court had reserved its order last month.
During the hearing senior advocate Sandesh J Chouta appearing for Parvathy had submitted that she has surrendered the sites which are alleged to be issued illegally and is neither enjoying it nor is in possession of proceeds of crime. However, in haste the ED registered its ECIR soon after an FIR was registered by the Lokayukta police on the directions of the court, he said.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103364 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 92
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a subsequent order passed by the trial court sentencing a husband to suffer two more months civil imprisonment after he had already spent one month, on account of non-payment of maintenance to the wife.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by one Chandrashekhar who had challenged the order sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for an additional period of two months for non-payment of arrears of maintenance.
The bench referred to the co-ordinate bench judgment in the case of Shri. Kallappa vs. Smt. Yallaubai, wherein it was held that a wife or person entitled to maintenance may file an application for recovery of arrears of maintenance either for the whole amount due or for each month's allowance separately. If the application is for the whole amount of arrears, the imprisonment may extend to one month, unless the payment is made sooner. Further successive applications can be filed for each month's maintenance; however, where an application is filed for the entire arrears, the imprisonment imposed cannot exceed one month, it had said.
Case Title: Neelavva @Neelamma AND Chandravva & Others.
Case No: RFA NO.100471 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 93
The Karnataka High Court has held that the amended Section 39 of the Insurance Act is not intended to override the provisions of law relating to succession.
In doing so the court said that a mother cannot, by virtue of being a beneficiary nominee under Section 39, claim absolute ownership over the benefits flowing from her son's insurance policy in view of the claim laid by the heirs of the deceased.
The court held that if the legal heirs of the deceased policy holder make a claim on the holder's policy, then the "nominee's claim has to yield to the personal law governing succession".
Case Title: Vinod Kumar M N AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 257/2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (March 10) disposed of a 2022 petition filed by one Vinod Kumar M N seeking a direction to the authorities to give him a second dose of Covid vaccine.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The petitioner is before this court seeking a direction for a second dose of covid vaccine, the covid-19 has subsided and vaccines have become unnecessary today. Therefore the petition is disposed of as having become unnecessary.”
Case Title: Devendra Bhatia AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19567 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 95
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash murder proceedings initiated by a man against his father after his mother died by falling from their apartment situated on the 16th floor.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Devendra Bhatia said “When the evidence of both the children as quoted hereinabove would pin the petitioner down albeit, prima facie, it is ununderstandable as to how this Court would exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on an offence under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused and obliterate the trial. If the children have complained against the petitioner narrating vivid details, it becomes a matter for a full-blown trial, where the petitioner has to come out clean.”
Case Title: B C Prasad & ANR AND The District Registrar And Deputy Commissioner of Stamps & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 41844 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that proceedings by way of show cause notice under Section 46A of the Karnataka Stamps Act for recovery of stamp duty not levied or short levied cannot be initiated five years after the registration of the document, being the date on which the stamp duty fell due.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said this while allowing a petition filed by B C Prasad challenging an order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT), which upheld the order of the Registrar dated 30-10-2010, directing the petitioner to remit a shortfall in the stamp duty of Rs.98,500 on the documents registered in the year 1995.
Case Title: Ismail Jabiulla & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 566 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered against two persons accused of illegally transporting cattle for slaughter, who were charged on the basis of a confessional statement given by the co-accused.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Ismail Jabiulla and another and quashed the case registered against them under Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, and 12(2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Ordinance, 2020, read with provisions of the Transportation of Animals Act and Sections 181(3) and 177 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, along with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Case Title: Prabhu Haveri AND The Commissioner For Social Welfare And Appellate Authority & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.104264 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 98
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the action of a sibling in securing a scholarship under the Backward Class Category cannot invalidate the caste certificate issued to another sibling under a different caste.
Allowing the petition of one Prabhu Haveri who belonged to Hindu Bhovi caste, Justice M Nagaprasanna remarked that the 'greed' of the petitioner's brother to claim a scholarship under the Backward Class cannot invalidate the petitioner's caste certificate which was validated by the concerned authorities.
Case Title: Arthi B AND Karnataka State Law University & OThers
Case No: WA 158/2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal filed by a law student challenging an order of the single judge which upheld the order of Karnataka State Law University, not permitting her to take future exams for indulging in malpractise during an examination.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun dismissed the appeal filed by Arthi B and said “The aspect that petitioner admitted to writing on the hall ticket and using it while writing the examination paper, stands in the forefront. Once the candidate has accepted all other contentions pale into insignificance, in as much as the admission will rule the adjudicatory process.”
Case Title: Munirathna AND State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1724 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by BJP MLA Munirathna, seeking to quash a case registered against him for allegedly demanding money from a contractor who had been entrusted under the Solid Waste Management Tender of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).
The FIR is lodged under Sections 504, 506, 323, 385, 420 and 37 of the Indian Penal Code and is being investigated by the SIT. It is alleged that Munirathna had demanded money from the garbage collection contractor.
As the crimes against Munirathna had emerged from different informants for different offences, the State constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID)
Case Title: H Sanna Devanna & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.103553 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a criminal case against the in-laws of a woman who had tortured her.
Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by H Sanna Devanna and Shivagangamma who are charged under sections 504, 506, 498A, 323, 324 R/W 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
He said “There are pointed instances of torture meted out against the complainant. She has been assaulted by pulling her hair by both accused Nos.2 and 3, the petitioners herein. There are eye witnesses to the incident. The charge sheet depicts the screaming of the daughter-in-law, heard by a neighbor, who had come to her rescue. This being the observation in the summary of the charge sheet, merely because the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act is dropped, it would not mean that mother-in-law and father-in-law, who have tortured the daughter-in-law, could walk away scot-free.”
Case Title: Moulali Challal AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100051 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 102
While denying regular bail to a rape accused, the Karnataka High Court observed that once the chargesheet is filed within the stipulated time of 60 days from the date of the complaint, the right to seek the statutory bail extinguishes.
"It is needless to emphasise that once the charge sheet is filed, ticking of the clock with regarding to statutory right which is carved out in the Statute would automatically stop." Justice V Srishananda noted.
The accused/petitioner was charged under sections Section 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC and under Sections 4,6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He challenged the Trial Court's order, which rejected his bail application.
Case Title: M.A.DHAVALESHWAR AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.100271 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a retired school teacher who has been fighting for his pension for the last 6 years. The court has directed the State Government and Rani Channamma University to release complete Death-cum-retirement benefits and encashment of privilege leave, including arrears of pension as claimed, within four weeks.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M.A Dhavaleshwar and said, “It is un-understandable as to why the petitioner, despite working for 34 years, has not been paid complete pension as also leave encashment and gratuity amounts. The State wants to play with the life of the petitioner.”
Raising Voice Against Public Servant Does Not Amount To Offence U/S 353 Of IPC: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Ramesh Karoshi AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100090 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against a home guard who was charged for raising his voice demanding certain documents from the hands of the complainant, a police constable.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Ramesh Karoshi, who was charged for offences punishable under section 353, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
It was alleged that the petitioner had raised his voice and hurled abuses against the 2nd respondent complainant. The police conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner.
Case Title: RAHUL SIVASANKAR AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 2457/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 105
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (March 17) allowed TV journalist Rahul Shivshankar's plea seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him for his tweet about the State government's allocation of funds for welfare of religious minorities.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said that the petition has been allowed and the FIR has been quashed.
On February 13, the court had reserved its judgment in Sivasankar's plea after hearing the parties. Advocate Bipin Hegde appearing for Shivshankar had then submitted, “I have not given a false statement in the tweet, what is mentioned in the budget I have stated milords.”
Case Title: Karnataka Hire Purchase Association AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 6962 of 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed seeking to declare the Karnataka Micro Loan and Small Loan (Prevention of Coercive Actions) Ordinance, 2025 as unconstitutional, arbitrary and beyond the legislative competence of the state government.
Justice M Nagaprasanna upheld the ordinance saying “The Ordinance, conceived in response to the anguished cries of the vulnerable – farmers, women, workers, marginalized groups inter alia seeks to rescue them from usurious money lenders and micro finance entities who as public knowledge and legislative record bear testament, have wielded unconscionable recovery methods, often driving the debtors from buoyancy of hope, to the abyss of despair and death.”
Case Title: Savitha Gowda AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2917 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings launched against a Physical Education teacher accused of beating a 6th grade school student with a stick, over alleged disobedience.
While doing so Justice Hemant Chandangoudar cited Kerala High Court's decision in Rajan @ Raju v. Sub-Inspector of Police (Crl. MC. No. 237/2018), where it was held that parents are presumed to have given consent for their child to be subject to discipline and control of school authorities, including the imposition of a reasonable degree of force and punishment on a child old enough to understand the purpose of the act.
Case Title: PADMA MALINI G. RAO & ANR AND RAVI KARUMBAIAH
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4241 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.4250 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
The Karnataka High Court has quashed defamation proceedings against a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court and his wife, over a complaint filed by their tenant after they sent a notice asking him to vacate their property.
Noting that defamation requires an intention to harm the reputation of a person, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that initiating legal proceedings against a party would not constitute defamation merely because the proceedings ended in favour of that party.
The Court stated “What would unmistakably emerge is, that dragging the complainant into litigation or the complainant dragging the petitioners into litigation on several grievances, grounds or allegations would constitute legal proceedings between the two, which would not and cannot be said to be defamatory, merely because the case has gone in favour of the complainant. It would have been altogether a different circumstance if it was a case of malicious prosecution. While defamation, has some hues of malicious prosecution, substantially it is not.”
Case Title: Avinash AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 893 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
The Karnataka High Court has said that trial courts are required to be more cautious while permitting the Investigation Officer to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.
For context Section 111 of BNS pertains to Organised crime (1) Any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offence, cyber-crimes trafficking of persons, drugs, weapons or illicit goods or services, human trafficking for prostitution or ransom, by any person or a group of persons acting in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, or by any other unlawful means to obtain direct or indirect material benefit including a financial benefit, shall constitute organised crime.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said “Whenever such an application/requisition is filed by the Investigation Officer, the Courts are required to apply their mind and thereafter pass necessary orders. The application/requisition of the Investigation Officer seeking permission of the Court to invoke Section 111 of BNS, 2023, shall be accompanied with necessary documents/materials which would prima-facie show the necessity to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 and it is only after considering such material along with the application/requisition, the concerned Court can consider his request to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023.”
Case Title: Bherya Primary Agriculture Credit Coopearative Society Ltd AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6459 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
The Karnataka High Court has said that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies can order an inquiry into the functioning of a cooperative society, which cannot be interdicted by a pending re-audit under the provisions of the state Cooperative Societies Act.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Bherya Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.
The society had approached the high court after the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a notice of inquiry under Section 64 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, on September 26, 2024, when a re-audit had already been ordered on October 25,2023.
Sowjanya Case: Karnataka High Court Permits Peaceful Protest At Freedom Park
Case Title: KARNATAKA KARMIKARA VEDIKE AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 7953/2025, WP 7957/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (March 19) permitted the holding of a peaceful protest in relation to the 'Justice for Sowjanya Movement' at Freedom Park, Bengaluru.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, while disposing of the petitions filed by Karnataka Karmikara Vedike (R) and Native Empowering and Equipping Team For Hope And Interaction (R) said that the protest should be peaceful, failing which the authorities can take appropriate action.
Case Title: Saraswathi Prakash & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3779 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that property consisting of only residential flats, is to be registered under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 and there cannot be any association registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, to form a society to manage and maintain the property.
Justice K S Hemalekha held thus while allowing a petition filed by Saraswathi Prakash and others who are apartment owners in an Apartment complex known as “Parkside Retirement Homes Brigade Orchards Apartment Complex.
The court said “It can be safely held that the lis stands covered, that the petitioners and the members of the association are entitled to be registered under the KAO Act and that there cannot be any association registered under the Act, 1959, to form a society to manage and maintain the property comprising of only residential flats. It is also relevant to state here that the KOFA Act, 1972 and the Rules 1975, are applicable, if the property has both commercial and residential units.”
Case Title: S Laxmi & Other And THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE.
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.11933 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
The Karnataka High Court has held that collection of materials by the Lokayukta police before registration of FIR under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, would amount to a violation of Section 17A of the Act.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while partly allowing a petition filed by S Laxmi and others who work with Pattana Panchayat, Jagalur, Davangere District, had approached the court seeking a declaration that the inquiry/investigation conducted pursuant to registration of a complaint on 20-04-2019 as null and void.
Case Title: The PR. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
The Karnataka High Court stated that fair market value of shares determined by statutory methods can't be rejected by the income tax department.
The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar was addressing a case where the revenue has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal where the Tribunal held that the valuation report on DCF Method produced during assessment proceedings was a valid report justifying valuation of shares.
Case Title: The State Of Karnataka v. Tractor And Farm Equipment Limited
Case Number: STRP NO.26 OF 2023
CItation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
The Karnataka High Court while laying down vital guidelines on Input Tax Credit stated that if the Assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings makes a claim for Input Tax Credit, the same cannot be disallowed only on the ground that the claim of the Assessee is disadvantageous to the State Exchequer.
The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and G. Basavaraja observed that ordinarily, the claim for Input Tax Credit has to be made in the Return or Revised Return only. A claim otherwise is an exception and bona fide of the same has to be demonstrated.
Case Title: G. Linganagouda v. General Manager, Karnataka Gramina Bank
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.100339 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
Karnataka High Court: A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna declared that an employee dismissed from service is entitled to leave encashment, as it constitutes a property right under Article 300A of the Constitution. The court held that the Karnataka Gramina Bank refusing to pay leave encashment to a dismissed employee was illegal. It emphasized that once earned, terminal benefits including leave encashment become the employee's property. Thus, they cannot be withheld arbitrarily. Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the bank to encash the petitioner's privilege leave.
Case Title: Prabhat Sharma And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 695 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 698 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
The Karnataka High Court has recently said that courts must exercise caution when granting anticipatory bail, especially in cyber economic crimes underscoring that custodial interrogation is needed in such technical cases to collect useful information.
Justice Mohammad Nawaz made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Prabhat Sharma and Akash Patil seeking anticipatory bail. The two are accused of data theft including proprietary software and designs for high-altitude drones developed by a private company which are used by Indian defence forces for border security.
The bench said, “Courts must exercise caution when granting anticipatory bail, specially in cyber economic crimes. Custodial interrogation is necessary, due to the technical nature of the crime and to reveal the full extent of data theft and its concealment methods. The petitioner's actions show their ability and willingness to destroy and tamper with evidence. Granting anticipatory bail could jeopardize investigation and may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and collecting useful information and may weaken the ability of law enforcement agencies to combat sophisticated cyber crimes.”
Case Title: Mohanakumar K R & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 8186/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (24 March) directed the Tumakuru District Advocates Association to create one post of Treasurer and two posts for Executive Committee Members for women, in view of the submission by the Association that it would reserve the said posts for women in the upcoming elections.
Justice M Nagaprasanna took on record a submission made by the counsel for the Association that 1 post of Treasurer and 2 posts for Executive Committee Members would be notified before the ensuing elections. The counsel also said that the Association would consider amending bye-laws after the elections to provide necessary reservations for women.
Case Title: M R Rukmangadha & Others AND State of Karnataka & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 2246 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state Co-operative Department's Principal Secretary, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Principal Secretary of e-Governance Department to implement an IT system to verify and facilitate compliance of all requirements under the state Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules framed therein.
It has further called for the creation of a "common portal" where all Co-operative Societies registered in the state can upload their compliances, and wherein the portal can gather as well as collate all data required under the Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “I am of the considered opinion that it is high time for the Principal Secretary Co-operative Department, the Registrar Cooperative Societies and the Principal Secretary e-Governance Department to implement an Information Technology System to verify and facilitate the compliance with all the requirement of the Act and the Rules.”
Case Title: B G Parmeshwara AND Bangalore Development Authority & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.51001 OF 2019 (BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION No.7028 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if the transaction of booking a residential house is entered into before the completion of construction and the consideration was paid (partly or fully) before issuance of completion certificate, the same would amount to supply of services requiring payment of the service tax (GST) by the purchaser.
Justice M G S Kamal recently dismissed a batch of petitions filed by B g Parmeshwara and others which had challenged the endorsement issued by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) calling upon the petitioners to pay amount towards the service Tax (GST) under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, before registration of the apartment.
Karnataka High Court Orders Probe & Action Against Trial Judge Who Cited Non-Existing SC Judgments
Case Title: SAMMAAN CAPITAL LIMITED AND MANTRI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD & Others
Case No: CRP 49/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
The Karnataka High Court has directed to conduct a probe and take appropriate action against a trial court judge who relied on non-existing judgments on the records of the respective courts to pass an order rejecting the application filed for the return of plaint.
Justice R Devdas said, “What is more disturbing is the fact that the learned judge of City Civil Court has cited two decisions which were never decided by the Apex Court or any other Court. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has clearly stated that such decisions were not cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. This act on the part of the learned judge would require further probe and appropriate action in accordance with law.”
Case Title: Prabhu Chavan AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 203394 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
The Karnataka High Court has said that candidates contesting elections must declare if any challenge is made to their caste, education or other certificates, which can be considered by election authorities and can come to the public's knowledge as well as other candidates who may object to it if they want.
Issuing certain general directions Justice Suraj Govindaraj in his order said: "In this regard, I am of the considered opinion that the candidate while making a declaration would also have to make a declaration as regards any challenge made to any certificate of his, be it caste, education or the like. So the same could be considered by the election authorities, as also come to the knowledge of the general populace and other candidates to take any objection if they desire to do so. Thus, I am of the opinion that the Law Commission would have to look into this aspect insofar as elections which are conducted under the provisions of the Right to Representation Act 1951".
Case Title: M/S ENMAS GB POWER SYSTEMS PROJECTS LTD AND MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29610 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council cannot pass an award on account of conciliation having failed without referring the matter to arbitration.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing the petition filed by M/s Enmas GB Power Systems Projects Ltd. It said, “The matter is remitted to the Karnataka Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, to formally terminate the conciliation proceedings and thereafter take a decision whether it intends to conduct the arbitration proceedings by itself or refer the matter for arbitration to be held by an institution.”
Case Title: R M Manjunath Gowda AND Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: WA NO. 497 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that for issuance of summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the person need not be an accused in the schedule (predicate) offence if it is pending.
Justice V Kameshwar Rao and S Rachaiah held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by R M Manjunath Gowda, former Chairman of Shivamogga DCC Bank, challenging a single judge order which had dismissed its petition seeking to quash the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate.
Case Title: Mr. Ramu Nagabathini Versus Developer Group India Private Limited
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 15658 Of 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
The Karnataka High Court bench of Mr Justice Krishna S Dixit and Mr Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar has held that whether rights in favor of a third party based on sale deeds have been created in the property, which is the subject matter of arbitration, cannot be decided by the court under writ jurisdiction.
Case Title: M/s Yellalinga Electricals v. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
The Karnataka High Court stated that inflating contract figures and complaining that tax authorities have premised their decision on such figures, amounts to defrauding state.
“Claiming higher contract amount by inflated figures and thereafter complaining that the Tax authorities have premised their decision on such figures, virtually amounts to defrauding the State, in two-ways. Such an assessee does not deserve any relief at the hands of this Court,” stated the Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar.
Case Title: Sanath Kumar Shetty & Others AND Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Others
Case No: WP 9077/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (April 1) dismissed a public interest litigation questioning the fare hike in Bengaluru Metro also known as 'Namma Metro'.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by Sanath Kumar Shetty, an automobile engineer who works in a private company.
The bench on going through the averments in the petition and considering the submission said, “As far as present subject matter of fare increase is, the same is done under Section 33 of the Act. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid section that Metro administration is empowered to fix the fare from time to time and the task is done by a fare fixation committee.”
Case Title: Sabeer & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 8783/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation, Police Commissioner and all other authorities concerned to ensure the smooth movement of traffic on the road and on the footpath so as not to adversely affect the vehicular, pedestrian and public movement, during the ongoing festivities of Ramzan and other festive occasions.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind directed thus while refusing to entertain a public interest litigation by one Sabeer and others, who had pointed about encroachment in the public spaces in certain areas of the city of Bengaluru.
Case Title: Mahendra Kumar Mitra AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 200451/2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 129
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (April 2) refused to entertain a petition filed seeking to implement the government circular issued in the year 2020, asking all its departments and authorities to avoid during all official transactions the nomenclature "Dalit" for members belonging to the Scheduled Castes.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by one Mahendra Kumar Mitra.
The petitioner appearing in person had prayed for a direction to the Principal Secretary Social Welfare Department to implement the circular issued by the department dated May 20, 2020. Further, sought a direction that the other respondent authorities also to implement the said circular. By way of interim relief it had sought pending disposal of the petition, the court may be pleased to stay to use the unconstitutional term 'dalit' as synonymous to scheduled castes in the interest of justice and equity.
Karnataka High Court Bans Bike Taxi Aggregators
Case Title: ROPEEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT LTD AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 14627/2021Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 130
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday held that bike taxi aggregators like Rapido, Uber and others cannot operate in the state unless the State government issues relevant guidelines and rules under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court ordered that the State government has to in six weeks ensure that all bike taxi operations cease to operate.
A single judge, Justice B M Shyam Prasad passed the order while dismissing a batch of petitions filed by Uber India Systems Private Limits, Ani Technologies Private Limited, Ropeen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd and another. The state government has been given three months to frame the necessary rules and guidelines.
'Country Needs Uniform Civil Code' : Karnataka High Court Urges Union & State Govt To Make UCC
Case Title: Samiulla Khan & Others AND Sirajuddin Macci
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.935 OF 2020 (PAR) C/W RFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.33 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
The Karnataka High Court has made a request to the Parliament and State Legislatures to make every endeavour to enact a statute on Uniform Civil Code, (UCC) to truly achieve the object of the principles enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.
A single judge, Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar said, “The enactment of legislation on Uniform Civil Code as enshrined under Article 44 of the Constitution of India will achieve the object and aspirations enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, bringing about a true secular democratic republic, unity, integrity of the nation, securing justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.”
Case Title: M/S. MAHA RASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD Versus SRI. P.K.MOHAMMED and Ors.
Case Number:MFA No. 11925 of 2012
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 132
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be decided without first summoning the entire arbitration record to determine whether the notice was actually served on the other party.
Case Title: SRI JAGADGURU BASAVA JAYMRITYUNJAY SWAMIJI & others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.107792 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to constitute a Commission of Inquiry headed by a retired Judge of the High Court, into the police action (lathi charge) taken on 10-12-2024 at Suvarna Soudha, Belagavi, against the petitioners and several others who are said to have held a peaceful protest demanding reservation for the Panchamasali Community.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Sri Jagadguru Basava Jaymrityunjay Swamiji and others. He said, “The respondents/State to constitute a Commission of Inquiry in terms of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 on the subject matter and the appointed Commission of Inquiry should be single member or a multi member headed by a retired Judge of this Court. The Commission of Inquiry so appointed shall submit its report within three months of such appointment.”
Case Title: Mahalaxmi AND Karnataka Public Service Commission & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.201012 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
Coming to the aid of a pregnant woman, the Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) to conduct the main examination for the woman at Kalaburagi rather than the allotted centres, owing to her advanced stage of pregnancy.
The designated centres for the main exam for the Group-A post are Bengaluru and Dharwad. However, due to her pregnancy, the petitioner prayed to allow her to take the exam at her residency city in Kalaburagi.
Finding justifiable grounds in the woman's petition, Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha was not impressed with KPSC's arguments that it could not conduct the exam at Kalaburgi for the convenience of a single candidate.
Case Title: S Basavaraj AND Bar Council of India & ANR
Case No: WP 24962/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed a resolution passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI), placing Senior Advocate S Basavaraj under interim suspension. The resolution was earlier stayed by the High court by way of an interim order.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Basavaraj and said, “It needs to be noticed that BCI has passed the impugned resolution on the revision petition and the R2 (Complainant-Surya Mukundraj) today wants to withdraw the revision petition filed before the BCI and before this court as well. Therefore, the foundation on which the BCI has passed the resolution has itself today tumbled down.”
It added, “In that light the BCI cannot now contend that it wants to continue the proceedings notwithstanding there being nothing before it as the revision petitioner himself has withdrawn the revision petition and is before this court. In that light nothing further survives for BCI to further consider.”
Case Title: H T Umesh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 2906 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
The Karnataka High Court has held that lecturers, assistant professors or associate professors bear jural relationship with the University and since they do not discharge any public function, their post cannot be characterized as 'public office' for invoking the writ of Quo Warranto.
Writ of Quo Warranto can be issued where the person holding public office does not meet the eligibility criteria or when the appointment was contrary to the statutory rules.
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND B G Prakash Kumar & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.975/2024, and others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an order passed by the trial court by which it discharged several engineers (present and former) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), and contractors in the cases registered against them about irregularities in the works conducted during 2005 and 2012.
Justice H P Sandesh allowed the petition filed by the state government and set aside the order passed in 115 petitions, discharging around 450 people.
The bench said “The order passed by the Trial Court in all the cases are set aside. The matters are remitted back to the Trial Court to consider the matter afresh in view of the observations made by this Court on merits. The Trial Court is directed to consider the sanction order given by the State to continue the proceedings against the accused where the proceedings have already been quashed by giving liberty to file sanction order and continue to proceed against them from the stage of taking cognizance.”
Case Title: Amit Garg AND Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 34471 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
The Karnataka High Court has said that maintainability of a complaint cannot be decided by the Registry of Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, (KRERA) it can only be decided by the Authority and the members of RERA.
The court said thus while allowing a petition filed by one Amit Garg who had approached the court calling in question an order communicated by way of electronic mail on 23.09.2024 by the Karnataka RERA's Registry, rejecting his complaint against a developer.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “This power with the Registry is unavailable, as the complaint ought to be placed before the RERA Authority and the members of RERA will have to decide on the maintainability of the complaint. If the Registry of RERA is terminating the proceedings in the manner that it has done now, it would be an act without jurisdiction. Therefore, this a matter which is to be viewed seriously by the members of the RERA. The powers of adjudication even with regard to maintainability is not conferred upon the Registry by the statute. That being so, the electronic mail that is communicated, terminating the proceedings, is on the face of it illegal".
Awarded Amount Cannot Be Enhanced Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title:The Union Of India and Anr. Versus Sri. Kothari Subbaraju
Case Number: MFA No. 6525 Of 2016
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
The Karnataka High Court bench of Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar has held that the District Judge, while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), is not empowered to increase the amount awarded by the Arbitrator. The findings of the Arbitrator with respect to the awarded amount can only be set aside if they contravene any of the grounds specified under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act; however, the awarded amount cannot be either decreased or increased.
Value Of Land Under Works Contract Is Not Exigible To VAT: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Fortious Infradevelopers LLP V. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
The Karnataka High Court stated that the value of land under works contract is not exigible to VAT.
The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar was addressing the issue of whether levying tax on receipt for land cost i.e., immovable property, which does not constitute consideration for works contract under Composition Scheme of KVAT is sustainable.
Case Title: THE MYSORE EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR AND Babu P & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17808 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, against the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Mysore Education Society, which runs Mysore Education Society (MES) College at Malleswaram, Bengaluru, on a complaint filed by a computer technician working with it alleging harassment on the grounds that he belongs to a scheduled caste.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowing the petition it said “The first respondent (P Babu) seeks leave of two years; it is granted, his appointment is saved, he is taken back, since the vacancy had already been filled and is transferred four kilometers away to another Institution of the same Society, in terms of the conditions of employment which had been signed by the first respondent, with eyes wide open. With the circumstances being thus, the Commission ought not to have entertained the complaint, which on the face of it, is a misuse of the provisions of the Act, projecting abuse and imaginary atrocity. A palpable service dispute is projected as an atrocity dispute.”
Case Title: Divisional Controller AND Shyamala B
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.785 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which granted compensation to a teacher who suffered injuries to her hand and elbow, because the driver of the bus drove in a rash and negligent manner on the road humps.
A single judge, Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha dismissed the appeal filed by the Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and upheld the tribunal order dated 29-10-2022, by which a compensation of Rs 6,60,100 was awarded to Shyamala B.
The court said, “The compensation that is granted under all heads is reasonable. The order of the Tribunal discloses discussion on each and every aspect of the case. This Court therefore is of the view that the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is highly justifiable. Thus, there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal.”
Case Title: Dr A A Muralidharswamy And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 33364 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to immediately act, identify and pull the curtains down on those clinics which are run by "quacks" in the state.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said “It is these quacks, who project themselves to be Doctors are endangering the life of innocent rural people, by opening clinics in remote areas and hoodwinking them. Such instances have grown exponentially, which has resulted in mushrooming of such clinics all over, opened by the persons projecting themselves to be Doctors. It is un-understandable as to how the State is in blissful ignorance towards proliferation of such clinics without initiating any action.Therefore, it is for the State to immediately act, identify such clinics and pull the curtains down of those clinics, which are run by quacks like the case at hand, all in accordance with law”.
Case Title: J Ramesh AND M/s Lakshmi Precious Jewellery Private Ltd.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.12045 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a court's power to record additional evidence under Section 391 Criminal Procedure Code, should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the said evidence in the trial, despite due diligence.
The high court said that though the concerned Court has the power to secure additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C., but it had been observed by the Supreme Court and other Courts in various judgments, that this power is to be "exercised in rare and exceptional cases".
Case Title: Dr S Chandrakala AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24360 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a de-novo investigation into the murder of M. Srinivas, a former President of Zilla Panchayat, Kolar District.
Justice M Nagaprasanna was of the view that the local police conducted the investigation "recklessly". He noted that, considering the magnitude of the case and the way in which the investigation was conducted, the case ought to be transferred to the CBI for a fresh investigation.
“In cases of the nature of the subject crime which is an alleged daylight murder, the investigation cannot be recklessly done, as is done in the case at hand. If the glaring lacunae is considered, it does not inspire even a modicum of confidence in the conduct of investigation by the Investigating agency (local Police) or the CID. The very essence of justice is threatened when those entrusted with its pursuit, falter so gravely. A case of such magnitude cannot be allowed to perish under the weight of a shoddy investigation.”
Case Title: P. Junjappa v. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests & Ors
Case No. : WP 6238/2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
A Division bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar held that a daily wage employee continuously serving for over ten years in a sanctioned post is entitled to regularization, and procedural irregularities or delay cannot be sole grounds for denial.
Case Title: V Sumitra AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15499 OF 2013
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
The Karnataka High Court has held that a particular community cannot be classified for educational purposes under a different group than the classification made for the very same community for employment purposes under a different group.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said: "I am of the considered opinion that a particular class or category of persons cannot be said to be socially and educationally backward to classify them in Group-B for reservation under Article 15 (4) and consider the very same class to be more forward and adequately represented for the purpose of employment by classifying the same class in Group-D for purposes of Article 16(4). This dichotomy and the dual standards which have been used is not justified by the State in any manner".
Case Title: Rudramma & Others State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29559 OF 2018
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
The Karnataka High Court has held if lands already restored in grantee's favour, is again sold, the grantee is then not entitled to invoke Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (PTCL) Act for the second time and seek resumption and restoration of the lands.
It further said if such a procedure–of selling granted lands in contravention of the terms of the grant, then securing its resumption and thereafter, once again selling the resumed land before seeking its resumption again–is allowed, it would amount to a "mockery of the law, making the entire procedure of resumption a mere parody”.
Case Title: K V Shankara And Siddaramiah
Case No: EP 13/2023.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the election petition filed against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's victory from Varuna constituency in the 2023 assembly elections..
A single judge, Justice S Sunil Dut Yadav dismissed the petition filed by K M Shankara, a voter from the constituency who alleged that the Congress leader indulged in electoral malpractices.
The Congress party's manifesto provided five guarantees to the people of Karnataka: 'Gruha Jyothi' - 200 units of free electricity to all houses, 'Gruha Lakshmi' - ₹2,000 every month to each and every woman head of a family, 'Anna Bhagya' - 10 kilograms of food grain per month to every member of a below poverty line (BPL) family, 'Yuva Nidhi' - ₹3,000 per month for two years to unemployed graduates and ₹1,500 per month for two years to unemployed diploma holders and 'Uchita Prayana/Shakthi' - free travel to all women throughout the state in regular KSRTC/BMTC Buses.
Case Title: K Ganesh Babu AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
The Karnataka High Court has said that before initiating a complaint under Section 379 BNSS for offences affecting administration of justice–like giving false evidence or fabricating documents–a court must apply its judicial mind and come to a conclusion with reasons that it is necessary to hold a preliminary inquiry or initiate a complaint.
The petitioner had approached the high court questioning session court's January 23 order wherein the office was directed to register a separate petition stating that the defendant/petitioner has tendered false evidence. This happened after respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 379 read with Section 215 BNSS, stating that the petitioner/defendant "filed a false affidavit, which amounts to perjury".
BREAKING | Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Actress Ranya Rao, Co-Accused In Gold Smuggling Case
Case Title: Harshavardini Ranya Rao AND Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Tarun Konduru Raju AND Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Case No: Criminal Petition 5047/2025 c/w Criminal Petition 5432/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
The Karnataka High Court on Saturday (April 26) dismissed the bail petitions filed by Kannada Actress Harshavardhini Ranya Rao and co-accused Tarun Konduru Raju, who have been arrested in the Gold Smuggling Case.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while dictating the order, said, "Petitions dismissed". A detailed copy of the order is awaited.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has seized gold bars worth ₹12.56 crore from Ranya at Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru on March 3. A subsequent search of her home had yielded gold jewellery worth ₹2.06 crore and Indian currency amounting to ₹2.67 crore.
Case Title: Shiv Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 22674/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (April 24) disposed of a public interest litigation seeking enforcement of Supreme Court's direction regarding advance medical directives or "living wills", after the State government filed a memo enumerating steps taken and orders/circulars issued for compliance of such directives.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind disposed of the petition filed by Advocate Shiv Kumar.
It said “The counsel submitted that petitioner stands satisfied with the steps and measures taken as well as orders and circulars issued by the State Government towards compliance of directions issued by the Supreme Court. In the aforesaid view, nothing further survives in the present petition and the same stands disposed off. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) will also carry out compliance of SC directives for which it is obliged in law.”
Case Title: High Court Legal Services Authority AND Principal Secretary & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.4635 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
Terming the "tendency" amongst former constitutional authorities, ex-MPs and legislators in misusing "Emblem, Flags, Names" by fixing it in their letter heads and vehicle number plates as "unfortunate", the Karnataka High Court issued a slew of directions to prevent misuse and unauthorised use of National Symbols and Emblems.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun in its order observed: “It is true and unfortunate that there is tendency amongst the constitutional authorities who are the former authorities no more in the office, the former Members of the Parliament or Ex-Legislators have been misusing the Emblem, Flags, Names, etc. by fixing them in their letter heads and the number plates of the vehicles. This conduct is both unfortunate and depreciable.The misuse, misprojection and misstatement of these Symbols, Emblems and Names have to be prevented resolutely. The state of affairs prevails in the society which needs to be immediately remedied by the law enforcing agencies.”
Case Title: Hemanth Datta @Hemantha AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9302 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
The Karnataka High Court has held that non-service of grounds of arrest in writing with respect to any alleged offence even on a non-habitual offender shall be adequate grounds to contest the lawfulness of any arrest effected, even prior to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Prabir Purkayastha.
For context the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha's case postulated that an arrest in terms of Article 22(1) of the Constitution must be followed by communication of grounds of arrest, in writing, as soon as may be, to enable an effective challenge to the fetters imposed on his natural right to liberty.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar clarified that “However, it is hereby clarified that non-service of grounds of arrest against any alleged offence, in writing, upon similarly situated arrestees as the petitioner herein, who is admittedly a non-habitual offender, shall be adequate grounds to contest the lawfulness of any arrest effected even prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) (D.D. 15.05.2024). At the risk of repetition, it may be observed that the ratio enunciated in Prabir Purkayastha (supra) has merely expounded the pre-existing constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which has been in effect since 26.01.1950. Any violation of the right to be afforded an opportunity to make an effective representation against the arrest or an order of remand in relation to any offence shall constitute a contravention of the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the statutory safeguard under Section 50 of Cr.P.C".
Case Title: Prof Govindan Rangarajan & Others AND Dr D Sanna Durgappa & ANR
Case No: WP 2550/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against Infosys co-founder S Krish Gopalakrishnan and 15 others, who are members of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) following allegations by a former professor D. Sanna Durgappa, of wrongful dismissal from service and caste-based discrimination.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowing the petition filed by the accused said “On perusal of the complaint, it is clear that the allegations made against the petitioners do not constitute offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.”
Case Title: Newspace Research And Technologies Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8403 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
The Karnataka High Court has asked the State Government to make operation cyber command centres, by appointing appropriate officers manning such centres in order to tackle the emergence and growth of cyber crime.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said “If a cyber command centre is established to combat cyber crimes and strengthen cyber security, it would usher a new beginning of tackling the new age crime with new age investigating centres. This is the paradigm shift that is imperative.”
It added “It is only then the State will leap forward to tackle the emergence and growth of cyber crime, failing which, the citizen who has been a victim of cyber crime or cyber frauds will never get justice. Therefore, the State shall endeavour to give life to the cyber command centres or constitute a separate wing to tackle cyber crime like the CCB, which could be a cyber crime investigation bureau.”
Case Title: Puttanagowda AND Kubergouda
Case No:CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102651 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 157
The Karnataka High Court has said that Section 219 of Criminal Procedure Code does not mandate that two cases of cheque bouncing, being prosecuted by two different complainants arising from separate causes of action, can be tried together only for the sole reason that the accused person is the same.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Puttanagouda who had challenged a trial court order which rejected his application for a single trial of the two cases registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against him. According to the petitioner, the alleged offences in the two cases were committed within a span of one year.
Case Title: Dr Madhukar G Anagur AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.11024 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 158
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered under provisions of the Information Technology Act, against Dr Madhukar G Angur, Ex-Chancellor of Alliance University, accusing him of misusing the nomenclature, seals, intellectual property of the University and making false claims that he is the Chancellor of the University.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and quashed the offence registered for offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 of the IPC and Sections 66 and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The court said “If the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the complaint and summary of the charge sheet are noticed, the complaint is registered to wreak vengeance against the petitioner in a seemingly civil dispute, rendering it a colour of crime.”
Karnataka High Court Directs Union Govt To Take Steps For Blocking 'Proton Mail' In India
Case Title: M MOSER DESIGN ASSOCIATES INDIA PVT LTD AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 2358/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 159
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the Union of India to initiate process to block Proton Mail in India.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M Moser Design Associated India Pvt Ltd, seeking a direction to the Union Government to take such steps as are necessary to ban the use of Proton Mail in India.
It said “Mandamus issued to respondents to initiate proceedings under section 69A of the IT Act read with Rule 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguard of blocking Access of Information by Public) to block proton mail.”
Case Title: NEIL PATEL DIGITAL LLC Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR RAJARATHINAM
Case Number: AP.IM 4/2025(KAHC010291822025)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 160
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has passed ex-parte injunctions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in favour of Neil Patel Digital LLC (“NPD LLC”).
The disputes had arisen from breach of the covenants of a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement. The LLP Agreement contained various negative covenants restricting the Respondent No. 1 in respect of, among other things, transfer of funds beyond stipulated limits, appointment of key managerial personnel, induction of partners, etc.. Alleged violations of these covenants by the Respondent No. 1, including suspicious transactions, gave rise to disputes inter se the parties.
Case Title: X & others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6965 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
While quashing an FIR registered on the complaint of a woman under POCSO Act against her brothers, the Karnataka High Court noted that the siblings were fighting over property and it was in this light the crime was registered as a counter-blast which cannot be accepted.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and quashed the prosecution initiated against the petitioners under Sections 8(Punishment for sexual assault) and 12(Punishment for sexual harassment) POCSO Act and Sections 354(Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 506(criminal intimidation) and 34(common intention) of the IPC.
Case Title: Kanaka Lakshmi B M AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4873 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to Deputy Superintendent of Police Kanaka Lakshmi B M, who is accused of abetting the suicide of an advocate Jeeva S.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by the police officer who is booked under sections 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 108 of BNS, 2023.
"SPP has fairly brought to the notice of this Court that investigation of the case is already completed and draft charge sheet is prepared and submitted before this Court in compliance of the order passed in Crl.P.No.12695/2024. He also has submitted that State Government has also granted sanction as provided under Section 218 of BNSS, 2023, to prosecute the petitioner and therefore, charge sheet will be filed before the jurisdictional Court forthwith. The maximum punishment for the alleged offence is imprisonment for a period of ten years. Since the petitioner is a Government Servant there cannot be any apprehension that she is likely to flee away from justice," it noted.
Case title: SRI C T RAVI v/s STATE BY BAGEWADI P S AND OTHERS
Case No: CRL.P 791/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (May 2) refused to quash a case registered against BJP Legislator CT Ravi booked for allegedly using derogatory words against Congress Legislator Laxmi Hebbalkar inside State Council at Belagavi.
Dismissing Ravi's plea, Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said, "Alleged word spoken, if spoken or gesture made if made against the women, the complainant, certainly outrages her modesty and it above all cannot have any nexus to the functioning of the house or relation to the transaction of the house, no nexus no privilege, petition dismissed.”
Ravi was arrested on December 19, 2024 under Section 75 and 79 of the BNS, after he moved the High Court questioning his arrest he was directed to be forthwith released on bail. Following which he has moved the court seeking to quash the offence. .
Case title: SRI C T RAVI v/s STATE BY BAGEWADI P S AND OTHERS
Case No: CRL.P 791/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
The Karnataka High Court has held that criminal acts inside the Legislative House are not immune from prosecution and there is no absolute immunity that Legislators can claim.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while refusing to quash a case for outraging the modesty of a woman, registered against BJP Legislator CT Ravi booked for allegedly using derogatory words against Congress Legislator Laxmi Hebbalkar inside the State Council at Belagavi.
It said “Spoken word in the Legislature by the Legislators would ordinarily come within the immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India, but not in certain exceptional circumstances. Judicial review is permissible even in cases where the parliamentary privilege is projected, but not in all circumstances, only on a case to case basis.”
Case Title: Chandrashekhar AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.11138 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered against a 67-year-old man living in Jayanagar area of Bengaluru who was accused of cultivating 5 to 6 cannabis plants in the backyard of his property.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Chandrashekar, and quashed the case registered against him under Sections 20(a) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The court said “The prosecution has not placed an iota of evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner was cultivating ganja and the quantity of ganja found from the backyard of the petitioner was admittedly weighed along with the entire plants that were uprooted without segregation.”
Case Title: High Court Of Karnataka AND The Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16219 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 165
The Karnataka High Court has directed Central and State forest authorities to commit themselves to conserve and preserve the "animal-asset" elephant, by taking steps to minimize, avoid and obliterate the risk of elephants succumbing to death by electrocution.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun directed thus while disposing of a suo-motu petition initiated last year, based on a newspaper report pointing to the repeated incidents of elephant deaths due to electrocution or other unnatural reasons.
Case Title: Mohamed Ikbal AND Secretary to Government of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.23615 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
The Karnataka High Court has said that parties-in-person who are not able to plead properly in their petition and draft their pleadings should not be granted the certification by the Registry to argue in the court in-person.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Mohamed Ikbal.
The petitioner-party-in-person is an advocate, claimed to be a social worker and administrator of Masjid and Khabrastan at Rudrapatna, Arkalgud Taluka, Hassan District. He had approached the court seeking a direction to the authorities to undertake proper survey of a land which he claimed to be Muslim burial ground.
Case Title: CV Rajanna & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.28822 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 167
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to grant cash awards to physically challenged athletes who participated and won medals at the 7th World Dwarf Games conducted in August 2017.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by C V Rajanna and others and directed, “Respondents to grant cash awards to the petitioners as claimed by them in terms of Government Order dated 30-11-2013. This order shall be complied within a period of eight weeks.”
Case Title: ABC AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 13182/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (May 8) dismissed a petition filed by three minor children who are Pakistani Nationals, seeking to restrain the authorities from taking any coercive action against them until May 15, the date by which they are expected to leave India.
A vacation bench of Justice M G Uma said “The Undersecretary to Government of India passed the order dated 25-04-2025 regarding revocation of visa of Pakistani National. Therefore the Union of India, through the Cabinet Committee on Security has taken a conscious decision to safeguard interest of citizens in India. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same, to pass a favourable order in favour of the petitioners. Hence petition stands dismissed.”
Case Title: Raviraja Rai M And State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 2579/2014
Citation No 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 169
The Karnataka High Court has held that under the State Forest Act there is a presumption that a forest produce belongs to a State government and the burden on rebutting the presumption lies on the accused booked for offences under the Act such as illegally transporting such produce.
For context, Section 80 (Presumption that forest produce belongs to Government) when in any proceedings taken under this Act or in consequence of anything done under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, a question arises as to whether any forest produce is the property of the State Government, such produce shall be presumed to be the property of the State Government until the contrary is proved, and in case of any prosecution the burden of proving the contrary shall lie on the accused.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Raviraja Rai M who had challenged the order of the session court upholding order of the authorities confiscating his pick up vehicle which was used for transporting wooden logs without permit.
Case Title: Rishi Kumar AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.25044 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
The Karnataka High Court has rejected the petition filed by a Railway Job Aspirant who was not appointed to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) as he was found to be stuttering speech by the Railway Recruitment Board which termed it as a speech disorder.
A division bench of Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice T M Nadaf dismissed the petition filed by one Rishi Kumar against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejecting his application seeking to quash the order passed by the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) on the ground that the candidate suffered from speech disorder.
Case Title: D S Veeraiah AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 31828 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against former Member of Legislative Council (MLC) D S Veeraiah, who was accused of misappropriation of Rs 47.1 crore from the D Devaraj Urs Truck Terminal Limited (DDUTLL), a state government entity, during his period as its Chairman in 2021.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the case registered against him initially under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and while filing chargesheet the police had included offences under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court said “The prosecution has devised a method of projecting only offences under Section 409 and 420 of the IPC which are clearly identical to Section 13 of the PC Act, to get away with the rigour of prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act.”
Case Title: Ashok AND Fayaz Aahmad
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101514 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Karnataka HIgh Court has said that the procedure of hearing the accused at the stage of taking cognizance of the complaint as prescribed in the first proviso to Section 223 of BNSS shall not apply to the complaints for offence made under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
For context, Section 223 of BNSS makes a departure from the earlier provision contained in Section 200 Cr.P.C. Under the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of 223, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence, without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
A single judge, Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Ashok who had approached the court questioning the cognizance order taken by the Magistrate court on the complaint filed by one Fayaz Aahmad without issuing him a notice for hearing.
Case Title: Anil Kumar S B AND Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & ANR
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.1673 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
The Karnataka High Court has said that the assessment of the suitability of a candidate who is suffering from physical disability must not be based solely on the medical certificate, but also on the functional assessment of the candidate.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while allowing an appeal filed by Anil Kumar S B who had challenged a single judge order and held him eligible for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer under the reservation for persons with disabilities in Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd (BESCOM).
The court said, “What requires consideration, in this context, is the functional assessment. In determining the suitability or eligibility of a candidate with a disability, the functional assessment, beyond just the medical evaluation, is crucial. Annexure-A, the Disability Certificate, clearly records that the appellant can perform normal work with both hands, albeit subject to certain restrictions.”
Case Title: Arbaz Khan AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101267 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 174
The Karnataka High Court recently suggested the State government and its law enforcement agencies to legislate necessary legal provisions and take stringent measures to suppress the perilous activity of "wheeling" by two wheeler riders.
A single judge, Justice V Srishananda said, “Legislature has to take into consideration that existing statutory provisions relating to reckless and negligent driving is hardly sufficient to curb the menace and therefore, to fill up the legislative vacuum, suitable and stringent provisions are to be incorporated by amending the Indian Penal Code and Motor Vehicles Act to complement each other.”
Case Title: PhonePe Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.3757 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by digital payment intermediary 'Phonepe', challenging a police notice seeking transaction details/ full account credentials of its registered users and merchants, while investigating a criminal case.
In doing so, Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The duty to protect data must yield, where public interest and criminal investigation intersect. The protection of consumer privacy cannot eclipse the lawful imperative of investigating officers to secure evidence and take the investigation to its logical conclusion. 'Confidentiality must coexist with accountability'".
The company had challenged a Section 91 CrPC notice, which empowers a Court or an officer in charge of a police station to issue a summons or a written order for the production of any document or other thing.
Case Title: Sandya Anil Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 10453 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
The Karnataka High Court has appointed a wife as a guardian to her husband Dr. Anil Kumar H.V, and permitted her to operate Dr Kumar's bank accounts as if he is operating the account, as he is suffering from a neurological disorder and for nine months is in a comatose state.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Sandya Anil Kumar and said “In the light of the condition of the husband of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner, the wife of Dr. Anil Kumar H.V, to operate the account, as if the husband was operating the account.”
He added “The petitioner is appointed, as a guardian to her husband Dr. Anil Kumar H.V. and a direction issues to respondents No.2 to 4 - Banks to allow the petitioner to draw money for day-to-day treatment of her husband and for the livelihood of the family. Respondents No.2 to 4 (State Bank of India/Indian Overseas Bank) shall not brook any delay and shall permit normal operation of the account at the hands of the petitioner, wife of Dr. Anil Kumar H.V.”
Case Title: Rekha Kannan & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.27821 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the association of the owners of flats situated in an Apartment, consisting of residential units only, is to be registered under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act (KAO) and not under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act (KCS).
A single judge, Justice K S Hemalekha, observed thus while allowing a petition filed by owners of the apartment units in “Ramky One North” a residential complex situated at Avalahalli Village, Yelahanka Taluk.
The court set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar registering the Society under the KCS Act dated 19.10.2023 and directed Respondent No.5-Builder to comply with all the requirements under the law and form an Association of Apartment Owners under the KAO Act and the members of respondent No.4 Society to cooperate in forming an Association for the project known as “Ramky North”.
Case Title: Keerthi Harmony Apartment Owners Association AND M/S KEERTHI ESTATES PVT. LTD & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 19151 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
The Karnataka High Court recently said that land owners cannot retain any portion of land once the sale deeds were executed in respect of the entire area for the purpose of the construction of an apartment complex.
A Single judge, Justice N S Sanjay Gowda, allowed the petition filed by Keerthi Harmony Apartment Owners Association, and set aside the licence granted by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to developer Hanumantha Reddy for constructing an apartment complex.
It said “The grant of approval by the BBMP to build a new apartment complex would be wholly illegal and as such, Annexures 'A' and 'B' are accordingly quashed.”
Case Title: N. H. Gowda Versus Mr. Rangarama And Ors.
Case Number: 2025:KHC:15329-DB
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
The Karnataka High Court bench of Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice K. V. Aravind has held that when both parties have agreed to resolve their disputes regarding the nature of the partnership through arbitration, it is unnecessary for the Court to determine whether the partnership is one "at will." Such issues are more appropriately left for adjudication by the arbitrator.
Case Title: Shrishail Irappa Kempwad & ANR And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 103671 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
The Karnataka High Court recently held as unconstitutional a government order dated September 4, 2008, which denied the benefit of power tariff subsidy to farmers' societies purely on the ground of their collective consumption exceeding the specified power limit.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum holding thus directed the State Government and the concerned electricity distribution companies (including HESCOM) to review, reconsider, and amend the existing policy framework governing agricultural power subsidies, ensuring that farmer societies are treated at par with individual farmers.
“Consequently, it is declared that the impugned Government Order No. EN 55 PSR 2008 dated 4th September 2008 is unconstitutional, in so far as it denies the benefit of power tariff subsidy to farmer societies purely on the ground of collective consumption exceeding the specified horsepower limit...The authorities must frame and notify appropriate guidelines within a reasonable period (preferably within six months) to extend power tariff subsidies to registered farmer societies, in a manner that aligns with the principles of equality, promotes cooperative farming, and advances the broader goals of sustainable agricultural development,” it said.
Case Title: Savinaya AND Mrs Sheela G Bhat & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13685 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to interdict the final approval granted to a woman entrepreneur to operate a Kendra (centre) under the Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana (PMBJP) at Kumbra Village in Puttur Taluk.
Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by one Savinaya also a female entrepreneur who had approached the court questioning the final approval given to operate the Kendra to another woman Sheela G Bhat.
Kendras or centres ensure availability of quality medicine at low prices, where medicines could be sold at 50% to 90% cheaper rates, compared to market rates. It said
"What is projected by the petitioner is purported loss of business by granting another Kendra within a short distance, while it is not the case, as the facts bare consideration hereinabove. But, it would not be for this court to interfere merely because a business prospect is perceived to be threatened rather, the Court must preserve the spirit of a welfare-oriented scheme designed for the many, not the few. There is no arbitrariness that is demonstrable or palpable in the case at hand. The geographical area that is contended to be overlapping, has not overlapped, as the application of the petitioner remained an application. Therefore, in conclusion, I find the petition is devoid of merit. No illegality, procedural infirmity or arbitrariness is 28 discernable from the grant of approval to the 1st respondent, to iterate public interest would be ill-served if this Court were to interdict a lawful and beneficial initiative on such slender grounds"
Case Title: Karnataka State Private Management Association of Health Institutions AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 32106 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 32185 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a November 5, 2024 communication issued by the Principal Secretary, Family and Welfare Department, directing Deputy Commissioners of all the districts in the State to carry out inspection of Nursing Institutions situated within their jurisdiction.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing the petition filed by Karnataka State Private Management Association of Health Institutions.
Noting that the letter issued is only an instruction and not a policy decision, it said “The Deputy Commissioner not having any expertise in educational facilities, the nature of the subject experts, the qualification thereof, not having been indicated in the instruction dated 5-11 2024, I am of the considered opinion that the said letter is completely arbitrary, the exercise of powers by the Deputy Commissioner is unbridled and such inspection is not under any particular enactment.”
Case Title: Addanada Karriappa And Philiphose Mathew
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1044 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the conviction order passed by the trial court against Addanada Kariappa, Editor of Kannada Weekly Newspaper Veeranadu, in a criminal defamation case.
A single judge, Justice Rajesh Rai K by his order dated (April 8), acquitted the accused who was convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under Section 499, 500 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 days and to pay fine of Rs.10,000.
Case Title: Athaulla Jokatte & AND And State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6797 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed prosecution initiated against eight persons who were accused of rioting and participating in an unlawful assembly in 2019 to protest against implementation of CAA-NRC.
According to the prosecution all the accused conspired to protest against implementation of CAA-NRC and assembled at the spot forming an unlawful assembly, inspite of restrictions imposed and pelted stones, soda bottles etc., at public properties.
Mere Use Of Abusive Language Not By Itself Intentional Insult U/S 504 IPC: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Anumandala Rajesh Reddy AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8897 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a case registered by the police against an accused who while being apprehended for his involvement in another case allegedly abused the police in filthy language and tried to assault them and thereby obstructed them from discharging their duties.
A single judge, Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowing the petition filed by Anumandala Rajesh Reddy quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 353 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 504 pertains to Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
It said, “It is not stated in the complaint the nature of abusive language used by the accused. The allegations are vague in nature. Further, mere use of abusive language would not by itself attract the ingredients of Section 504 IPC.”
Case Title: B R Anand AND V R Gisha
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.567 OF 2019
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the day on which a bank intimates to the holder of cheque of its dishonour has to be excluded and the same cannot be taken into consideration while calculating the period of limitation for issuing notice for payment to the drawer under Negotiable Instruments Act.
Section 138(b) is an important condition for the application of offence of cheque dishonour. It states:
"Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply...unless the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid...".
Case Title: Somarapu Vamashi AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 7476/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (May 27) quashed an FIR registered against a 22-year-old, accused of re-selling tickets purchased by him for the Indian Premier League (IPL) match at a higher price.
A vacation judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by Somarapu Vamashi who was charged for offence under Section 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The petitioner was booked by the Bellandur police station on the charge that he had brought certain tickets for the IPL match to be played between Royal Challengers Bangalore and Kolkata Knight Riders at the Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru. It was alleged that ten tickets priced at Rs 1,200 each were sold by him at Rs 6,000 each to certain persons.
Case title: Girish Bharadwaj AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 3817/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday set aside the Government order, directing public prosecutors to withdraw 43 criminal cases registered/pending against persons accused of various offences including rioting, attempt to murder, stated to include highly influential persons including politicians, in breach of Section 321 of Criminal Procedure Code.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind while pronouncing its order said “Petition is allowed Government Order, dated 15-10-2024, is hereby set aside, it is declared that the order shall stand non-est since inception, consequences in law will follow.” The detailed order will be made available in due course.
The order was passed while allowing the public interest litigation filed by Girish Bharadwaj questioning a government order.
Case Title: Ramesh Naik L AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 9911/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to prepare a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the maintenance of the facilities by which it provides drinking water to citizens in the state.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind, said “The State has a fundamental duty to supply drinking water fit for human consumption. Access to clean water is not charity, it is a constitutional promise woven into the fabric of fundamental rights. Every individual's right to life encompasses the right to access pure and safe drinking water.”
Case Title: Vidya M V AND Bhavana S
Case No: WP 14869/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (May 29) refused to quash a criminal case registered against a police sub inspector Vidya M V, who is accused of illegally obtaining Call Detail Records (CDR) of a woman.
A vacation bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “No police officer just by being a police officer can call for any CDR of any citizen of the country, without there being any investigation.”
The petitioner had approached the Court seeking to quash the case registered against her for the offences punishable under section 354(d) 409,506,509 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66(D) and 66(E) of the Information Technology Act.
Case Title: Rait Sena Karnataka AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.12751 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to establish at least one crop harvesting procurement center in each Taluka for two months beyond the procurement period fixed by Government of India.
A division bench of former Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while disposing of a public interest litigation filed by Rait Sena Karnataka, a registered Society which had sought a direction to the authorities to operate produce procurement centers throughout the year, to enable farmers to sell their produce at the Minimum Support Price.
It said “In view of the fact that crop harvesting now extends beyond the traditional harvesting seasons, and in order to ensure that farmers are adequately remunerated through the Minimum Support Price (MSP) mechanism and are not compelled to resort to distress sales through middlemen, the State Government shall establish at least one procurement center in each Taluka for a period of two months beyond the procurement period fixed by the Government of India.”
Case Title: Naveen Kumar N & Others AND M/S Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.1298 OF 2024 (S-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL No.1018 OF 2024 (S-RES) WRIT APPEAL No.1160 OF 2024 (S-RES) WRIT APPEAL No.1344 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
The Karnataka High Court directed the State Power Corporation Limited to conduct a fresh examination for all candidates who appeared in an earlier exam held in February 2024 for six posts, after noting that condition of negative marking had not been disclosed to the candidates prior to the conduct of the exam.
A division bench of former Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind while allowing a batch of appeals challenging a single judge order said, “The orders of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.14233 of 2024 dated 12.06.2024 and in Writ Petition 16517 of 2024 dated 10.07.2024 are set aside. The Final Score List dated 12.06.2024 and the Provisional Score List dated 08.05.2024 are hereby quashed.”
Case Title: Shashank J Rai AND National Anti Doping Agency-India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.4710 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a 2022 order passed by the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel declaring Shashank J Rai, a senior National Basketball Player, to be ineligible for sporting events for 4 years after he was accused of doping.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by the distinguished athlete of national acclaim and said “This Court finds the impugned orders, which culminated in the order of the Appellate Authority dated 16-04-2024 vitiated by non-consideration of vital material, absence of reasoned adjudication and a palpable breach of principle of fairness.”
Case Title: Puneet H R AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3429 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash prosecution intiated against a person accused of defrauding a bank, saying he cannot seek quashing of the offence solely on the ground that his name did not appear in the original complaint.
A single judge, Justice Mohammad Nawaz held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Puneet H R who is accused for offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 408, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(b) read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'I.T. Act') and Section 13(1)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Case Title: Rana George AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 30452/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
The Karnataka High Court on Monday allowed a petition filed by Rana George, son of State Energy Minister K.J. George, seeking unrestricted access to his private land located within the Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary.
A single judge, Justice M Ngaprasanna said, “The writ petition is allowed, the order dated 01.03.2024, is quashed. Madamus issued to authorities to provide unhindered access to the petitioner to access his property in accordance with law. It is made clear that the petitioner while using the property shall not damage physically or otherwise any flora or fauna in the wildlife sanctuary.”
Case Title: Priti Singh & Others AND Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1567/2024 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.498/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
The Karnataka High Court has said that in assessing just compensation, for claims made under Motor Vehicles Act, amounts that were paid to the deceased by his employer, whether as perks or any other nomenclature, should be added to his monthly income. Such monthly income forms the basis for computing compensation.
A division bench of Justice K S Mudgal and Justice K V Aravind held thus while partly allowing an appeal filed by Priti Singh and others who had questioned the compensation amount granted by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. The court modified the amount granted by the tribunal Rs 81,89,000 and increased it to Rs 2,27,32,608.
The bench said “The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the deceased was in the probationary period and that his entire salary paid could not be considered. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/-, which has no legal or logical basis.”
Case Title: Denis Crasta AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9010 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Urban Development Department to issue a circular restricting officers from granting permission allowing to put up new constructions, in and around the protected monuments, and if any permission is to be granted in tune with the statute, such permission shall precede a no objection from the Archeological Survey of India.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna added “The circular shall also indicate that permissions if granted by officers contrary to law, they would be doing so at their peril, making themselves open for initiation of a departmental enquiry.”
Case Title: Harish AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1004 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Observing that “rashness and negligence are multi-faceted concepts which cannot be comprehended and interpreted in isolation, it significantly depends on facts and circumstances of each case,” the Karnataka High Court recently acquitted an accused convicted for driving his car rashly and causing the death of a motorcyclist.
Justice Rajesh Rai K, while allowing a revision petition filed by one Harish, quashed the order passed by the trial court convicting him for offences punishable under sections 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code. He said, “The petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC.”
Case Title: Smt. Manjula & Anr. vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd & Ors.
Case No.: WP No. 10493 of 2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has held that a person who is the named Arbitrator in a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot enter reference and pass orders without the other person consenting thereto or without an order of appointment of Arbitrator by institution or a Court under Section 11 of the Act.
Case Title: Karavali Bus Owners Association & Others AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9159 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 200.
The Karnataka High Court directed the Union Ministry of Surface Transport, to undertake a review of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and insert appropriate clarificatory definitions, to address the evolving complexities of vehicular classifications and toll collection.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The legislative framework especially the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calls for a re-examination, qua the description of vehicles. The Union Ministry of Surface Transport, would do well to undertake a review and insert appropriate clarificatory definitions to address the evolving complexities of vehicular classifications and toll collections.”
The direction was issued after the court noted that while the Motor Vehicles Act defines classes of vehicles for regulatory purposes, toll classification is governed solely by the National Highways Act, the Fee Rules and the Concessionaire agreement.
Case Title: Taha Husain AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 12290/2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 201.
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday quashed proceedings initiated against a man accused of wrongfully holding a cat named Daisy belonging to the complainant, in his house.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Taha Husain who was charged for offences punishable under Sections 504(Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506(Punishment for criminal intimidation) and 509(Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the IPC on the complaint made by one Nikitha Anjana Iyer.
The petitioner had moved the high court seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.13477/2022, pending before the IV ACJ and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru.
Case Title: A V Poojappa AND Dr S K Vagadevi
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.13 OF 2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
The Karnataka High Court has laid down guidelines for trial and sessions courts to keep in mind while fixing fine amounts on a convict in cheque dishonour cases, under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: M/S SAPTHAGIRI SHELTERS AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 23086/2022 with connected matters.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
The Karnataka High Court has quashed and set aside the amendments brought into the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 in 2021 and 2023, allowing the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to collect fees and penalties at the time of sanctioning building plans.
Justice R Devdas partly allowed petitions filed by residents and builders challenging the amendments brought in by the State and the subsequent demand made by the BBMP.
“The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), is hereby quashed and set aside. The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024), is hereby quashed and set aside,” the Court ordered.
Case Title: Manjunath V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.33819 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
In another matter involving a feline, the Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of cruelty by his wife.
Earlier in its December 2024 interim order the court while staying the probe, had observed that the complaint was a narration of marriage and living together but the crux of the allegation is foundationed upon the squabble regarding the pet cat; it had then said that the allegation i that the husband takes care of the cat more than the wife. The wife after receiving notice moved a plea to vacate the stay and also filed her objections; the matter was thereafter heard.
After hearing the parties, Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order on going through the entire complaint noted that a particular paragraph in the complaint is dedicated to the pet cat in the house "which always used to cause hurt to the wife".
Case Title: M/S. IMAGEX TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR AND M/S. GRAINTEC INDUSTRIES & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 34745 OF 2024 .
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
The Karnataka High Court has said that in commercial disputes, the filing of written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be permitted beyond the limitation period of 120 days.
The court also rejected the argument of the petitioner that if the defendants had filed an application seeking extension of time before the expiry of 120 days, it should have been answered and accepted. The court said, “The said submission, to say the least, is preposterous.”
The court further substantiated its point with an illustration, "As an illustration, if the defendant who has not filed the written statement in a commercial O.S., files an application on the 119th day and seeks time, no Court including this Court cannot extend the mandate of the statute qua the limitation in filing the written statement."
Case Title: Ms Suja Jones Mazurier AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1050 OF 2017.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of the trial court acquitting a father accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter. The complaint was made by the wife of the accused.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice K S Hemalekha while dismissing the appeal filed by Suja Jones Mazurier who was the complainant in the case said “The fact that PW.4 met various NGOs, doctors and legal professionals before the alleged triggering incident on 13.06.2012 raises a serious question about the credibility of the report she filed on 14.06.2012. This timing suggests that she has been preparing to initiate legal action or build a case regardless of any specific incident on that day “
Case Title: Surya Sareen AND Central Bureau of Investigation
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5297 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against 76-year-old Surya Sareen, President and Chief Executive Officer of M/s AKON Inc, a company incorporated in the United States of America, which is accused of cheating Defence Avionics Research Establishment ('DARE') and Defence Research and Development Organization ('DRDO') by supplying faulty VO based radio frequency engines.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The case at hand is a classic illustration of prima facie offence of Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC against the petitioner and the entire issue revolves round a maze of facts, certain disputed and certain matters on record. Therefore, interference at this stage of the proceedings would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court.”
Plea Filed By Sole Legatee Seeking Probate Of Will Of Deceased Is Maintainable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Jayaram B S AND NIL
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8090 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
The Karnataka High Court has said that a petition filed by the sole legatee seeking probate of the will of the deceased is maintainable before the court.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K. Manmadha Rao held thus while allowing an appeal filed by Jayaram B S, who had challenged the order of the trial court rejecting his probate application.
The probate court had rejected a plea made by the sole legatee named in the will of his father, BT Sanjeevaiah on the grounds that the appellant was a legatee in the bid and not an executor appointed under the Will, the Probate Court has declined to grant probate.
Case Title: Bhagwan Das & Others AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 4478 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of 16 contract workers employed in the water supply department of Mangalore Mahanagara Palike, and it has directed the corporation to regularise their services.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the petition filed by Bhagwan Das and others and said “The order of regularization is to be passed within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
The petitioner had approached the court seeking to set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12.12.2019, whereby the petitioner's service is not regularised.
Karnataka High Court Quashes ED Complaint Against Greenpeace NGO For Alleged FEMA Violations
Case Title: GreenPeace Environment Trust AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 5691 OF 2021 (GM-FE) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 4711 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the complaint and show cause notice issued by the Enforcement Directorate to NGO Greenpeace Environment Trust, Greenpeace India Society, in an alleged case of violation of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “The show cause notice dated 25.02.2020 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A in both the petitions are quashed. The complaint dated 25.02.2019 filed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-B in both the petitions are quashed.”
Case Title: Abdul Sattar AND M Khalid & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.2867/2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that defendants in a suit filed seeking permanent injunction cannot raise a counterclaim by amending the written statements after framing of issues by the trial court.
A single judge, Justice Vijaykumar A Patil held thus while allowing the petition filed by Abdul Sattar who had approached the court questioning a trial court order allowing the application filed by the defendants M Khalid and others under Section Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Case Title: Arumugam AND Ananda
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1021 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
The Karnataka High Court has said that drawer of the cheque can't escape prosecution on the ground that a premature complaint for cheque dishonour was filed against him before expiry of statutory period of 15 days as per the mandate of Section 138(c) of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar in his order said “Drawer of the cheque cannot be allowed to escape from prosecution merely on a technical count that a premature complaint was filed against him before expiry of the statutory period of 15 days as per the mandate of Section 138(c) of N.I. Act. Such a drawer of the cheque is liable to be prosecuted in a second successive complaint filed on the same facts by the holder of the cheque. The drawer of the cheque would not be absolved from penal consequences of dishonouring of cheque issued by him/her.”
Case Title: Basvaraj AND K M Altaf Hussain & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101342 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101341 OF 2017 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101568 OF 2017 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101569 OF 2017.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
The Karnataka High Court recently came to the rescue of a bus owner who was asked by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to compensate the victims of an accident that occurred while the bus was plying beyond its permit route.
Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar noted that the bus was carrying out relief works and hence, the owner cannot be asked to pay compensation by exonerating the Insurance company.
It observed, “The offending vehicle was used as a relief vehicle. Therefore, there is no fundamental breach proved so as to exonerate the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, in this regard, has committed an error...mere deviation of rules in the circumstances as above discussed is not amounting to fundamental breach so as to exonerate the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the owner.”
Case Title: M/s Sona Synthetics & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3935 OF 2008 (GM-KEB) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.1644 OF 2009.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
The Karnataka High Court has declared Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1959, as amended by Act No.7 of 2003 and Act 40 No.5 of 2004, imposing tax on "minimum tariff" electricity charges, as unconstitutional.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has also held that “Supply of electricity to the consumer to ensure availability of electricity for consumption, does not amount to consumption or sale, unless the electricity consumed by the consumer and the State has no legislative competence under Entry No.53, List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India to levy tax on minimum tariff. The State is competent to levy tax under Entry No.53, List II of Seventh Schedule only on actual consumption or sale of electricity.”
Case Title: Prabhakaran K AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10284 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
The Karnataka High Court has said that a scooter owner in whose name the RC is standing and which has met with a fatal accident cannot seek quashing of criminal offence registered against him on ground that he had already sold the vehicle.
Justice J M Khazi thus rejected the petition filed by Prabhakaran K, charged for offence punishable under section 279 and 304-A (causing death by negligence) IPC, following the death of a woman while riding the scooter registered in his name.
The bench said “It is not in dispute that as on the date of accident, accused No.2 was the owner of the scooter. Though he has claimed that he sold the scooter to the complainant and the complainant has released the said vehicle into his interim custody, still the RC is standing in the name of accused No.2. For all practical purposes, he is the owner of the scooter in question. In the light of the prima facie material, accused No.2 cannot seek quashing of the criminal proceedings.”
Case Title: P Vasudeva Kamath & ANR AND Jayashri R Kamath
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9697 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that Commercial Court need not refer parties to pre-institution mediation under Section 12A Commercial Courts Act, where suit was earlier presented before the competent civil Court which had initiated efforts for mediation but subsequently the plaint was returned on grounds of lack of civil court's jurisdiction.
For context, Section 12A mandates pre-institution mediation and settlement between parties before a suit can be instituted. It reads that a suit which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation and settlement.
Karnataka High Court Quashes FIRs Against Ex-CM Basavaraj Bommai For Comment On Waqf Properties
Case Title: Basvaraj Bommai AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 12164/2024 & Criminal Petition No 12183/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed two criminal cases registered against former Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai accusing him of making objectionable statements during a protest rally held to condemn the actions of Waqf Board and State Government in allegedly grabbing the properties of farmers and temples.
Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition filed by Bommai and quashed the proceedings initiated under sections 196(1)(a) of the BNS by the Shiggaon police station.
Case Title: Vikas M Dev AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24162 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
The Karnataka High Court has ordered registration of medical negligence FIR against two doctors attached to private hospitals, including Fortis, for allegedly operating on a man without proper consent.
One Vikas Dev alleged that the first accused doctor at Bengaluru based GM Hospital obtained his consent for inserting a catheter on the right side of his father's body but the procedure was done on the left side. As the father's condition deteriorated, he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, where his father succumbed to cardiac arrest while being operated on by the second accused doctor, again without consent.
Case Title: Arun Kumar Alva AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14015 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to frame necessary guidelines in order to bring clarity regarding eligibility for remission when claimed on the ground of good behaviour, discipline and participation in institutional activities, under Section 166 (1) (e) of the Prison Manual.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav said “In order to ensue consideration of remission under Section 166 (i) (e), necessary guidelines will have to be framed by the State Government in order to bring clarity regarding eligibility for remission when claimed on the ground of good behaviour, discipline and participation in institutional activities...Till the Government frames guidelines and take steps either to amend the Prison Manual or frame the Rules, a Circular may be issued in order to consider the claims for remission by the Department which would be in the nature of executive instructions that would mould the field.”
Case Title: Madiga Dandora AND The State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.201685 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
In lauding the communal harmony exhibited by people in the border area of Hyderabad and Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court has observed, “The salvation of the country lies in identifying human beings as a human being and as an Indian with the other identities playing a secondary role.”
Justice M I Arun pointed out that Yadgiri District, which is a part of Hyderabad Karnataka area, celebrates communal harmony, which is generally found in Hyderabad-Karnataka area. This includes the participation of both Hindus and Muslims in the festivals of each other's communities.
It said “The institutions like Sharanabasaveshwar Temple, Khaja Bandanawaz Dargah, are examples of the communal harmony, which can be followed by the entire country...In tune with the communal harmony, Muharram festival of the Muslim community is also celebrated by Hindus, wherein certain Hindu Deities are also worshipped by both Muslims and Hindus during the festival.”
Case Title: Sriramulu AND U Ravi Rao & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3281 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
The Karnataka High Court has said that a caretaker of the property continues in possession of the property only on behalf of the owners and cannot be held to have acquired any interest in the property and is under an obligation to handover possession to the defendants on demand.
Justice C M Poonacha held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by one Sriramulu who had challenged the order of the trial court rejecting his application seeking a temporary injunction against the defendants from interfering in his possession and also restrain them from alienating the suit property.
The bench said “The Trial Court having appreciated the relevant factual matrix and having rejected the application filed for injunction by the plaintiff, the appellant has failed in demonstrating that the said order is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal.”
Case Title: Rachappa Satish Kumar & ANR AND M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13365 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 222.
The Karnataka High Court has said that orders of temporary injunctions can be granted only against those who are made defendants in the suit and restraining orders against third parties who are not made parties to the suit cannot be granted.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by journalist Rachappa Sathish Kumar and M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited who had challenged an ex-parte temporary injunction order passed by the City Civil and Sessions Court whereby it directed blocking of Btv Kannada's social media page in April this year by all social media platforms.
The high court said “Temporary injunctions can be granted only against those who are made defendants in the suit. Restraint orders against third parties who are not made parties to the suit cannot be granted by any cannon of law. While litigants may make or may not make certain parties as defendants, though seeking a prayer against those persons, but, the concerned Court cannot blissfully ignore the law and pass the orders of the kind that is now passed.”