Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 257 To 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 292Nominal Index: Nayeem Noor Mohamed & Anr. V. Nazim Noor Mohamed. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 257Murali Krishna R AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 258State of Karnataka & ANR AND Mahaboob Patel. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 259Vijayeendra G Muddebihalkar & Others AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 260Vijay...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 257 To 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
Nominal Index:
Nayeem Noor Mohamed & Anr. V. Nazim Noor Mohamed. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
Murali Krishna R AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 258
State of Karnataka & ANR AND Mahaboob Patel. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 259
Vijayeendra G Muddebihalkar & Others AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 260
Vijay Mahantesh Mathapati & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
Ms. Sumita Abhishek Sundaram v. Sankalpan Infrastructure Private Limited. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
Sivagami N AND M/s Vinayaka Travels & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
Santosh Yamanappa Wadakar AND State of Karnataka & Others 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
Suhas L AND The Chief Registrar Births And Deaths & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
Spunklane Media Private Limited AND Harshendra Kumar D. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 267
Murali Krishna Brahmandam AND Chief Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 268
Girish Bharadwaj & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 269
Jayalakshmi M AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 270
PIO & THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NIRMITI KENDRA AND THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 271
Muzammil Kazi & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 272
Assistant Director, ESI Corporation AND M/s. Sansera Engineering P Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
Ramamurthy C K & Others AND Bosch Limited & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
Archana Patil AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
Munisanjeevamma & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
Mohammed Shoiab AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
Eshwaramma AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
Mohammed Shoiab AND State of Karnataka & Others 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
Lakshmavva Goshellanavar AND State of Karnataka & Others 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
K M Gangadhar AND State Of Karnataka & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
Chooti Bee AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
Shankar AND Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
Case Title: Mantavva & ANR AND The Divisional Controller. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
Malurappa AND Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 287
Seetha Nayak & Others AND Laxmi Kom Nagesh Naik. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 288
Subhan Khan AND Prabha Mallikarjun. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 289
Sanjana V Tumkur AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
Jagrutka Karnatak Jagrutha Bharata AND The Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 291
S Venkateshappa AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
Judgments/Orders
Case Title – Nayeem Noor Mohamed & Anr. V. Nazim Noor Mohamed
Case No: COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.302 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
The Karnataka High Court Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Justice K Manmadha has observed that an order under Section 33, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”), even of an interim nature, amounts to an arbitral award and not an interlocutory order.
The Court highlighted that the scope of Section 33, ACA was limited to a correction of a clerical or similar mistake or a recomputation or a consideration of a claim presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the arbitral award, but there is no scope for an "additional adjudication" under Section 33, ACA.
Case Title: Murali Krishna R AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.204 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 258
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the corruption case registered against a driver attached to the Chief General Manager of BESCOM, for merely keeping a bag containing bribe in the Manager's car on his instruction.
Noting that the demand and acceptance of bribe were made by the Manager who was booked as the first accused, Justice M Nagaprasanna held it is unfair to prosecute the "humble contract employee" who was just 40 days into service and was merely following instructions.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & ANR AND Mahaboob Patel
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.202187 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 259
The Karnataka High Court has directed authorities concerned to decide applications received for Compassionate Appointment within a maximum period of 90 days, from date of receipt of the application.
A division bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz And Justice K S Hemalekha said, “Compassionate appointment matters being a welfare measure designed to provide immediate financial relief to bereaved families, the State bears a high duty of procedural fairness."
Karnataka High Court Asks Centre To Check If Regulations Are Needed To Curb 'Profile Funding' Scam
Case Title: Vijayeendra G Muddebihalkar & Others AND Union of India & Others.
Case No: WP 23590/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 260
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (August 5) asked the Union Ministry of Finance to take note of the petitions filed by persons claiming to be victims of 'Profile Funding' and see whether regulations are to be put in place.
For context, profile funding is an alleged scam wherein victims are purportedly promised by scammers that the victims' bank account will be funded based on the their profile, in lieu of personal and financial details. Victims are allegedly told that their profiles will be used for applying for loans.
Justice B M Shyam Prasad while dictating his order said “This court must also state that petitions of this nature are too frequent to be ignored and the Secretary of Ministry of Finance, Union of India must take note of the same, to see whether regulations must be put in place.”
Case title: Vijay Mahantesh Mathapati & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 200873 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
The Karnataka High Court has struck down Rule 6 of Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules 2006, wherein a victim can directly approach a sessions court in a private complaint instead of Commission conducting an inquiry, holding it to be unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
For context, Rule 6 states that a victim of an offence arising out of violation of human rights, his legal representative, or a registered NGO or a public person may file a complaint against a public servant who has committed or abetted the commission of such an offence. The Court on receipt of such a complaint, shall either order an investigation into the offence or it may proceed to conduct its own inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the procedure for dealing with private complaints in CrPC.
A court has been defined in the rules to mean a Court of Sessions designated as Human Rights Court by the State Government with the concurrence of Chief Justice of the High Court to try an offence of violation of human rights.
Justice S Rachaiah in his order said: “The striking down of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 is justified in law and principle for the reason that, the Rule impermissibly expands the scope of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 by enabling the private party or victim to file a complaint directly by invoking the jurisdiction of the Court established under Section 30 of the Act, by bypassing the provisions of the Act. This would lead to not only disrupting the legislative intent and scheme, but also invading the Central Act.”
Case Title: Ms. Sumita Abhishek Sundaram v. Sankalpan Infrastructure Private Limited
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.35715 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has held that the seat court of an arbitration always retains jurisdiction over execution proceedings irrespective of where the award-debtor is located or has its assets, even when another execution petition is pending in another jurisdiction.
Case Title: Sivagami N AND M/s Vinayaka Travels & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.17796 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
The Karnataka High Court has said that the right to cross-examination, whether or not encoded in statute, emerges as a sine qua non of adjudication. It is not merely permissible, it is an indispensable right.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while upholding an order passed by the Commercial Court dismissing an application filed by the petitioner Sivagami N, seeking the trial court to draw an adverse inference and deny cross-examination to the plaintiffs.
Case Title: Santosh Yamanappa Wadakar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.103894 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
The Karnataka High Court set aside an order passed by Pre-University Education department which had rejected a compassionate appointment plea filed by the son of a deceased employee of a Pre-University solely on the ground that there was no vacancy in the institution where the deceased was working.
In doing so the court held that the rejection was in contravention to the state Pre-University Education (Academic, Registration, Administration, Grant-in-aid etc.) (Amendment) Rules, and the respondent-authority must strictly follow the rules while deciding such a plea.
Civil Suit Seeking Corrections In Birth/Death Certificate Not Maintainable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Suhas L AND The Chief Registrar Births And Deaths & Others
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2454 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
The Karnataka High Court has held that a civil suit for seeking rectification of entries in a Death Certificate is not maintainable.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “This Court is of the considered view that the present suit, filed before the Civil Court seeking rectification of entries in the Death Certificate, is not maintainable. There exists a clear bar under Section 9 of the CPC, as the nature of the relief falls exclusively within the domain of the Registrar under Section 15 of the 1969 Act (Registration of Births And Deaths Act)."
Case Title: Spunklane Media Private Limited AND Harshendra Kumar D
Case No: Writ Petition No 23819/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
The Karnataka High Court was on Monday (August 11) informed that the trial court had refused to extend its July 18 ex-parte interim 'gag' order restraining various media entities and YouTube channels from publishing any "defamatory content" about Harshendra Kumar D and his kin, in connection with the Dharmasthala Burial case.
The development happened in a plea filed by Spunklane Media Pvt. Ltd., a company which owns and operates 'The News Minute' web portal, challenging the ex-parte interim 'gag order'.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Abetment FIR Against Wife Despite Husband's Suicide Note
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100661 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 267
The Karnataka High Court quashed an abetment to suicide FIR lodged against a woman after her estranged husband allegedly committed suicide, noting that there was no act mentioned in his "death note" which had any nexus to his death.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed a petition filed by the woman booked for abetment to suicide (Section 108 BNS) observing that a reading of the complaint in the case would show that necessary ingredients to attract the alleged offence were not found.
Case Title: Murali Krishna Brahmandam AND Chief Secretary & Others
Case No: WP 23824/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 268
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday imposed a fine of Rs 1 Lakh on a litigant seeking direction to various government departments to discuss 'Karnataka Government Transformation Bill 2025' which was drafted by him.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar while dismissing a petition filed by one Murali Krishna Brahmandam said PIL (jurisdiction) is not for litigants to vent their ideas, however bright they may be.
The petitioner who claimed to be a political economist had approached the court seeking a direction to all the concerned principal secretaries, secretaries, and special secretaries of the 34 ministries and their 44 departments of Karnataka to discuss and propose the Karnataka Government Transformation Bill, 2025, which was drafted by him.
Case Title: Girish Bharadwaj & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others Case No: WP 5838/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 269
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (August 12) dismissed a PIL challenging Congress-led State government's 2023 decision to stall implementation of the Centre's National Education Policy 2020.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar observed that it cannot intervene in matters of policy unless the Petitioner establishes violation of any Fundamental/ statutory rights.
“How can we direct the government to follow a particular policy and not to follow a particular policy? Under which law can we compel them (State government) to accept or reject a policy?” the judges orally remarked during the hearing.
Case Title: Jayalakshmi M AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 12535/2025 c/w WP 12987/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 270
The Karnataka High Court today refused to entertain two petitions filed questioning State's decision mandating new electricity consumers to install smart pre-paid meters, the cost of which is higher than what is prevalent in neighbouring states.
Justice M Nagaprasanna had reserved orders in the matter on July 22. However, noting that a PIL raising similar issues is already pending before a division bench of the High Court, the judge said, "Judicial discipline demands, hierarchy and propriety requires this Court to show judicial hands off to the present petitions. Therefore the subject petitions are not entertainable."
Case Title: PIO & THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NIRMITI KENDRA AND THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 52581 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 271
The Karnataka High Court has held that Nirmiti Kendras qualify as 'public authority' in terms of Section 2(h) of the Right To Information Act and thus, they are bound to disclose available information under the Act.
For context, the object of Nirmiti Kendra is to develop skills in the construction area and carry out civil contracts assigned by the State.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the petition filed by the Public Information Officer of the Kendra, who had approached the court challenging an order of the State Information Commissioner directing it to provide necessary information sought for by the applicant.
Case Title: Muzammil Kazi & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.101767 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 272
The Karnataka High Court has held that mere non-admission of a minor student in a private unaided school would not amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Muzammil Kazi, who had approached the court seeking a direction to St. Paul's High School to admit his minor son to its school in LKG grade.
The bench said, “The mere non-admission of petitioner No.2 in respondent No.3 school would not amount to a violation of Article 21, inasmuch as the petitioners have access to various other schools where petitioner No.2 could apply and obtain admission.”
Case Title: Assistant Director, ESI Corporation AND M/s. Sansera Engineering P Ltd
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3687 OF 2016.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
The Karnataka High Court has held that labourers engaged through contractors for construction and repair works within a factory premises are treated as 'employees' within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance (ESI) Act.
Justice Ramchandra D Huddar added that in such a case, contribution under the Act will have to be paid by the company employing them. The bench reasoned, "Expression `Employee' under Section 2(9) of the Act has been defined in conclusive and expansive terms. It not only encompasses persons directly employed by the Principal Employer but, also includes persons employed through an immediate employer (such as a contractor) so long as they are engaged in connection with the work of the factory or establishment or work which is incidental or preliminary to or connected with the main work of the factory."
Case Title: Ramamurthy C K & Others AND Bosch Limited & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.17695 OF 2021 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.12656 OF 2021 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.21703 OF 2021 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.23395 OF 2021(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.23730 OF 2021(L) WRIT PETITION NO.23786 OF 2021(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.1434 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
The Karnataka High Court has held that if a dispute is raised questioning the validity of a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, before a conciliation officer, the appropriate Government is required to assign reasons for referring it to adjudication.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held thus while partly allowing the petitions filed by the Management of Bosch Ltd which had challenged the order dated 28.06.2021, passed by the appropriate Government, referring the dispute raised by around 160 workmen for adjudication before the labour court.
The bench said, “Where at least one of the parties alleges that settlement is recorded under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1947, in the presence of the Conciliation Officer, and the other party disputes it, the standard of scrutiny required to be undertaken by the appropriate Government under Section 12(5) is couple of degrees higher, as compared to disputes not emanating from a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1947.”
Export Incentives Can't Be Denied For Inadvertent Error In Shipping Bill: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 9005 OF 2025 (T-CUS)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
The Karnataka High Court held that export incentives can't be denied for inadvertent error in shipping bill.
The bench opined that, …there are situations where the assessee by inadvertence or even otherwise has uploaded certificate/forms or returns which contains some errors which would require correction. The said correction or amendment cannot be denied on the basis of the technological system which has been introduced by the Department to contend that the software does not allow for such amendment…
Case Title: Archana Patil AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 12777/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (August 18) dismissed a 52-year-old woman's plea for quashing a sexual assault complaint registered by the parents of a minor boy against her under the POCSO Act, observing that the provisions of the Act apply to both men and women and thus the act is "gender neutral".
Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said “POSCO Act being a progressive enactment is intended to safe guard sanctity of childhood it is rooted in gender neutrality with its beneficient object being protection of children, irrespective of sex. The act is thus gender neutral.”
It added, “Section 3 and 5 (POCSO Act), which form the foundation of offences under sections 4 and 6 of the Act delineate various forms of assault, although certain provisions may employ gendered pronouns the preamble and the purpose of the act render such usage inclusive, therefore it is inclusive of both male and female...The ingredients of Section 4 of the Act dealing with penetrative sexual assault are equally applicable to both men and women. The language of provision clearly indicates inclusivity, the ingredients of offences the once punishable under section 4 and 6 are clearly met in the case at hand, albeit prima facie.”
Case Title: Karnataka State Pollution Control Board AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24118 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
The Karnataka High Court has directed implementation of the Government order prohibiting the manufacture, sale and immersion of plaster of paris (POP) structures and also directed the district administration, local bodies and police department to cooperate for the enforcement of the said order.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi said “The issue raised is a serious one and we expect that the State Authority shall implement the notification with all seriousness and to its full extent.”
Case Title: Munisanjeevamma & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 49527 OF 2016
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
The Karnataka High Court has held that the sale deed executed in furtherance of a decree for Specific Performance, after contesting, the stamp duty liable to be paid would not be as per the valuation of the property on the date on which the document was presented for registration and but would be on the agreement value.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “ I am of the considered opinion that merely because Sri.Khader Mohiddin came forward to execute a sale date in favour of the petitioners would not require the petitioner to make payment of the stamp duty and registration fee as per the market value on the date of presentation of the said sale date. The benefit which would be available as regards sale deed executed and registered in the course of Execution Proceedings would equally apply to a sale date voluntarily executed by judgment debtor in favour of the decree holder.”
Case title: Mohammed Shoiab AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 19674 OF 2024 (GM-FOR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.392 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
The Karnataka High Court passed a slew of directions to incorporate use of modern technology to resolve complex title disputes and protect forest areas from illegal conversion, including formation of a high level committee of various State departments' officials to oversee the implementation of its directions.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while considering a land dispute case and noticed:
"traditional, paper-based, and siloed administrative systems are inadequate to resolve complex land title conflicts. While Karnataka has made significant strides in land records modernisation, the current situation proves that digitisation alone is insufficient. The critical failure is the lack of a single, unified source of truth".
Noting the limitations of the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme as presented by the matter before it, the court noted that while records are digitised, they are not necessarily integrated.
Case Title: Eshwaramma AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.101311 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
The Karnataka High Court has said that a convict who files a parole plea, cannot be deprived of consideration for parole merely because he did not move an application for suspension of sentence or bail.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said thus while partly allowing a petition filed by Eshwaramma seeking release of her son on general parole for 90 days, sought on account of her illness.
“...it would not be required for a convict to file an application for suspension of sentence and/or bail instead of filing an application for parole.The non-filing of such an application for suspension of sentence and/or bail would not deprive the convict of consideration for parole, if such application is submitted”.
Case Title: Mohammed Shoiab AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.19674 OF 2024 (GM-FOR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.392 OF 2021.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to create a unified geospatial platform which would include digital/unified, and immutable (unchangeable) maps of all land parcels in the State by leveraging high-resolution satellite imagery from agencies like Forest Survey of India (FSI) and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said: "The foundational component must be a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based platform. This system would function as a digital, unified, and immutable map of all land parcels in the state. Leveraging high-resolution satellite imagery from agencies like the Forest Survey of India (FSI) and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), this platform is digitally demarcating and geotagging all notified forest boundaries as per historical gazette notifications, as also conducting forest cover mapping using remote sensing data to monitor the status of forests at the state level. This unified map would then have to be integrated with all other land-related data, including the Revenue Department's cadastral maps, the Urban Planning Authority's master plans, and all other public and private land records".
Case Title: Lakshmavva Goshellanavar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.102208 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
The Karnataka High Court has asked the Managing Director of North West Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC) to formulate a humane policy for compassionate appointment of kin of deceased employees who expire during course of employment.
The court also directed the Divisional Controller KSRTC, Gadag Division (respondent no. 4) to appoint a woman, widow of deceased employee of NWKRTC, as a group D employee of the corporation, without reference to the upper age limit as per the usual terms of service conditions applicable to a class-D employee of the corporation.
The woman, sole survivor who did not have any children, had moved the high court claiming that because she had crossed the upper age limit of 45 years, her plea for appointment had been rejected by the corporation.
Case Title: K M Gangadhar AND State Of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
The Karnataka High Court upheld an order which refused to interfere with the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on a Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn), accused of threatening the police and interfering in police investigations, observing that there was no infirmity in procedure.
The decision came in an appeal filed by a civil judge against an order passed by high court's single judge bench. The appellant had earlier filed the writ petition before the single judge challenging an October 1, 2012 decision imposing penalty of compulsory retirement, after the enquiry officer found that the appellant had threatened a Police Inspector.
Case Title: Chooti Bee AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.101912 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
The Karnataka High Court has said that the grant of parole is a valuable right of a convict, which would also be a right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It said that the concerned authorities must apply their mind in a proper manner and pass a reasoned order on case to case basis, rather than reproducing the same grounds in all the reports which are submitted.
The court passed the order in a case where although the prison authorities had recommended parole for a convict, however the recommendation was not acted upon on account of the police report
Case Title: Shankar AND Secretary & Others
Case No: WP 23349/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
The Karnataka High Court on Saturday dismissed the petition filed by an officer bearer of Karnataka Light Music and Cultural Artists Association, challenging the decision of Police to prohibit DJ's and use of sound systems, in processions and public pandals, during Gauri Ganesh and Eid-Milad festivals.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner Shankar.
It said “The decibel levels in residential areas in daytime are required to be restricted to 55 decibel and 45 decibel at night time. It is difficult for this court to accept that use of sound systems and DJ in public places would be in compliance with the said decibel levels. We find no infirmity in issuance of circular restraining the use of sound system and DJ in public gatherings.”
Case Title: Mantavva & ANR AND The Divisional Controller.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 101661 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
The Karnataka High Court has said that if the spouse of an employee has predeceased the employee and there are no children, the mere marriage of the deceased employee cannot be a ground to reject an application for compassionate appointment to the brother of the deceased.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by Mantava and Sanganna, mother and brother of deceased employee Veeresh Mantappa Lolasar, an employee working with K.K.R.T.C, Ballari Division.
Case Title: Malurappa AND Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1222 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 287
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order which dismissed a plea by an employee of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) accused of securing an appointment on the basis of a false certificate regarding his educational qualifications.
In doing so, the high court rejected the bus driver's reliance on a BMTC circular protecting employees from dismissal on grounds of suppression, after noting that the circular did not contemplate a case where an ineligible employee has secured appointment by furnishing a forged document to satisfy the eligibility condition.
Upholding the single judge's order, a division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the petition filed by one Malurappa and said “We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”
Case Title: Seetha Nayak & Others AND Laxmi Kom Nagesh Naik
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.102555 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 288
The Karnataka High Court has said that only the defendant who has filed a written statement, in a suit seeking partition and separate possession, can seek amendment of the written statement filed by him, other defendants who have adopted the written statement are not permitted to amend it.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Seeta Nayak and others. He said “In my considered opinion, it would not be permissible for defendant No.4, who has not filed a written statement, to seek amendment of a written statement not filed by defendant No.4.”
Case Title: Subhan Khan AND Prabha Mallikarjun
Case No: ELECTION PETITION NO.3 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 289
The Karnataka High Court has said that any alleged corrupt act done by a candidate prior to being nominated for elections cannot be termed as a corrupt practice under the Representation of People Act.
For context, Section 123 of the RP Act pertains to corrupt practices, which includes bribery.
Bribery is explained as any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person with the object of inducing (a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election; (b) or an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election.
Case Title: Sanjana V Tumkur AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6014 OF 2018
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
The Karnataka High Court directed Sri Siddartha Academy of Higher Education a deemed to be University running Sri Siddhartha Medical College to pay Rs. 15 Lakh as compensation to a student for denying her admission to the MBBS course for academic year 2017-18, despite her paying fee for the first year within time.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K Manmadha Rao held thus while disposing of a petition filed by a student Sanjana V Tumkur.
“We notice that the instant case was one where the writ petitioner was not at fault and it was only on account of the illegal demand raised by respondent No.6 that she was unable to join a MBBS Course in the Academic Year 2017-2018. She had paid the first year fees before the prescribed date, she had also provided the Bank Guarantee immediately thereafter, that is, on 08.09.2017. Hence, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case, where compensation should be awarded to the petitioner by respondent No.6 College for the denial of admission for the year 2017-2018.”
Case Title: Jagrutka Karnatak Jagrutha Bharata AND The Secretary & Others
Case No: WP 33695/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 291
The Karnataka High Court today (August 28) dismissed a PIL filed seeking directions to Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and others to throw light on 'Volume 2' of Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography— My Experiments with Truth, stated to be 'missing'.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi dismissed the plea filed by an organisation namely 'Jagrutha Karnataka, Jagrutha Bharatha', which was represented by its President K N Manjunatha in person.
Case Title: S Venkateshappa AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3612/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
The Karnataka High Court has said that the transfer of a government employee would not be vitiated for being made solely at the instance or recommendation of a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA).
A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice K V Aravind said thus while dismissing the petition filed by S Venkateshappa, a Tashildar, challenging the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal rejecting his prayer to quash the impugned order of transfer and posting of respondent No.4 in his place under notification dated 31.12.2024.