Citation 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 37 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 80Nominal Index:Karnataka SC/ST, Backward Classes and Minorities Advocates Federation AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 37Rahul H M AND The Registrar (Evaluation) & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 38Newspace Research and Technologies Private Limited and Anirudh Putsala & others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 39Rajkumar Agarwal...
Citation 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 37 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
Nominal Index:
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) 78
Hanumanth N Karkun AND Honourable Minister of Finance & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
Pavan Kumar M R AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
Judgments/Orders
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.”