Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 223 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 256Nominal Index: B S Gupta AND The Commissioner & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 223Devibai AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 224Ranjith Balkrishnan AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 225C Bhavani @Hamsa AND The Petitions Committee Karnataka Legislative Council & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 226M/S....
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 223 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
Nominal Index:
B S Gupta AND The Commissioner & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
Devibai AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
Ranjith Balkrishnan AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
C Bhavani @Hamsa AND The Petitions Committee Karnataka Legislative Council & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
M/S. KALPATHARU BREWERIES & DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
Muthulaxmi B N AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
Venugopal Krishnamurthy & ANR AND M Tejaswini. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
Suresh Babu C AND V Varadarajan & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
Mohamed Umar Seeni Ariff Khan & ANR AND Mrs Tanzia Bano. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
M/S. VISWAS TEXTILE PROCESSORS AND ICICI BANK LIMITED & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 232
Prajwal Revanna AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
Dr Manjunath R AND The Secretary To Government of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
Rohit Jawa AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
Abhishek Mishra AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
Asif & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
Balakrishna K P & ANR AND K P Puttaraju & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 238
M Sharadamma & Others AND Kiran Kumar & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 239
Ansari AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 240
M/s Banavathy & Company AND Mahaveer Electro Mech (P) Ltd & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 241
Vishwas K S AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 242
Jagadish Devdas Anchan AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 243
Century Club AND S Umapathy & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 244
M D Devamma AND K V Kalavathi & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 245
Mustafa & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 246
State of Karnataka AND Nagesh. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 247
M/s Muni Naga Reddy HUF v. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 248
Google India Pvt. Ltd vs Nayana Krishna. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 249
M/s Alstom Transport India Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 250
K M Gurushivakumar AND LIC Of India & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 251
Ningappa AND PRABHATBHAI & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 252
Shivegowda AND Nanjeshgowda & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 253
Vivek Kariappa C K AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 254
Chief Administrative Officer & ANR AND Mallappa Basappa Sajjan. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 255
Dilipraj Pukkella & ANR AND Union of India & OThers. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
Judgment/Orders
Case Title: B S Gupta AND The Commissioner & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 46688 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an advertisement tax demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to an educational institution for displaying non-commercial signage and boards on its own property.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing the petition filed by BS Gupta, Secretary of Gupta Education Trust, who had challenged the legality/validity of the order issued by BBMP, under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.
The court said “This Court is of the view that power to levy advertisement tax under Section 134 of the Act must be strictly confined to displays that fall within the statutory definition of advertisement under the above said section, which necessitates a commercial or promotional character. The signage in question or hoardings being a non-commercial institutional identifier does not meet this threshold.”
Case Title: Devibai AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200940 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
The Karnataka High court has said that in absence of any violation of bail conditions, the order of Sessions Court granting bail to an accused cannot be sought to be cancelled before the High Court by filing an application under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023.
A Single judge, Justice V Srishananda held thus while dismissing the petition filed by the mother of a rape victim, challenging grant of bail to the accused charged under provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). It was her case that grant of bail for such a serious offence had resulted in miscarriage of justice.
The court said “Even though concurrent powers vested in this Court along with the Special Court or the Sessions Court to grant or cancel the bail, the application seeking cancellation of bail shall not be construed as if it is an appeal over the order of grant of bail. Even in BNSS, 2023, no such provision is carved out by the legislature so as to vest the power of either revision or appeal over the discretionary order of grant of bail.”
Karnataka High Court Quashes Man's Sexual Assault Complaint Against Malayalam Film Director Ranjith
Case Title: Ranjith Balkrishnan AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 32231/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed the criminal case filed by a man against Malayalam film director Ranjith Balkrishnan alleging sexual harassment.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition and quashed the case registered for offences under Section 377 (unnatural sex) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The complainant, claiming to be an aspiring actor, alleged that he was called into the hotel room in Bangalore by Ranjith and was subjected to sexual harassment.
Case Title: C Bhavani @Hamsa AND The Petitions Committee Karnataka Legislative Council & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 30129 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a direction issued by the Petition Committee of the Karnataka Legislative Council regarding the alleged encroachment of a public road in Rajakaluve.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by C Bhavani @Hamsa and quashed the directive issued by the Committee on March 8, 2017. It said “The impugned direction dated 8.3.2017 issued by the Respondent No.1, is hereby quashed.”
Case Title: M/S. KALPATHARU BREWERIES & DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.26031 OF 2017 (LB - RES) C/W Others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Gram Panchayat cannot levy or collect property taxes in respect of Industrial establishments located within areas notified by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). Mere execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement or any administrative communication cannot vest power in the Gram Panchayat to levy tax in the absence of express delegation or statutory backing.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a batch of petitions and quashing the demand notices issued by the Sompura Gram Panchayat levying property tax on the industrial property of the petitioners located within the notified industrial area established and maintained by the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB).
Case Title: Muthulaxmi B N AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.10897 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
"Justice Delayed Is Justice Dented", said the Karnataka High Court while imposing exemplary cost of Rs 2 Lakh on the Chairman, members of District Caste and Income Verification Committee of Hassan District for refusing to issue a caste and income certificate to an assistant Public Prosecutor, despite the law being settled on this aspect.
The court underscored that the cost will be paid to the lawyer out of their own funds and not from State's funds, observing that the imposition of such cost is to be seen as a cautionary call to those who hold public office that dereliction cloaked in ignorance shall find no refuge before court.
Case Title: Venugopal Krishnamurthy & ANR AND M Tejaswini
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.21479 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
"Judicial discretion must not be exercised in favour of a party indulging in contumacious defiance. No party has a right to be heard on merits, when interim orders are violated with impunity,” said the Karnataka High Court while quashing a trial court order which rejected a landlord' plea to strike off the tenant's defence in an eviction suit.
Noting that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent for the last five years despite court orders, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the application filed by property owner Venugopal Krishnamurthy. The bench said,
Case Title: Suresh Babu C AND V Varadarajan & ANR
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1340 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
The Karnataka High Court has held that the moment a landlord files a counter-claim seeking ejectment preceded by a statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the very foundation of the tenant's suit for injunction alleging unlawful dispossession collapses.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by a tenant, Suresh Babu C, challenging the trial court order which held that in a bare suit for injunction filed by the appellant/tenant, the respondents/landlords are entitled to seek relief of ejectment by filing a counter claim.
Case Title: Mohamed Umar Seeni Ariff Khan & ANR AND Mrs Tanzia Bano
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2025 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 332 OF 2025 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2025 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 489 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
The Karnataka High Court has said that provisions of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, must be interpreted in a purposive and inclusive manner, to not exclude genuine relationships from legal protection, simply due to procedural irregularities.
Justice Ramachandra D Huddar further clarified that “Even if a marriage is not registered under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, it can still be treated as valid marriage under Indian law for interim purposes, particularly when party asserting the marriage supports it with documents such as photos, proof of residence, joint account or correspondence.”
Case Title: M/S. VISWAS TEXTILE PROCESSORS AND ICICI BANK LIMITED & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17588 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 232
The Karnataka High Court has said that misappropriation of funds, or loss of funds from a customer's 'current account' maintained by a banking institution, is a commercial dispute and the customer's recovery suit against the bank is maintainable before the Commercial Court.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing the petition filed by M/s. Viswas Textile Processors. The petitioner had approached the court against an order passed by the Commercial Court dated August 30, 2022, holding that the petitioner's recovery suit was not maintainable before it.
“The suit instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff for misappropriation of funds, or loss of funds from the current account maintained by the banking institution, based on the withdrawals of money by defendant No.3 by encashing forged cheques would become the subject matter of a commercial dispute, as it is arising from the ordinary transaction between the petitioner-plaintiff and defendant No.1 - banking institution.”
Case Title: Prajwal Revanna AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition 3292/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday relegated former JD(S) MP Prajwal Revanna to the Sessions Court for seeking regular bail in the alleged rape and sexual assault case against him. The court has, however, granted him liberty to approach HC after exhausting his remedy in the trial court.
Dealing with his second successive bail plea, a bench of Justice SR Krishna Kumar directed that if Revanna moves the Sessions Court, his plea must be disposed of within 10 days. The single judge passed this order after extensively hearing arguments from both sides for several weeks.
"In my considered opinion, in the facts of the case and circumstances it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to exhaust his remedy before the trial court and reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to approach this court thereafter," the single judge observed in its order disposing Revanna's plea.
Case Title: Dr Manjunath R AND The Secretary To Government of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.15289 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
The Karnataka High Court set aside the of termination of a guest lecturer appointed to Department of Journalism and Mass Communication in Bengaluru North University Kolar, after he made a statement in the press on grants sanctioned to Kolar District claiming that these were not properly utilised by the officials.
Justice H T Narendra Prasad allowed the petition filed by Dr Manjunath R and quashed the termination order issued dated 09.04.2025 passed by Vice Chancellor, relieving the petitioner from the post of temporary Guest Lecturer in the University and also ordered not to accept his application for appointment to the post of Guest Lecturer in the respondent – University, for three years.
Case Title: Rohit Jawa AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8536 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against Rohit Jawa, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Hindustan Unilever Ltd under Food Safety and Standards Act, after certain allegedly "unsafe" samples of Horlicks biscuits were purportedly recovered from a person's house.
Case Title: Abhishek Mishra AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.8596 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
The Karnataka High Court recently dropped charges of stalking levelled against a man saying that merely sending text messages to the complainant (victim) containing foul language does not constitute the offence of stalking under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Section 354-D deals with stalking. Any man who follows a woman and contacts or attempts to contact such a woman to foster personal interaction or monitors the woman on the internet, email or electronic communication commits the offence of stalking.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while partly allowing the petition filed by one Abhishek Mishra who had approached the court seeking quashing of a criminal case registered against him.
It said, “Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 354D i.e., stalking is concerned, the allegation against the petitioner and the complainant is of sexual acts. Mere sending messages between the two or exchange of messages which contained profanity would not amount to stalking. Therefore, the offence of stalking is loosely laid against the petitioner.”
Case Title: Asif & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201594 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
The Karnataka High Court has asked the State Government to frame rules under Section 174 BNSS which mandates the police officer to lodge information on the commission of a non-cognizable offence in a book, in such form as prescribed under the relevant rules framed by the state government.
The court said this after noting that even though BNSS came into force from July 1, 2024 till date no such rules have been framed by the state.
Case Title: Balakrishna K P & ANR AND K P Puttaraju & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.51712/2019
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 238
The Karnataka High Court has said that the exercise of power by the trial Court to consider the application for police protection is an inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court may pass such an order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
A single judge, Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil held thus and issued guidelines to be followed by trial courts while considering the application made seeking police protection by the plaintiff in a suit. It said, “I am of the view that the consideration of the application filed for police protection before the trial Court shall be based on various factors like:
Case Title: M Sharadamma & Others AND Kiran Kumar & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.50575/2019
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 239
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order of the trial court which allowed an application filed by a plaintiff in a suit filed for specific performance of contract, seeking to summon the defendant in the case as a witness.
The Trial Court had concluded that any party to the suit can be summoned as a witness and allowed the application as per Rule 21 of Order XVI (summoning and attendance of witnesses) CPC. The defendants in the suit M Sharadamma and others had approached the high court challenging trial court's 12-09-2019 order.
Case Title: Ansari AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100081/2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 240
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the order of the trial court sentencing a 27-year-old man to undergo 20 years ' rigorous imprisonment after convicting him for offences under Section 377 (Unnatural offence) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
A single judge, Justice J M Khazi, dismissed the appeal filed by Ansair Khasim Jingru, who had challenged the trial court order dated 24-11-2022 convicting him.
It said “The examination of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution clearly establishes the allegations made against the accused. The trial Court on detailed and thorough analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution has come to a correct conclusion that the accused has committed the offences alleged and convicted and sentenced him. The conclusions arrived at by the trial Court is consistent with the evidence on record and this Court finds no perversity calling for interference.”
Case Title: M/s Banavathy & Company AND Mahaveer Electro Mech (P) Ltd & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 996 OF 2016
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 241
The Karnataka High Court has said that trial courts, while passing an order of sentence in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, after determining the fine/compensation, shall also pass orders to pay future interest on the compensation amount payable to the complainant, so that even if the matter is challenged, the complainant will be protected.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar said, “In view of Section 143(3) the trial for offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act has to be completed within six months. If the said provision is not adhered to and the trial for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act takes 4 to 5 years, in the mean time, the claim of the complainant for recovery of the cheque amount by filing civil suit becomes barred by limitation...Not only that the accused who is convicted for offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act challenges the same before the Sessions Court wherein the matter takes 2 to 3 years. The accused unsuccessful in the said appeal prefers revision petition before the High Court and it is seen that the disposal of revision takes more than 5 years. After all this, if the complainant has to receive the fine/compensation as awarded by the trial Court, if it is a cheque amount or little higher than the cheque amount, he will be at loss and put to injustice.”
Case Title: Vishwas K S AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.20895 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 242
"All sports are equal; the sportspersons of all sports are also equal; the effort they put is equal, it is unfortunate that the State pampers only a few sports and leaves the other sportsmen in the lurch," said the Karnataka High Court while directing the State to release over Rs 1 Lakh to a para-swimmer who was denied cash awards.
Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order passed on Monday (July 21) allowed a petition filed by Para athletics swimmer, Vishwas K S–who lost both his arms at a tender age–who had approached the court after his several representations to secure cash incentive from the state were not acted upon.
Case Title: Jagadish Devdas Anchan AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4470 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.8628 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 243
Refusing to quash a cheating case against a hotelier and kitchen steward accused of creating fake Aadhar Cards and usurping vacant properties in Mangalore in connivance with officials of the sub-registrar office, the Karnataka High Court expressed its concern at the involvement of public servants remarking it was a cause of public concern.
While dismissing the petitions filed by Jagadish Devdas Anchan and Nityanand Kundar Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order said: "Diving back to the facts of this case, this Court is aghast at the audacity of the attempt. The connivance of public servants in facilitating the crime, if proven, renders the matter one not of private grievance, but of public concern. The civil suit, pending though it may be, cannot eclipse the penal consequences, of what appears to be a serious offence, as the narrative in the case at hand unfolds not merely a tale of civil discord, but a systematic and deliberate fraud having all hues of a crime. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to observe that there cannot be foreclosure of investigation, in a case where a criminal enterprise is disguised as land transaction. The machinery of law must not be paralyzed in the face of carefully orchestrated deception. It, in fact, has all the hues and shades of a thrilling potboiler. These are matters which would require an investigation, in the least"
Case Title: Century Club AND S Umapathy & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 13336 OF 2018
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 244
The Karnataka High Court has held that Bengaluru's Century Club, which is situated abutting Cubbon Park and is built on land granted by the then Maharaja of Mysore in 1913, is public authority under the Right To Information Act and is thus bound to furnish information.
Dismissing the Club's petition against an order directing it to provide information under the Act, Justice Suraj Govindaraj in his order said: “The grant of land on which petitioner club is situated would amount to a substantial contribution of financing by the State, made by the then Maharaja of Mysore, for making the RTI Act applicable to the petitioner club.”
Case Title: M D Devamma AND K V Kalavathi & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3988 OF 2025 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4004 OF 2025 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4118 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 245
The Karnataka High Court has said that posthumous registration of the Will is not indicative of fraud. The Registration Act permits such registration and does not prescribe any outer limit for registering it.
Justice Ramachandra D Huddar held thus while allowing the appeals filed by M D Revanna and others. It said “In the present case, the Will bears the signature of the testator and is a registered document. The fact of a posthumous registration is legally valid, and does not, in itself, render the Will suspicious. The findings of the Trial Court that the Will is "dubious" for having been registered after the death, demonstrate a flawed understanding of statutory provisions and run counter to the established principles of testamentary law”.
Case Title: Mustafa & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 101905 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 246
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against three muslim persons who were accused of distributing pamphlets promoting the teaching of Islam and verbally explaining their religious beliefs at a Hindu temple.
The accused were charged under Sections 299, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5 of Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022. The court held that they had not committed any offence under the aforesaid statutes, since they did not make any attempt to convert any individuals to Islam.
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND Nagesh
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100570 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 247
The Karnataka High Court has said that DNA reports cannot be solely relied on to convict the accused who is charged for offences punishable under provisions of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
A division bench of Justice R Nataraj and Justice Rajesh Rai K held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by prosecution challenging a trial court order dated 27-08-2021, acquitting the accused Nagesh who was charged for offences punishable under 376(2) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO.
The court said, “Except the DNA report, absolutely no other corroborative piece of evidence is available on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The victim herself firmly stated that the accused did not have any sexual intercourse with her. She is not aware who the father of her child is. Even her parents and relatives also deposed similarly. In such circumstances, the DNA report cannot be solely relied on to convict the accused.”
Case Title: M/s Muni Naga Reddy HUF v. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 12543 OF 2025 (T-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 248
The Karnataka High Court has directed the GST department to establish tracking system for notices sent to the taxpayers via email
Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that it is required for the department to establish a system to ascertain delivery of e-mail notices, when the said e-mail was opened and when the email was read.
In this case, the assessee/petitioner has challenged the adjudication orders under 73 of CGST Act, 2017 for the period April 2020- March 2021. The assessee submitted that the orders has been passed without issuance of any notice to them.
Case title - Google India Pvt. Ltd vs Nayana Krishna
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.22125/2019
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 249
The Karnataka High Court has observed that Google India Private Limited cannot be sued for alleged defamatory content posted or broadcast on platforms operated by Google LLC or YouTube, as these are distinct legal entities.
With this, a bench of Justice Vijaykumar A Patil allowed Google India's writ plea seeking its deletion from a defamation suit pending in Bengaluru Court, observing that no specific allegations were made against it in the plaint.
The single judge was essentially hearing Google India's plea seeking its deletion as defendant no. 6 in the suit. The plea also challenged the order passed in February 2019 under Order 1 Rule 10 [Court may strike out or add parties] by LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
IGST Not Leviable On Secondment Of Employee From Overseas Group Companies: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Alstom Transport India Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.1779 OF 2025 (T-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 250
The Karnataka High Court held that IGST is not leviable on secondment arrangement with overseas entities. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was addressing the issue of whether a secondment constitutes a taxable supply of manpower services or a non-taxable employer-employee relationship exempt under Schedule III of the CGST Act.
In this case, the during the period from July 2017 to March 2023, the assessee avers that employees of its overseas group companies were seconded to work in India for a fixed tenure.
Case Title: K M Gurushivakumar AND LIC Of India & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15186 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 251
Taking note of the "considerable time" taken by labour courts in deciding workman's plea for recovery of money due from employer, the Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines for expeditious adjudication of applications made by workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde in his order said: “This Court has also taken note of considerable time taken by the Tribunals or Labour Courts in deciding application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, 1947. It is also noticed that many times enquiry is held without ascertaining the actual disputed claim and the admitted claim. In this process, even compliance of the undisputed terms of the award gets delayed.”
Case Title: Ningappa AND PRABHATBHAI & ANR
Case No: MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202819 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 252
The Karnataka High Court has said that residing together cannot be added as an additional condition which is to be established by a claimant in order to be entitled for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground of loss of dependency
Justice Ravi V Hosmani said this while modifying the order of the tribunal which had refused the claim made by the husband seeking compensation on the grounds of loss of dependency after his wife died in a road accident. The court said, "Residing together cannot be added as additional condition to be established by claimant in order to be entitled for compensation. Burden to establish separation would be on Insurer".
Case Title: Shivegowda AND Nanjeshgowda & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.617 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 253
The Karnataka High Court has held that contributory negligence cannot be attributed to the rider of a motorcycle who meets with a road accident, only because he was not holding a driving license to ride his vehicle.
A single judge Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha said “Only because the appellant was not holding driving license to ride his vehicle which is involved in the accident it cannot be held that he contributed to the accident to occur when all other convincing evidence speaks that the rider of the other vehicle which is involved in the accident was solely at fault.”
Case Title: Vivek Kariappa C K AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9436 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 254
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against a man who was booked by the police for forwarding a video on a WhatsApp group, showing a person allegedly shooting a cow, and the writing that the said shooting was incorrect.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition and quashed the case filed against 29-year-old Vivek Kariappa C K, who was charged for offences punishable under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Chief Administrative Officer & ANR AND Mallappa Basappa Sajjan
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 255
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a single judge's order which had set aside a communication issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kollar cancelling the offer of appointment to the post of 'Peon' in the Judicial Department of Kolar District.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the appeal filed by the Chief Administrative Office, of the Principal District and Sessions court, and said:
“We concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that conviction for a petty offence would not be a ground for cancelling the offer of appointment. It is also well-settled that non-disclosure of a conviction for petty offence, does not necessarily provide sufficient ground for cancellation of an appointment.”
Case Title: Dilipraj Pukkella & ANR AND Union of India & OThers
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3465 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 164 of the Companies Act 2013, an individual can be disqualified from being a Director in a company against which allegations are made, as well as regarding any other company in which the individual is a director against whom no allegations are made.
The petitioner directors had argued that they had been disqualified from the company–M/s Vihaan, as regards which allegations have been made, but also as regards any other company, and that they cannot be disqualified as an interim measure from all companies.