Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 194 to Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 222Nominal Index:Puneet H R AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 194Rana George AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 195Priti Singh & Others AND Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 196Denis Crasta AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 197Harish AND State of...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 194 to Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
Nominal Index:
Puneet H R AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
Rana George AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
Priti Singh & Others AND Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
Denis Crasta AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
Harish AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Karavali Bus Owners Association & Others AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
Taha Husain AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 201.
A V Poojappa AND Dr S K Vagadevi. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
M/S SAPTHAGIRI SHELTERS AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
Manjunath V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
Smt. Manjula & Anr. vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
M/S. IMAGEX TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR AND M/S. GRAINTEC INDUSTRIES & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
Ms Suja Jones Mazurier AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
Surya Sareen AND Central Bureau of Investigation. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
Jayaram B S AND NIL. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
Bhagwan Das & Others AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
GreenPeace Environment Trust AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
Abdul Sattar AND M Khalid & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
Arumugam AND Ananda. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
Basvaraj AND K M Altaf Hussain & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
M/s Sona Synthetics & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
Prabhakaran K AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
P Vasudeva Kamath & ANR AND Jayashri R Kamath. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
Basvaraj Bommai AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
Vikas M Dev AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
Arun Kumar Alva AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
Madiga Dandora AND The State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
Sriramulu AND U Ravi Rao & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
Rachappa Satish Kumar & ANR AND M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 222.
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Puneet H R AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3429 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash prosecution intiated against a person accused of defrauding a bank, saying he cannot seek quashing of the offence solely on the ground that his name did not appear in the original complaint.
A single judge, Justice Mohammad Nawaz held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Puneet H R who is accused for offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 408, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(b) read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'I.T. Act') and Section 13(1)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Case Title: Rana George AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 30452/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
The Karnataka High Court on Monday allowed a petition filed by Rana George, son of State Energy Minister K.J. George, seeking unrestricted access to his private land located within the Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary.
A single judge, Justice M Ngaprasanna said, “The writ petition is allowed, the order dated 01.03.2024, is quashed. Madamus issued to authorities to provide unhindered access to the petitioner to access his property in accordance with law. It is made clear that the petitioner while using the property shall not damage physically or otherwise any flora or fauna in the wildlife sanctuary.”
Case Title: Priti Singh & Others AND Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1567/2024 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.498/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
The Karnataka High Court has said that in assessing just compensation, for claims made under Motor Vehicles Act, amounts that were paid to the deceased by his employer, whether as perks or any other nomenclature, should be added to his monthly income. Such monthly income forms the basis for computing compensation.
A division bench of Justice K S Mudgal and Justice K V Aravind held thus while partly allowing an appeal filed by Priti Singh and others who had questioned the compensation amount granted by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. The court modified the amount granted by the tribunal Rs 81,89,000 and increased it to Rs 2,27,32,608.
The bench said “The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the deceased was in the probationary period and that his entire salary paid could not be considered. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/-, which has no legal or logical basis.”
Case Title: Denis Crasta AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9010 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Urban Development Department to issue a circular restricting officers from granting permission allowing to put up new constructions, in and around the protected monuments, and if any permission is to be granted in tune with the statute, such permission shall precede a no objection from the Archeological Survey of India.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna added “The circular shall also indicate that permissions if granted by officers contrary to law, they would be doing so at their peril, making themselves open for initiation of a departmental enquiry.”
Case Title: Harish AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1004 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Observing that “rashness and negligence are multi-faceted concepts which cannot be comprehended and interpreted in isolation, it significantly depends on facts and circumstances of each case,” the Karnataka High Court recently acquitted an accused convicted for driving his car rashly and causing the death of a motorcyclist.
Justice Rajesh Rai K, while allowing a revision petition filed by one Harish, quashed the order passed by the trial court convicting him for offences punishable under sections 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code. He said, “The petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC.”
Case Title: Smt. Manjula & Anr. vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd & Ors.
Case No.: WP No. 10493 of 2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has held that a person who is the named Arbitrator in a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot enter reference and pass orders without the other person consenting thereto or without an order of appointment of Arbitrator by institution or a Court under Section 11 of the Act.
Case Title: Karavali Bus Owners Association & Others AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9159 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 200.
The Karnataka High Court directed the Union Ministry of Surface Transport, to undertake a review of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and insert appropriate clarificatory definitions, to address the evolving complexities of vehicular classifications and toll collection.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The legislative framework especially the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calls for a re-examination, qua the description of vehicles. The Union Ministry of Surface Transport, would do well to undertake a review and insert appropriate clarificatory definitions to address the evolving complexities of vehicular classifications and toll collections.”
The direction was issued after the court noted that while the Motor Vehicles Act defines classes of vehicles for regulatory purposes, toll classification is governed solely by the National Highways Act, the Fee Rules and the Concessionaire agreement.
Case Title: Taha Husain AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 12290/2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 201.
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday quashed proceedings initiated against a man accused of wrongfully holding a cat named Daisy belonging to the complainant, in his house.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Taha Husain who was charged for offences punishable under Sections 504(Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506(Punishment for criminal intimidation) and 509(Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the IPC on the complaint made by one Nikitha Anjana Iyer.
The petitioner had moved the high court seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.13477/2022, pending before the IV ACJ and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru.
Case Title: A V Poojappa AND Dr S K Vagadevi
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.13 OF 2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
The Karnataka High Court has laid down guidelines for trial and sessions courts to keep in mind while fixing fine amounts on a convict in cheque dishonour cases, under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: M/S SAPTHAGIRI SHELTERS AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 23086/2022 with connected matters.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
The Karnataka High Court has quashed and set aside the amendments brought into the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 in 2021 and 2023, allowing the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to collect fees and penalties at the time of sanctioning building plans.
Justice R Devdas partly allowed petitions filed by residents and builders challenging the amendments brought in by the State and the subsequent demand made by the BBMP.
“The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), is hereby quashed and set aside. The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024), is hereby quashed and set aside,” the Court ordered.
Case Title: Manjunath V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.33819 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
In another matter involving a feline, the Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of cruelty by his wife.
Earlier in its December 2024 interim order the court while staying the probe, had observed that the complaint was a narration of marriage and living together but the crux of the allegation is foundationed upon the squabble regarding the pet cat; it had then said that the allegation i that the husband takes care of the cat more than the wife. The wife after receiving notice moved a plea to vacate the stay and also filed her objections; the matter was thereafter heard.
After hearing the parties, Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order on going through the entire complaint noted that a particular paragraph in the complaint is dedicated to the pet cat in the house "which always used to cause hurt to the wife".
Case Title: M/S. IMAGEX TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD & ANR AND M/S. GRAINTEC INDUSTRIES & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 34745 OF 2024 .
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
The Karnataka High Court has said that in commercial disputes, the filing of written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be permitted beyond the limitation period of 120 days.
The court also rejected the argument of the petitioner that if the defendants had filed an application seeking extension of time before the expiry of 120 days, it should have been answered and accepted. The court said, “The said submission, to say the least, is preposterous.”
The court further substantiated its point with an illustration, "As an illustration, if the defendant who has not filed the written statement in a commercial O.S., files an application on the 119th day and seeks time, no Court including this Court cannot extend the mandate of the statute qua the limitation in filing the written statement."
Case Title: Ms Suja Jones Mazurier AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1050 OF 2017.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of the trial court acquitting a father accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter. The complaint was made by the wife of the accused.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice K S Hemalekha while dismissing the appeal filed by Suja Jones Mazurier who was the complainant in the case said “The fact that PW.4 met various NGOs, doctors and legal professionals before the alleged triggering incident on 13.06.2012 raises a serious question about the credibility of the report she filed on 14.06.2012. This timing suggests that she has been preparing to initiate legal action or build a case regardless of any specific incident on that day “
Case Title: Surya Sareen AND Central Bureau of Investigation
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5297 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against 76-year-old Surya Sareen, President and Chief Executive Officer of M/s AKON Inc, a company incorporated in the United States of America, which is accused of cheating Defence Avionics Research Establishment ('DARE') and Defence Research and Development Organization ('DRDO') by supplying faulty VO based radio frequency engines.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The case at hand is a classic illustration of prima facie offence of Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC against the petitioner and the entire issue revolves round a maze of facts, certain disputed and certain matters on record. Therefore, interference at this stage of the proceedings would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court.”
Plea Filed By Sole Legatee Seeking Probate Of Will Of Deceased Is Maintainable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Jayaram B S AND NIL
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8090 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
The Karnataka High Court has said that a petition filed by the sole legatee seeking probate of the will of the deceased is maintainable before the court.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K. Manmadha Rao held thus while allowing an appeal filed by Jayaram B S, who had challenged the order of the trial court rejecting his probate application.
The probate court had rejected a plea made by the sole legatee named in the will of his father, BT Sanjeevaiah on the grounds that the appellant was a legatee in the bid and not an executor appointed under the Will, the Probate Court has declined to grant probate.
Case Title: Bhagwan Das & Others AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 4478 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of 16 contract workers employed in the water supply department of Mangalore Mahanagara Palike, and it has directed the corporation to regularise their services.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the petition filed by Bhagwan Das and others and said “The order of regularization is to be passed within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
The petitioner had approached the court seeking to set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12.12.2019, whereby the petitioner's service is not regularised.
Karnataka High Court Quashes ED Complaint Against Greenpeace NGO For Alleged FEMA Violations
Case Title: GreenPeace Environment Trust AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 5691 OF 2021 (GM-FE) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 4711 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the complaint and show cause notice issued by the Enforcement Directorate to NGO Greenpeace Environment Trust, Greenpeace India Society, in an alleged case of violation of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “The show cause notice dated 25.02.2020 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A in both the petitions are quashed. The complaint dated 25.02.2019 filed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-B in both the petitions are quashed.”
Case Title: Abdul Sattar AND M Khalid & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.2867/2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that defendants in a suit filed seeking permanent injunction cannot raise a counterclaim by amending the written statements after framing of issues by the trial court.
A single judge, Justice Vijaykumar A Patil held thus while allowing the petition filed by Abdul Sattar who had approached the court questioning a trial court order allowing the application filed by the defendants M Khalid and others under Section Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Case Title: Arumugam AND Ananda
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1021 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
The Karnataka High Court has said that drawer of the cheque can't escape prosecution on the ground that a premature complaint for cheque dishonour was filed against him before expiry of statutory period of 15 days as per the mandate of Section 138(c) of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar in his order said “Drawer of the cheque cannot be allowed to escape from prosecution merely on a technical count that a premature complaint was filed against him before expiry of the statutory period of 15 days as per the mandate of Section 138(c) of N.I. Act. Such a drawer of the cheque is liable to be prosecuted in a second successive complaint filed on the same facts by the holder of the cheque. The drawer of the cheque would not be absolved from penal consequences of dishonouring of cheque issued by him/her.”
Case Title: Basvaraj AND K M Altaf Hussain & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101342 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101341 OF 2017 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101568 OF 2017 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101569 OF 2017.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
The Karnataka High Court recently came to the rescue of a bus owner who was asked by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to compensate the victims of an accident that occurred while the bus was plying beyond its permit route.
Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar noted that the bus was carrying out relief works and hence, the owner cannot be asked to pay compensation by exonerating the Insurance company.
It observed, “The offending vehicle was used as a relief vehicle. Therefore, there is no fundamental breach proved so as to exonerate the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, in this regard, has committed an error...mere deviation of rules in the circumstances as above discussed is not amounting to fundamental breach so as to exonerate the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the owner.”
Case Title: M/s Sona Synthetics & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3935 OF 2008 (GM-KEB) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.1644 OF 2009.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
The Karnataka High Court has declared Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1959, as amended by Act No.7 of 2003 and Act 40 No.5 of 2004, imposing tax on "minimum tariff" electricity charges, as unconstitutional.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has also held that “Supply of electricity to the consumer to ensure availability of electricity for consumption, does not amount to consumption or sale, unless the electricity consumed by the consumer and the State has no legislative competence under Entry No.53, List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India to levy tax on minimum tariff. The State is competent to levy tax under Entry No.53, List II of Seventh Schedule only on actual consumption or sale of electricity.”
Case Title: Prabhakaran K AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10284 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
The Karnataka High Court has said that a scooter owner in whose name the RC is standing and which has met with a fatal accident cannot seek quashing of criminal offence registered against him on ground that he had already sold the vehicle.
Justice J M Khazi thus rejected the petition filed by Prabhakaran K, charged for offence punishable under section 279 and 304-A (causing death by negligence) IPC, following the death of a woman while riding the scooter registered in his name.
The bench said “It is not in dispute that as on the date of accident, accused No.2 was the owner of the scooter. Though he has claimed that he sold the scooter to the complainant and the complainant has released the said vehicle into his interim custody, still the RC is standing in the name of accused No.2. For all practical purposes, he is the owner of the scooter in question. In the light of the prima facie material, accused No.2 cannot seek quashing of the criminal proceedings.”
Case Title: P Vasudeva Kamath & ANR AND Jayashri R Kamath
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9697 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that Commercial Court need not refer parties to pre-institution mediation under Section 12A Commercial Courts Act, where suit was earlier presented before the competent civil Court which had initiated efforts for mediation but subsequently the plaint was returned on grounds of lack of civil court's jurisdiction.
For context, Section 12A mandates pre-institution mediation and settlement between parties before a suit can be instituted. It reads that a suit which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation and settlement.
Karnataka High Court Quashes FIRs Against Ex-CM Basavaraj Bommai For Comment On Waqf Properties
Case Title: Basvaraj Bommai AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 12164/2024 & Criminal Petition No 12183/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed two criminal cases registered against former Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai accusing him of making objectionable statements during a protest rally held to condemn the actions of Waqf Board and State Government in allegedly grabbing the properties of farmers and temples.
Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition filed by Bommai and quashed the proceedings initiated under sections 196(1)(a) of the BNS by the Shiggaon police station.
Case Title: Vikas M Dev AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24162 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
The Karnataka High Court has ordered registration of medical negligence FIR against two doctors attached to private hospitals, including Fortis, for allegedly operating on a man without proper consent.
One Vikas Dev alleged that the first accused doctor at Bengaluru based GM Hospital obtained his consent for inserting a catheter on the right side of his father's body but the procedure was done on the left side. As the father's condition deteriorated, he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, where his father succumbed to cardiac arrest while being operated on by the second accused doctor, again without consent.
Case Title: Arun Kumar Alva AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14015 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to frame necessary guidelines in order to bring clarity regarding eligibility for remission when claimed on the ground of good behaviour, discipline and participation in institutional activities, under Section 166 (1) (e) of the Prison Manual.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav said “In order to ensue consideration of remission under Section 166 (i) (e), necessary guidelines will have to be framed by the State Government in order to bring clarity regarding eligibility for remission when claimed on the ground of good behaviour, discipline and participation in institutional activities...Till the Government frames guidelines and take steps either to amend the Prison Manual or frame the Rules, a Circular may be issued in order to consider the claims for remission by the Department which would be in the nature of executive instructions that would mould the field.”
Case Title: Madiga Dandora AND The State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.201685 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
In lauding the communal harmony exhibited by people in the border area of Hyderabad and Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court has observed, “The salvation of the country lies in identifying human beings as a human being and as an Indian with the other identities playing a secondary role.”
Justice M I Arun pointed out that Yadgiri District, which is a part of Hyderabad Karnataka area, celebrates communal harmony, which is generally found in Hyderabad-Karnataka area. This includes the participation of both Hindus and Muslims in the festivals of each other's communities.
It said “The institutions like Sharanabasaveshwar Temple, Khaja Bandanawaz Dargah, are examples of the communal harmony, which can be followed by the entire country...In tune with the communal harmony, Muharram festival of the Muslim community is also celebrated by Hindus, wherein certain Hindu Deities are also worshipped by both Muslims and Hindus during the festival.”
Case Title: Sriramulu AND U Ravi Rao & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3281 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
The Karnataka High Court has said that a caretaker of the property continues in possession of the property only on behalf of the owners and cannot be held to have acquired any interest in the property and is under an obligation to handover possession to the defendants on demand.
Justice C M Poonacha held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by one Sriramulu who had challenged the order of the trial court rejecting his application seeking a temporary injunction against the defendants from interfering in his possession and also restrain them from alienating the suit property.
The bench said “The Trial Court having appreciated the relevant factual matrix and having rejected the application filed for injunction by the plaintiff, the appellant has failed in demonstrating that the said order is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal.”
Case Title: Rachappa Satish Kumar & ANR AND M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13365 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 222.
The Karnataka High Court has said that orders of temporary injunctions can be granted only against those who are made defendants in the suit and restraining orders against third parties who are not made parties to the suit cannot be granted.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by journalist Rachappa Sathish Kumar and M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited who had challenged an ex-parte temporary injunction order passed by the City Civil and Sessions Court whereby it directed blocking of Btv Kannada's social media page in April this year by all social media platforms.
The high court said “Temporary injunctions can be granted only against those who are made defendants in the suit. Restraint orders against third parties who are not made parties to the suit cannot be granted by any cannon of law. While litigants may make or may not make certain parties as defendants, though seeking a prayer against those persons, but, the concerned Court cannot blissfully ignore the law and pass the orders of the kind that is now passed.”