Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 28 To August 03, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 251 to Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 257

Nominal Index:

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

Nayeem Noor Mohamed & Anr. V. Nazim Noor Mohamed. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 257

Judgments/Orders

Labour Courts Taking 'Considerable Time' To Decide Workman's Money Recovery Plea: Karnataka HC Issues Guidelines Capping Scope Of Inquiry

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.”

Husband Need Not Prove He Was Residing Together With Wife To Claim Loss Of Dependency After Her Death In Accident: Karnataka High Court

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".

Victim Not Holding Valid Driving License Cannot Be Construed As Contributory Negligence In Accident Cases: Karnataka HC

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.”

[S.153 IPC] Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Man For Forwarding Video Of Alleged Shooting Of Cow On WhatsApp Group

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.

Conviction For 'Petty Offence' Not Enough: Karnataka High Court Gives Relief To Peon Whose Appointment Offer Was Cancelled By Sessions Court

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.”

Defaulting Director Can Be Disqualified From All Companies, S.164 Is Reasonable Restriction To Article 19(1)(g): Karnataka High Court

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.

Reliefs Requiring 'Additional Adjudication' Not Permissible Under Section 33 Of Arbitration Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title – Nayeem Noor Mohamed & Anr. V. Nazim Noor Mohamed

Case No: COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.302 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 257

The Karnataka High Court Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Justice K Manmadha has observed that an order under Section 33, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”), even of an interim nature, amounts to an arbitral award and not an interlocutory order.

The Court highlighted that the scope of Section 33, ACA was limited to a correction of a clerical or similar mistake or a recomputation or a consideration of a claim presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the arbitral award, but there is no scope for an "additional adjudication" under Section 33, ACA.