Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 330 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 341Nominal Index: Nishat R Kolyal AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 330Channappar AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 331U Mamatha AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 332Lokanna & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 333Gurunath Vadde AND State...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 330 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
Nominal Index:
Nishat R Kolyal AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
Channappar AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
U Mamatha AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
Lokanna & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 333
Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 334
Veerabhadrapa & Others AND Channappa Gowda D & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 335
Dr C Anusha AND National Board of Examinations In Medical Sciences & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 336
A Alam Pasha AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
MALLAPPA CHAYAPPA AKSHARAD AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
G Mahesh AND THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. TEKNIC EUCHNER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 339
Pramodh K AND State of Karnataka and batch. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
Muniyappa AND The Managing Director. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Nishat R Kolyal AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23759 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
The Karnataka High Court has held that no court can pass an order contrary to the regulations and norms prescribed by any University.
Justice R Devdas held thus and dismissed a mercy petition filed by a medical student seeking a direction to the authorities to permit her to appear for the 5th time to clear the Biochemistry subject examination.
The petitioner, Nisha R Kolyal, a student of Dr. Ambedkar Medical College and Hospita,l had contended that a 5th attempt may be permitted to her, although the regulation would prescribe only 4 attempts on the ground that there is only one paper remaining for her to clear.
Case Title: Channappar AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1593 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
Denying bail to a 68-year-old man who along with other accused were booked for the gang rape of a minor girl, the Karnataka High Court remarked that the act of committing sexual assault by taking advantage of the victim's poverty and her community is a "ruthless act".
Justice S Rachaiah dismissed the appeal filed by Channappar @ Rajaiah who was charged Sections 376(3)(rape of girl under 16 years), 376(2)(n)(commits rape repeatedly on the same woman), 376(DA) (Punishment for gang rape on woman under sixteen years of age) read with section 149(common object) of IPC as well as provisions of the POCSO Act and the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) ACT.
Case Title: U Mamatha AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 21648 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
The Karnataka High Court has suggested to the State Government to devise a comprehensive scheme to regulate transactions regarding purchase of land/site on converted lands which are not part of any sanctioned layouts.
A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “With increasing instances of purchasers acquiring sites in converted lands which are not part of sanctioned layouts, there is a pressing necessity for the State to devise a comprehensive scheme to regulate such transactions. Unless and until the State formulates appropriate guidelines or a regularisation mechanism consistent with the object of Section 17(2B), (Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961). Courts cannot, in individual cases, bypass the statutory mandate and issue directions contrary to law.”
Case Title: Lokanna & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106967 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 333
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that once an award under Section 30 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, is passed, it is for the Collector to as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days to deposit the amount so awarded under a general award into the bank account of the land loser unless there is a dispute as regards the title to the property acquired.
Justice Suraj Govindraj said, “Once the amount is received into the bank account of the land loser, land loser could always protest the quantum of compensation and if so protested, then the proceedings under sub-Section 1 of Section 64 could be undertaken. If no protest is made within a reasonable period of time, then it would be deemed that the land loser has received the amount as compensation into his bank account and has conceded to the quantum of compensation so awarded under Section 30.”
Case Title: Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Wp 1363/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 334
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday disposed of a PIL seeking directions to the state authorities to install additional sign boards, information boards at conspicuous places and at the places which are prone to accidents in the state highways, district highways and inter village connectivity roads of Bidar district.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha disposed of the petition filed by one Gurunath Vadde. The petitioner's counsel argued that due to insufficient signages, there are multiple road accidents.
Case Title: Veerabhadrapa & Others AND Channappa Gowda D & Others
Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 807 OF 2014
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 335
While considering a dispute involving a partition suit, the Karnataka High Court has suggested the legislature to revisit and suitably amend the Civil Procedure Code to facilitate quick resolution of final decree proceedings.
Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde said:
“When it comes to delay in court proceedings, partition suits occupy the top of the list, among various categories of litigation. The reasons are plenty. Probably one of the prime reasons is the procedure of passing the preliminary decree and final decree and providing two appeals up to the High Court (If the valuation of the plaintiff's share is less than Rs.10 lakhs), both on preliminary decree and final decree.”
Case Title: Dr C Anusha AND National Board of Examinations In Medical Sciences & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 27597 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 336
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a medical student's petition seeking a direction on the authorities to permit her to change her category from General category candidate to OBC candidate after the declaration of the results of NEET-PG 2025.
A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed the plea filed by Dr C Anusha. It said “A candidate has filled up his/her form for NEET-UG/PG belonging to a particular category and if he/she fails to correct the application form during the period provided for correction by the National Testing Agency, a candidate, after declaration of the result would not be entitled to change his/her category.”
Case title: A Alam Pasha AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 19284/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
The Karnataka Government on Thursday informed the High Court that it has withdrawn its earlier order dated August 30, 2023, authorising the State Waqf Board and its officers to issue marriage certificates to married Muslim applicants.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha in its order noted that “AGA has handed over a memo enclosing there with a Government Order, withdrawing the order impugned in the present petition. Thus the relief sought for petitioner does not survive and accordingly the petition is disposed of.”
Earlier by its order dated November 21, 2024 had kept in abeyance the impugned order. A public interest litigation filed by one A Alam Pasha had questioned the government order.
Case Title: MALLAPPA CHAYAPPA AKSHARAD AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 29267/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday disposed of a PIL seeking to restrain Maharashtra Ekikarana Samiti (MES) from observing or publicizing 'black day' on Kannada Rajyotsava (November 01) in Belagavi or any other Kannada speaking region.
Reportedly, MES is a body which has sought the merger of Belagavi district in Karnataka with Maharashtra.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha disposed of the petition filed by one Mallappa Chayappa Aksharad, stating, “Blanket orders restraining persons for holding demonstrations or protests cannot be granted.” The Court added that MES can organise any protest/demonstration/rally, only after requisite permission is obtained from the concerned authorities.
Case Title: G Mahesh AND THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. TEKNIC EUCHNER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.25658 OF 2014
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 339
The Karnataka High Court has confirmed an order passed by the labour court dismissing an employee of a private company on the grounds of misconduct after it was proved that he lodged a false complaint of assault against the senior manager of the company.
Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde dismissed the petition filed by G Mahesh and said, “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, more particularly, considering the fact that the petitioner is differently abled, with less employment opportunities, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be awarded a compensation of Rs.4,00,000. In exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India respondent is directed to pay Rs.4,00,000 to the petitioner, confirming the order of dismissal.”
Case Title: Pramodh K AND State of Karnataka and batch
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12940 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12867 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12917 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12936 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12944 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13166 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to five persons who are stated to be followers of actor Darshan, arrested for allegedly sending sexually coloured remarks, offensive and threatening messages to former MP and actress Ramya on Instagram.
The court further granted anticipatory bail to one Vikas B A.
The actress on July 28, had filed a complaint giving details of 43 accounts from which she faced harassment. She had claimed that many of the messages were from fans of Darshan. The alleged messages were sent after she shared an article on Supreme Court proceedings in the Renukaswamy murder case, in which actor Darshan is the second accused and is presently in custody.
Case Title: Muniyappa AND The Managing Director
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4426 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
The Karnataka High Court recently came to the aid of a vegetable vendor and increased the compensation amount awarded to him by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal from Rs 5, 98,300 to Rs 11,40,795.
Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha said, “For a vegetable vendor, it will be highly difficult to continue his occupation and earn in the light of loss of one of the lower limbs. For assessing the functional disability, the occupation of the claimant and the nature of duties which he is supposed to attend on a daily basis is required to be considered.”