Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 342 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 353Nominal Index:M/S. ANNAPURNESHWARI MINERALS AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 342R D Chaitra AND Directorate of Enforcement. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 343GNANESHWARA M AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 344THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND M/S DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PVT LTD. 2025 LiveLaw...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 342 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 353
Nominal Index:
M/S. ANNAPURNESHWARI MINERALS AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
R D Chaitra AND Directorate of Enforcement. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
GNANESHWARA M AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND M/S DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PVT LTD. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
Prathap Simha AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
M/S JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) PVT LTD V SRI PRASHANT RAO. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
RADHAMMA AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
SRI. ADRUSHYA KADESHWARA SWAMIJI GURU MUPPINA KADESHWARA SWAMJI AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
The Canara Bank v. The State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 350
OLIVE LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 351
Principal Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Pigeon International. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 352
EMBASSY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus ITI LIMITED. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 353
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: M/S. ANNAPURNESHWARI MINERALS AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.265 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
The Karnataka High Court has said that an application for renewal of the license of quarry lease can be made on the last day of the expiry period upto midnight and if the last day is a public holiday, then it can be made on the following day.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi held thus while allowing a petition filed by M/s Annapurneshwari Minerals who had approached the court challenging the order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the Joint Director and Revision Authority, Department of Mines and Geology, South Zone, Mysuru. The rejection was in terms of Rule 28 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.
Case Title: R D Chaitra AND Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: WP 26754/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (October 15) dismissed the petition filed by wife of Congress MLA KC Veerendra for declaring his arrest in an alleged illegal betting case under PMLA as illegal, arbitrary and violative of his fundamental rights and to release him.
Justice MI Arun said, "It is only on the ground that one FIR is alive in which 'B' report is filed that allows them (ED) to proceed."Observations made herein above are in relation to case in hand and if petitioner were to make any application for bail the same would be considered by the court in accordance with law. If the 'B' report were to be accepted by the trial court in FIR no...petitioner would be at liberty to make necessary application for quashing of proceedings against him" the court said.
Case Title: GNANESHWARA M AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 26229/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed a PIL seeking directions to the State to review and correct the Karnataka State Emblem and ensure full compliance of State Emblem of India (Prohibition Of Improper Use) Act, 2005.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha dismissed the petition filed by one Gnaneshwara M, seeking to ensure that the script 'Satyameva Jayate' is placed in its "correct statutory position" in the State Emblem, as prescribed in Appendix I and II of the 2005 Act.
The Court however, on going through the records and averments, observed, “The contention that use of the Karnataka State Emblem falls foul with Section 3 of the State Emblem Act, 2005. We find no merit in the aforesaid contention. Petition is accordingly dismissed.”
Case Title: THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND M/S DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PVT LTD.
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has no power to remand back to consider afresh the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, confirming the provisional attachment order.
A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T allowed the appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate and said “Tribunal is creation of the Statute and it exercises limited power as conferred on it, by the Statute. There is no inherent power in a Tribunal, inasmuch as the Tribunal is not a regular Court. If the Statute does not confer a power of remand, and there is no inherent power vested in the Tribunal, it cannot remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority unless it is specifically provided in the Statute itself.”
Case Title: Prathap Simha AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: Criminal Petition No 14363/2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (October 16) frowned upon police officers for filing defective chargesheets in offences related to Elections involving prominent personalities.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav observed “The seriousness with which election offences are dealt with requires to be commented upon. There is a separate chapter---Chapter IXA for offences relating to Elections in the Indian Penal Code".
The court added,“It appears to be that the officials concerned, in some matters involving prominent personalities, may resort to filing of defective chargesheets, in order that the same is set aside by the court, only to create a facade of having adhered to law. But in reality leaving a door open for the court to set it aside. Such an attitude of officials is required to be frowned upon.”
Case Title: M/S JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) PVT LTD V SRI PRASHANT RAO
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 15526 OF 2017 (L-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
The Karnataka High Court recently directed liquidation bound Jet Airways to pay back wages of ₹13,00,000, along with accrued interest, to a former employee who was dismissed from its services.
A division bench of the High Court dismissed Jet Airways' plea challenging a 2017 Industrial Tribunal order on the grounds that the workman's right to the back wages had "crystallized on the date of the award,” long before the airline underwent liquidation.
Case Title: RADHAMMA AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17723 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
The Karnataka High Court has suggested that applications seeking parole leave–which presently have to be drafted on paper and submitted physically, be permitted to be filed and processed electronically and the details of the same must be made available in electronic form.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj in his order noted that all the applications for parole are made on physical paper, are submitted physically and require a physical follow-up.
The court thus said: "The family of a prisoner may not be resident within the jurisdiction where the prisoner is incarcerated. It would therefore for this and several other factors be required that the procedure for parole in Chapter 34 of the Manual of 2021(Karnataka Prisoners and Corrections Service Manual), be e-enabled such that all applications are filed electronically, processed electronically and the details thereof are also available electronically".
Case Title: SRI. ADRUSHYA KADESHWARA SWAMIJI GURU MUPPINA KADESHWARA SWAMJI AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.203149 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
The Karnataka High Court on Friday upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapura District, restraining the Sri Adrushya Kadeshwara Swamiji Guru Muppina Kadeshwara Swamiji, from entering the territorial limits of Vijayapura District for the period from 16.10.2025 to 14.12.2025.
Following offensive remarks against Lingayat leaders, Kadasiddheshwara Swamiji of Kaneri Mutt had been banned from entering the Vijayapura district of Karnataka for two months. The restraining order was issued on October 16, after the petitioner was alleged to have made comments targeting Lingayat leaders and devotees in his speech.
SARFAESI Charge Created Before GST Charge Takes Precedence Over It: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The Canara Bank v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 103730 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 350
The Karnataka High Court held that a SARFAESI charge created prior in time takes precedence over a GST Charge.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that if there is a conflict between the GST Act and the SARFAESI Act (or the RDB Act), the priority of the charge must be determined based on the order in which the charges were created. If the charge under the GST Act was created prior to that under the SARFAESI Act, the GST Act will prevail, and vice versa.
Tax Demands Raised Post Approval Of IBC Resolution Plan Are Not Enforceable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : OLIVE LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.15951 AND 15459 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 351
The Karnataka High Court recently reiterated that tax demands raised by revenue authorities after the approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) are unenforceable if the claims were not submitted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “There is no jurisdiction to parallelly initiate proceedings and raise a demand. In the light of CIRP becoming moratorium kicking in resolution plan acceptance up to the date of CIRP, all the claims are, therefore, before the resolution professional. If there is no claim registered by the State or the Centre, they would lose the right to demand from the corporate debtor. In that light, the petitions deserve to succeed by obliteration of the impugned order.”
Mens Rea Not Prerequisite For Imposing Penalty U/S 117 Of Customs Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Pigeon International
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 7 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 352
The Karnataka High Court held that mens rea is not a prerequisite for imposing a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act. Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, addresses penalties for contraventions not specifically mentioned elsewhere in the Act.
Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind stated that a plain reading of Section 117 of the Act makes it clear that whenever any person contravenes any provision of the Act or fails to comply therewith, a penalty is attracted. Reading a requirement of mens rea into the provision would amount to rewriting the statute, which is impermissible. Since Section 117, in its plain language, does not indicate the necessity of mens rea. The contrary finding recorded by the CESTAT is incorrect and unsustainable.
Case Title: EMBASSY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus ITI LIMITED
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.303 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 353
The Karnataka High Court held that renewal of lease agreements with public sector undertakings are arbitrable and such disputes are not prohibited under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) when lessee continues in possession lawfully and the rent is being accepted by the lessor. Accordingly, the present application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator was allowed.
Justice E. S. Indiresh held that “in the instant case, the petitioner-Company is not an unauthorised occupant and further the respondent herein is receiving rents from the petitioner and proceedings initiated by the respondent by causing legal notice dated 12th September, 2025 is stayed by this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that , as the issue involved between the parties is for renewal of the lease period and same has to be adjudicated by an Arbitrator as per clause 7.7 of the Lease Deed dated 22nd June, 2008, the petition, seeking appointment of Arbitrator deserves to be allowed.”