- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Karnataka High Court
- /
- Karnataka High Court Quarterly...
Karnataka High Court Quarterly Digest: July To September 2025
Mustafa Plumber
22 Oct 2025 10:00 AM IST
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 223 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 324Nominal 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) 324
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
Nayeem Noor Mohamed & Anr. V. Nazim Noor Mohamed. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
Murali Krishna R AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 258
State of Karnataka & ANR AND Mahaboob Patel. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 259
Vijayeendra G Muddebihalkar & Others AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 260
Vijay Mahantesh Mathapati & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
Ms. Sumita Abhishek Sundaram v. Sankalpan Infrastructure Private Limited. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
Sivagami N AND M/s Vinayaka Travels & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
Santosh Yamanappa Wadakar AND State of Karnataka & Others 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
Suhas L AND The Chief Registrar Births And Deaths & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
Spunklane Media Private Limited AND Harshendra Kumar D. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 267
Murali Krishna Brahmandam AND Chief Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 268
Girish Bharadwaj & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 269
Jayalakshmi M AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 270
PIO & THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NIRMITI KENDRA AND THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 271
Muzammil Kazi & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 272
Assistant Director, ESI Corporation AND M/s. Sansera Engineering P Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
Ramamurthy C K & Others AND Bosch Limited & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
Archana Patil AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
Munisanjeevamma & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
Mohammed Shoiab AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
Eshwaramma AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
Mohammed Shoiab AND State of Karnataka & Others 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
Lakshmavva Goshellanavar AND State of Karnataka & Others 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
K M Gangadhar AND State Of Karnataka & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
Chooti Bee AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
Shankar AND Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
Case Title: Mantavva & ANR AND The Divisional Controller. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
Malurappa AND Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 287
Seetha Nayak & Others AND Laxmi Kom Nagesh Naik. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 288
Subhan Khan AND Prabha Mallikarjun. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 289
Sanjana V Tumkur AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
Jagrutka Karnatak Jagrutha Bharata AND The Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 291
S Venkateshappa AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
C Naveen Kumar & Other AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
Deepa Angadi AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
G Satyanarayana Varma AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
Hareesh AND A S Umesh & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
K J Jaljakshi AND The Honourable Chairman. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
Dadapeer Bhanuvalli AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
Mrs Maheshwari M AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited AND Malathi B & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
SRI HONNESHWARASWAMY DEVASTHANA JEERNODHARA SEVA SAMITHI TRUST (R) AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
Chandrappa AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
Sunil H Bohra & Others AND Assistant Commissioner & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
State Bank of India AND M/s Swait Agencies & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
Vikas Kumar S J AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Prathap Simha v. State of Karnataka and Batch. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
Shaik Nowshera AND M/s 1-Help Technology And Software Solution Pvt Ltd & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
DR. SHIVANANDAPPA DODDAGOUDAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
K.S MANJUNATH GOWDA AND K.Y.NANJE GOWDA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
Syeda Neelfur AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
Sailen Das AND State By Kodigehalli Police Station & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
M/s BEE JAY Engineers v. Commercial Tax Officer. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
M/s NCS Pearson INC. v. Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
X & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Agency & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
TTK Prestige Limited AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
SHARADA ACHAR AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
PRAJWAL REVANNA AND STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
X CORP AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
Krishnamurthy AND The Director UIDAI & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
Dror Shlomo Goldstein AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
X CORP AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
Syed Parveez Mushraff AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
DODDAGIRIYAPPACHARI AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
Judgments/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.
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.
Case Title: Murali Krishna R AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.204 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 258
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the corruption case registered against a driver attached to the Chief General Manager of BESCOM, for merely keeping a bag containing bribe in the Manager's car on his instruction.
Noting that the demand and acceptance of bribe were made by the Manager who was booked as the first accused, Justice M Nagaprasanna held it is unfair to prosecute the "humble contract employee" who was just 40 days into service and was merely following instructions.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & ANR AND Mahaboob Patel
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.202187 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 259
The Karnataka High Court has directed authorities concerned to decide applications received for Compassionate Appointment within a maximum period of 90 days, from date of receipt of the application.
A division bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz And Justice K S Hemalekha said, “Compassionate appointment matters being a welfare measure designed to provide immediate financial relief to bereaved families, the State bears a high duty of procedural fairness."
Karnataka High Court Asks Centre To Check If Regulations Are Needed To Curb 'Profile Funding' Scam
Case Title: Vijayeendra G Muddebihalkar & Others AND Union of India & Others.
Case No: WP 23590/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 260
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (August 5) asked the Union Ministry of Finance to take note of the petitions filed by persons claiming to be victims of 'Profile Funding' and see whether regulations are to be put in place.
For context, profile funding is an alleged scam wherein victims are purportedly promised by scammers that the victims' bank account will be funded based on the their profile, in lieu of personal and financial details. Victims are allegedly told that their profiles will be used for applying for loans.
Justice B M Shyam Prasad while dictating his order said “This court must also state that petitions of this nature are too frequent to be ignored and the Secretary of Ministry of Finance, Union of India must take note of the same, to see whether regulations must be put in place.”
Case title: Vijay Mahantesh Mathapati & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 200873 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
The Karnataka High Court has struck down Rule 6 of Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules 2006, wherein a victim can directly approach a sessions court in a private complaint instead of Commission conducting an inquiry, holding it to be unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
For context, Rule 6 states that a victim of an offence arising out of violation of human rights, his legal representative, or a registered NGO or a public person may file a complaint against a public servant who has committed or abetted the commission of such an offence. The Court on receipt of such a complaint, shall either order an investigation into the offence or it may proceed to conduct its own inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the procedure for dealing with private complaints in CrPC.
A court has been defined in the rules to mean a Court of Sessions designated as Human Rights Court by the State Government with the concurrence of Chief Justice of the High Court to try an offence of violation of human rights.
Justice S Rachaiah in his order said: “The striking down of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 is justified in law and principle for the reason that, the Rule impermissibly expands the scope of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 by enabling the private party or victim to file a complaint directly by invoking the jurisdiction of the Court established under Section 30 of the Act, by bypassing the provisions of the Act. This would lead to not only disrupting the legislative intent and scheme, but also invading the Central Act.”
Case Title: Ms. Sumita Abhishek Sundaram v. Sankalpan Infrastructure Private Limited
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.35715 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has held that the seat court of an arbitration always retains jurisdiction over execution proceedings irrespective of where the award-debtor is located or has its assets, even when another execution petition is pending in another jurisdiction.
Case Title: Sivagami N AND M/s Vinayaka Travels & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.17796 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
The Karnataka High Court has said that the right to cross-examination, whether or not encoded in statute, emerges as a sine qua non of adjudication. It is not merely permissible, it is an indispensable right.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while upholding an order passed by the Commercial Court dismissing an application filed by the petitioner Sivagami N, seeking the trial court to draw an adverse inference and deny cross-examination to the plaintiffs.
Case Title: Santosh Yamanappa Wadakar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.103894 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
The Karnataka High Court set aside an order passed by Pre-University Education department which had rejected a compassionate appointment plea filed by the son of a deceased employee of a Pre-University solely on the ground that there was no vacancy in the institution where the deceased was working.
In doing so the court held that the rejection was in contravention to the state Pre-University Education (Academic, Registration, Administration, Grant-in-aid etc.) (Amendment) Rules, and the respondent-authority must strictly follow the rules while deciding such a plea.
Civil Suit Seeking Corrections In Birth/Death Certificate Not Maintainable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Suhas L AND The Chief Registrar Births And Deaths & Others
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2454 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
The Karnataka High Court has held that a civil suit for seeking rectification of entries in a Death Certificate is not maintainable.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “This Court is of the considered view that the present suit, filed before the Civil Court seeking rectification of entries in the Death Certificate, is not maintainable. There exists a clear bar under Section 9 of the CPC, as the nature of the relief falls exclusively within the domain of the Registrar under Section 15 of the 1969 Act (Registration of Births And Deaths Act)."
Case Title: Spunklane Media Private Limited AND Harshendra Kumar D
Case No: Writ Petition No 23819/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
The Karnataka High Court was on Monday (August 11) informed that the trial court had refused to extend its July 18 ex-parte interim 'gag' order restraining various media entities and YouTube channels from publishing any "defamatory content" about Harshendra Kumar D and his kin, in connection with the Dharmasthala Burial case.
The development happened in a plea filed by Spunklane Media Pvt. Ltd., a company which owns and operates 'The News Minute' web portal, challenging the ex-parte interim 'gag order'.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Abetment FIR Against Wife Despite Husband's Suicide Note
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100661 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 267
The Karnataka High Court quashed an abetment to suicide FIR lodged against a woman after her estranged husband allegedly committed suicide, noting that there was no act mentioned in his "death note" which had any nexus to his death.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed a petition filed by the woman booked for abetment to suicide (Section 108 BNS) observing that a reading of the complaint in the case would show that necessary ingredients to attract the alleged offence were not found.
Case Title: Murali Krishna Brahmandam AND Chief Secretary & Others
Case No: WP 23824/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 268
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday imposed a fine of Rs 1 Lakh on a litigant seeking direction to various government departments to discuss 'Karnataka Government Transformation Bill 2025' which was drafted by him.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar while dismissing a petition filed by one Murali Krishna Brahmandam said PIL (jurisdiction) is not for litigants to vent their ideas, however bright they may be.
The petitioner who claimed to be a political economist had approached the court seeking a direction to all the concerned principal secretaries, secretaries, and special secretaries of the 34 ministries and their 44 departments of Karnataka to discuss and propose the Karnataka Government Transformation Bill, 2025, which was drafted by him.
Case Title: Girish Bharadwaj & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others Case No: WP 5838/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 269
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (August 12) dismissed a PIL challenging Congress-led State government's 2023 decision to stall implementation of the Centre's National Education Policy 2020.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar observed that it cannot intervene in matters of policy unless the Petitioner establishes violation of any Fundamental/ statutory rights.
“How can we direct the government to follow a particular policy and not to follow a particular policy? Under which law can we compel them (State government) to accept or reject a policy?” the judges orally remarked during the hearing.
Case Title: Jayalakshmi M AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 12535/2025 c/w WP 12987/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 270
The Karnataka High Court today refused to entertain two petitions filed questioning State's decision mandating new electricity consumers to install smart pre-paid meters, the cost of which is higher than what is prevalent in neighbouring states.
Justice M Nagaprasanna had reserved orders in the matter on July 22. However, noting that a PIL raising similar issues is already pending before a division bench of the High Court, the judge said, "Judicial discipline demands, hierarchy and propriety requires this Court to show judicial hands off to the present petitions. Therefore the subject petitions are not entertainable."
Case Title: PIO & THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NIRMITI KENDRA AND THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 52581 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 271
The Karnataka High Court has held that Nirmiti Kendras qualify as 'public authority' in terms of Section 2(h) of the Right To Information Act and thus, they are bound to disclose available information under the Act.
For context, the object of Nirmiti Kendra is to develop skills in the construction area and carry out civil contracts assigned by the State.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the petition filed by the Public Information Officer of the Kendra, who had approached the court challenging an order of the State Information Commissioner directing it to provide necessary information sought for by the applicant.
Case Title: Muzammil Kazi & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.101767 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 272
The Karnataka High Court has held that mere non-admission of a minor student in a private unaided school would not amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Muzammil Kazi, who had approached the court seeking a direction to St. Paul's High School to admit his minor son to its school in LKG grade.
The bench said, “The mere non-admission of petitioner No.2 in respondent No.3 school would not amount to a violation of Article 21, inasmuch as the petitioners have access to various other schools where petitioner No.2 could apply and obtain admission.”
Case Title: Assistant Director, ESI Corporation AND M/s. Sansera Engineering P Ltd
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3687 OF 2016.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
The Karnataka High Court has held that labourers engaged through contractors for construction and repair works within a factory premises are treated as 'employees' within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance (ESI) Act.
Justice Ramchandra D Huddar added that in such a case, contribution under the Act will have to be paid by the company employing them. The bench reasoned, "Expression `Employee' under Section 2(9) of the Act has been defined in conclusive and expansive terms. It not only encompasses persons directly employed by the Principal Employer but, also includes persons employed through an immediate employer (such as a contractor) so long as they are engaged in connection with the work of the factory or establishment or work which is incidental or preliminary to or connected with the main work of the factory."
Case Title: Ramamurthy C K & Others AND Bosch Limited & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.17695 OF 2021 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.12656 OF 2021 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.21703 OF 2021 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.23395 OF 2021(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.23730 OF 2021(L) WRIT PETITION NO.23786 OF 2021(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.1434 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
The Karnataka High Court has held that if a dispute is raised questioning the validity of a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, before a conciliation officer, the appropriate Government is required to assign reasons for referring it to adjudication.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held thus while partly allowing the petitions filed by the Management of Bosch Ltd which had challenged the order dated 28.06.2021, passed by the appropriate Government, referring the dispute raised by around 160 workmen for adjudication before the labour court.
The bench said, “Where at least one of the parties alleges that settlement is recorded under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1947, in the presence of the Conciliation Officer, and the other party disputes it, the standard of scrutiny required to be undertaken by the appropriate Government under Section 12(5) is couple of degrees higher, as compared to disputes not emanating from a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1947.”
Export Incentives Can't Be Denied For Inadvertent Error In Shipping Bill: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 9005 OF 2025 (T-CUS)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
The Karnataka High Court held that export incentives can't be denied for inadvertent error in shipping bill.
The bench opined that, …there are situations where the assessee by inadvertence or even otherwise has uploaded certificate/forms or returns which contains some errors which would require correction. The said correction or amendment cannot be denied on the basis of the technological system which has been introduced by the Department to contend that the software does not allow for such amendment…
Case Title: Archana Patil AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 12777/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (August 18) dismissed a 52-year-old woman's plea for quashing a sexual assault complaint registered by the parents of a minor boy against her under the POCSO Act, observing that the provisions of the Act apply to both men and women and thus the act is "gender neutral".
Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said “POSCO Act being a progressive enactment is intended to safe guard sanctity of childhood it is rooted in gender neutrality with its beneficient object being protection of children, irrespective of sex. The act is thus gender neutral.”
It added, “Section 3 and 5 (POCSO Act), which form the foundation of offences under sections 4 and 6 of the Act delineate various forms of assault, although certain provisions may employ gendered pronouns the preamble and the purpose of the act render such usage inclusive, therefore it is inclusive of both male and female...The ingredients of Section 4 of the Act dealing with penetrative sexual assault are equally applicable to both men and women. The language of provision clearly indicates inclusivity, the ingredients of offences the once punishable under section 4 and 6 are clearly met in the case at hand, albeit prima facie.”
Case Title: Karnataka State Pollution Control Board AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24118 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
The Karnataka High Court has directed implementation of the Government order prohibiting the manufacture, sale and immersion of plaster of paris (POP) structures and also directed the district administration, local bodies and police department to cooperate for the enforcement of the said order.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi said “The issue raised is a serious one and we expect that the State Authority shall implement the notification with all seriousness and to its full extent.”
Case Title: Munisanjeevamma & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 49527 OF 2016
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
The Karnataka High Court has held that the sale deed executed in furtherance of a decree for Specific Performance, after contesting, the stamp duty liable to be paid would not be as per the valuation of the property on the date on which the document was presented for registration and but would be on the agreement value.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “ I am of the considered opinion that merely because Sri.Khader Mohiddin came forward to execute a sale date in favour of the petitioners would not require the petitioner to make payment of the stamp duty and registration fee as per the market value on the date of presentation of the said sale date. The benefit which would be available as regards sale deed executed and registered in the course of Execution Proceedings would equally apply to a sale date voluntarily executed by judgment debtor in favour of the decree holder.”
Case title: Mohammed Shoiab AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 19674 OF 2024 (GM-FOR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.392 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
The Karnataka High Court passed a slew of directions to incorporate use of modern technology to resolve complex title disputes and protect forest areas from illegal conversion, including formation of a high level committee of various State departments' officials to oversee the implementation of its directions.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while considering a land dispute case and noticed:
"traditional, paper-based, and siloed administrative systems are inadequate to resolve complex land title conflicts. While Karnataka has made significant strides in land records modernisation, the current situation proves that digitisation alone is insufficient. The critical failure is the lack of a single, unified source of truth".
Noting the limitations of the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme as presented by the matter before it, the court noted that while records are digitised, they are not necessarily integrated.
Case Title: Eshwaramma AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.101311 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
The Karnataka High Court has said that a convict who files a parole plea, cannot be deprived of consideration for parole merely because he did not move an application for suspension of sentence or bail.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said thus while partly allowing a petition filed by Eshwaramma seeking release of her son on general parole for 90 days, sought on account of her illness.
“...it would not be required for a convict to file an application for suspension of sentence and/or bail instead of filing an application for parole.The non-filing of such an application for suspension of sentence and/or bail would not deprive the convict of consideration for parole, if such application is submitted”.
Case Title: Mohammed Shoiab AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.19674 OF 2024 (GM-FOR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.392 OF 2021.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to create a unified geospatial platform which would include digital/unified, and immutable (unchangeable) maps of all land parcels in the State by leveraging high-resolution satellite imagery from agencies like Forest Survey of India (FSI) and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said: "The foundational component must be a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based platform. This system would function as a digital, unified, and immutable map of all land parcels in the state. Leveraging high-resolution satellite imagery from agencies like the Forest Survey of India (FSI) and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), this platform is digitally demarcating and geotagging all notified forest boundaries as per historical gazette notifications, as also conducting forest cover mapping using remote sensing data to monitor the status of forests at the state level. This unified map would then have to be integrated with all other land-related data, including the Revenue Department's cadastral maps, the Urban Planning Authority's master plans, and all other public and private land records".
Case Title: Lakshmavva Goshellanavar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.102208 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
The Karnataka High Court has asked the Managing Director of North West Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC) to formulate a humane policy for compassionate appointment of kin of deceased employees who expire during course of employment.
The court also directed the Divisional Controller KSRTC, Gadag Division (respondent no. 4) to appoint a woman, widow of deceased employee of NWKRTC, as a group D employee of the corporation, without reference to the upper age limit as per the usual terms of service conditions applicable to a class-D employee of the corporation.
The woman, sole survivor who did not have any children, had moved the high court claiming that because she had crossed the upper age limit of 45 years, her plea for appointment had been rejected by the corporation.
Case Title: K M Gangadhar AND State Of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
The Karnataka High Court upheld an order which refused to interfere with the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on a Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn), accused of threatening the police and interfering in police investigations, observing that there was no infirmity in procedure.
The decision came in an appeal filed by a civil judge against an order passed by high court's single judge bench. The appellant had earlier filed the writ petition before the single judge challenging an October 1, 2012 decision imposing penalty of compulsory retirement, after the enquiry officer found that the appellant had threatened a Police Inspector.
Case Title: Chooti Bee AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.101912 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
The Karnataka High Court has said that the grant of parole is a valuable right of a convict, which would also be a right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It said that the concerned authorities must apply their mind in a proper manner and pass a reasoned order on case to case basis, rather than reproducing the same grounds in all the reports which are submitted.
The court passed the order in a case where although the prison authorities had recommended parole for a convict, however the recommendation was not acted upon on account of the police report
Case Title: Shankar AND Secretary & Others
Case No: WP 23349/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
The Karnataka High Court on Saturday dismissed the petition filed by an officer bearer of Karnataka Light Music and Cultural Artists Association, challenging the decision of Police to prohibit DJ's and use of sound systems, in processions and public pandals, during Gauri Ganesh and Eid-Milad festivals.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner Shankar.
It said “The decibel levels in residential areas in daytime are required to be restricted to 55 decibel and 45 decibel at night time. It is difficult for this court to accept that use of sound systems and DJ in public places would be in compliance with the said decibel levels. We find no infirmity in issuance of circular restraining the use of sound system and DJ in public gatherings.”
Case Title: Mantavva & ANR AND The Divisional Controller.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 101661 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
The Karnataka High Court has said that if the spouse of an employee has predeceased the employee and there are no children, the mere marriage of the deceased employee cannot be a ground to reject an application for compassionate appointment to the brother of the deceased.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by Mantava and Sanganna, mother and brother of deceased employee Veeresh Mantappa Lolasar, an employee working with K.K.R.T.C, Ballari Division.
Case Title: Malurappa AND Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1222 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 287
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order which dismissed a plea by an employee of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) accused of securing an appointment on the basis of a false certificate regarding his educational qualifications.
In doing so, the high court rejected the bus driver's reliance on a BMTC circular protecting employees from dismissal on grounds of suppression, after noting that the circular did not contemplate a case where an ineligible employee has secured appointment by furnishing a forged document to satisfy the eligibility condition.
Upholding the single judge's order, a division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the petition filed by one Malurappa and said “We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”
Case Title: Seetha Nayak & Others AND Laxmi Kom Nagesh Naik
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.102555 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 288
The Karnataka High Court has said that only the defendant who has filed a written statement, in a suit seeking partition and separate possession, can seek amendment of the written statement filed by him, other defendants who have adopted the written statement are not permitted to amend it.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Seeta Nayak and others. He said “In my considered opinion, it would not be permissible for defendant No.4, who has not filed a written statement, to seek amendment of a written statement not filed by defendant No.4.”
Case Title: Subhan Khan AND Prabha Mallikarjun
Case No: ELECTION PETITION NO.3 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 289
The Karnataka High Court has said that any alleged corrupt act done by a candidate prior to being nominated for elections cannot be termed as a corrupt practice under the Representation of People Act.
For context, Section 123 of the RP Act pertains to corrupt practices, which includes bribery.
Bribery is explained as any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person with the object of inducing (a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election; (b) or an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election.
Case Title: Sanjana V Tumkur AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6014 OF 2018
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
The Karnataka High Court directed Sri Siddartha Academy of Higher Education a deemed to be University running Sri Siddhartha Medical College to pay Rs. 15 Lakh as compensation to a student for denying her admission to the MBBS course for academic year 2017-18, despite her paying fee for the first year within time.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K Manmadha Rao held thus while disposing of a petition filed by a student Sanjana V Tumkur.
“We notice that the instant case was one where the writ petitioner was not at fault and it was only on account of the illegal demand raised by respondent No.6 that she was unable to join a MBBS Course in the Academic Year 2017-2018. She had paid the first year fees before the prescribed date, she had also provided the Bank Guarantee immediately thereafter, that is, on 08.09.2017. Hence, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case, where compensation should be awarded to the petitioner by respondent No.6 College for the denial of admission for the year 2017-2018.”
Case Title: Jagrutka Karnatak Jagrutha Bharata AND The Secretary & Others
Case No: WP 33695/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 291
The Karnataka High Court today (August 28) dismissed a PIL filed seeking directions to Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and others to throw light on 'Volume 2' of Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography— My Experiments with Truth, stated to be 'missing'.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi dismissed the plea filed by an organisation namely 'Jagrutha Karnataka, Jagrutha Bharatha', which was represented by its President K N Manjunatha in person.
Case Title: S Venkateshappa AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3612/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
The Karnataka High Court has said that the transfer of a government employee would not be vitiated for being made solely at the instance or recommendation of a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA).
A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice K V Aravind said thus while dismissing the petition filed by S Venkateshappa, a Tashildar, challenging the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal rejecting his prayer to quash the impugned order of transfer and posting of respondent No.4 in his place under notification dated 31.12.2024.
Court Can't Decide Station, Number Of Stops On Metro Line: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: C Naveen Kumar & Other AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 23534/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 1) dismissed a plea by residents of Chikkajala Village seeking a direction to Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) to ensure that a metro station is constructed at the village on Phase 2B BlueLine Metro, which is to connect Krishnarajapuram with Kempegowda International Airport.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi said, “The question whether a metro station is required to be constructed at a particular spot on the metro line is clearly a question that is not required to be examined by this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.”
Case Title: Deepa Angadi AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 107708 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no embargo under Rule 164(v) of the State Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021 against the grant of remission, and merely because a detenue is sentenced to 21 years imprisonment, it cannot be said that he is not entitled to remission.
In doing so, the court held that even if the order is for a specified term, a detenue would be entitled to remission unless the sentence makes it clear that the detainee shall not be entitled to premature release or remission or parole.
Case Title: G Satyanarayana Varma AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.17876 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
The Karnataka High Court has said that a second quashing plea under Section 482 CrPC/ BNSS 528 is neither maintainable nor entertainable unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance and the grounds which were manifestly available at the time of first plea cannot be exhumed later to prop up a second petition.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said: "The second petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS is neither maintainable nor entertainable, unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance. Grounds that were manifestly available at the time of first petition, cannot be exhumed later, to prop up a second petition...Law cannot bend to repeated challenges, devoid of new substance nor it can ignore the gravity of allegations that undoubtedly wants an adjudication in a full blown trial.”
Case Title: Hareesh AND A S Umesh & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.20342 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
The Karnataka High Court has said that a DNA test must be permitted only in terms of Section 112 of the Evidence Act, after demonstrable non-access between the parents during the period of birth of the child is proved, as the presumption under Section 112 is rooted in public morality and societal peace.
The court added that compelling such tests without a need for the same violates the sanctity of marriage as well as the fundamental right to privacy and dignity granted to a couple.
Case Title: K J Jaljakshi AND The Honourable Chairman
Case No: WP 19864/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
The Karnataka High Court quashed the suspension of Deputy Secretary of State Legislative Council K J Jalajakshi, on the allegation that she failed to place the photograph of Dr B R Ambedkar at the Constitution Day function conducted on November 26, 2024.
Justice H T Narendra Prasad on going through the records said: “Whether the petitioner is responsible for not placing the portrait of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar during the Constitution Day function held on 26.11.2024 in the office of Respondent No.1 – Council, and whether the petitioner alone is responsible for the same, is a matter that requires to be decided by conducting an enquiry.”
Case Title: Dadapeer Bhanuvalli AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.100890 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a lawyer appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor against an order of the State Administrative Tribunal, which rejected his plea challenging the entrustment of an enquiry to the Lokayukta against him for alleged actions done prior to his appointment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha dismissed the petition filed by Dadapeer Bhanuvalli. The Director of the Department of Prosecutions had issued a Notification on 16.05.2012 to fill up 197 Posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors cum Government Pleaders. The petitioner, having made an application pursuant to the said Notification, was selected and appointed to the post of APP cum Assistant Government Pleader on 17.06.2014, and he reported for duty on 30.06.2014.
Case Title: Mrs Maheshwari M AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WPHC NO. 81 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh on a 72-year-old woman for filing a habeas corpus petition with an ulterior motive to take revenge against the police, after being dissatisfied with the probe conducted by the police on a complaint given by her.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Rajesh Rai K while dismissing the petition filed by Maheshwari M said “We are of the view that in order to curb frivolous and malicious invocation of habeas corpus to protect the judicial process, it is necessary to impose punitive costs on such litigants. In that view of the matter, we dismiss this petition by imposing costs of Rs.2,00,000 on the petitioner who has approached this Court with unclean hands by suppression of facts.”
Case Title: Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited AND Malathi B & ANR
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1577 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
The Karnataka High Court has said that pensionary and retiral benefits of a former employee cannot be withheld indefinitely on account of a possible disciplinary proceedings on a future date.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi held thus while dismissing appeal by Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited against single judge's order directing the company to pay all retirement benefits–death-cum-retirement gratuity, entitlement for leave encashment benefit and other pensionary benefits along with interest from the date of retirement to one Malathi B. "We are not persuaded to accept that the pensionary and retiral benefits of respondent No.1 could be withheld indefinitely on account of a possible disciplinary proceedings at a future date," the bench said.
Case Title: SRI HONNESHWARASWAMY DEVASTHANA JEERNODHARA SEVA SAMITHI TRUST (R) AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 25313/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
The Karnataka government informed the High Court on Wednesday that it "will withdraw notice" a notice issued by the concerned jurisdictional police stipulating not to sacrifice animals and consume non-vegetarian food around the precincts of Sri Honneshwara Deity temple located in Shivanagere Village in Tumakuru district.
The state government said that it would issue a fresh notice within a week, "limiting it only to sacrifice of animals".
Justice B M Shyam Prasad accordingly disposed of a petition filed by the Honneshwaraswamy Devasthana Jeernodhara Seva Samithi Trust (R) had challenged the notice issued to it by the police dated July 13, 2024 stipulating that no one should sacrifice or consume meat for an area around 200 meters from the temple.
Case Title: Chandrappa AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that the act of sexual assault on a minor girl by a married man is unpardonable and has to be viewed strictly, not only in order to restore the confidence in the minds of children and women, but also to send a strong signal to society at large.
It held, “It is noticed here that, the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and she is so susceptible to persons like appellant, for the purpose of exploitation. Hence, it is high time to send a strong signal to the society at large to be more vigilant on women and children belonging to weaker sections of the society.”
Case Title: Sunil H Bohra & Others AND Assistant Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13448 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
The Karnataka High Court has recommended to the Union Government to revisit Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which prescribes a ceiling of Rs 10,000 which can be ordered to be paid as maintenance to senior citizens by the Tribunal.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said “This Court deems it fit to recommend, with earnestness that the Union revisit Section 9 and revise the ceiling in tune with the cost of living index, so that the Act may not be reduced to a hollow promise, but remain a living guarantee of dignity in old age, as the Nation's wealth is not measured by its material progress, but by the welfare of the child and the care of the elderly-old.”
It also opined, “The Court laments of neglected elders and resonates as a clarion call to the legislature that the aged must not be abandoned to indignity, that maintenance must match reality and the twilight of life must not be shadowed by want, but illuminated by care.”
Case Title: State Bank of India AND M/s Swait Agencies & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 105775 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
The Karnataka High Court has said that once the property is said to be a secured property (secured asset), it would be subject to Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI) and cannot be made subject to rights of any third parties.
The court said that any person having any interest in the secured interest cannot agitate that claim before the magistrate exercising powers under Section 14, but he has to avail remedy under Section 17 by filing appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Case Title: Vikas Kumar S J AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12352 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6267 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed an attempt to murder case registered against an Indian Air Force Officer, who was involved in a road rage fight with a call centre employee in Bengaluru.
Notably the video of the fight between the accused Shiladitya Bose and one Vikas Kumar S J had gone viral on social media. Initially based on the complaint filed by Bose's wife Madhumita, who is a squadron leader and was driving the car when the incident occurred the Byappanahalli police, arrested Kumar under sections 115(2), 116(H), 117(1), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5), 324, 351, 352 OF BNS 2023.
However, acting on cross complaint filed by Kumar and on going through the CCTv footage the police had registered the case against the Air Force officer under Sections 109 (attempt to murder), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 304 (snatching for theft), 324 (crime of mischief), 352 (intentional insult with an intent to provoke breach of peace. Soon after the incident Bose had posted a video on social media claiming he was assaulted and verbally abused by a man in a road rage incident in Bengaluru, allegedly claiming that the biker assaulted him for not speaking Kannada.
Case Title: Prathap Simha v. State of Karnataka and Batch
Case No: WP 27595/2025 c/w WP 27692/2025, WP 27824/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 15) dismissed pleas challenging State Government's decision to nominate author and Booker prize winner Banu Mushtaq as the Chief Guest for the inauguration of the upcoming Dasara Festival in Mysuru.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi after hearing the arguments said: "We are not persuaded to accept that permitting person of different faith to the function organised by the state violates any legal or constitutional right of petitioners or in any manner opposed to values enshrined in the Constitution of India. Accordingly, petitions are dismissed".
Case Title: Shaik Nowshera AND M/s 1-Help Technology And Software Solution Pvt Ltd & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6013 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6015 OF 2025 & Others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
The Karnataka High Court recently held that once a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under Negotiable Instruments Act, the proceedings cannot be quashed on a mere technical plea that the company has not been properly described in the cause title, unless it is demonstrably shown that no notice under Section 138(b) of NI Act, was served on the company.
A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said,“Where notice has been duly issued and served on the company through its CEO, MD or authorised signatory, the mere inversion or irregularity in the description of accused cannot be a ground to terminate the prosecution.”
It added “Service of notice on the officer who signed the cheque in his or her official capacity constitutes valid notice on the company itself. Conversely, where the company has been duly served, such notice, by operation of Section 141, is deemed notice to the Directors and officers responsible for the conduct of its business.”
Case Title: DR. SHIVANANDAPPA DODDAGOUDAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106571 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
The Karnataka High Court has said that medical reimbursement cannot be denied on the ground that a hospital which was earlier recognised by the Government in the list of private hospitals permitted to provide treatment to employees, changed its name.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by Dr. Shivanandappa Doddagoudar an Associate Professor at Government First Grade College Ranebennur Taluka.
It said, “Medical reimbursement cannot be denied solely due to a change in the name of the hospital, even though it remains the same entity that was previously recognised.”
Case Title: K.S MANJUNATH GOWDA AND K.Y.NANJE GOWDA & Others
Case No: Election Petition 10 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday set aside the 2023 election of Congress Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) K Y Nanjegowda representing Malur constituency (Kolar district).
During the 2023 assembly election, Nanjegowda won by a margin of 248 votes against BJP candidate KS Manjunath Gowda.
Justice R Devdas, while allowing the petition filed by defeated candidate KS Manjunath Gowda said: “The elections petition is allowed in part directing recounting of votes and then to declare the results afresh. The election of Respondent no 1 to Malur Assembly constituency in Kolar District during the election held in May 2023, is hereby set aside.”
Karnataka High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Plea Seeking To Stall Release Of 'Jolly LLB 3' Film
Case Title: Syeda Neelfur AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 27215/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation filed seeking a direction to stop the release and exhibition of the film Jolly LLB 3 scheduled for release on September 19.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the petition filed by Syeda Neelufur and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner for unjustifiable consumption of judicial time.
The court has directed the cost to be deposited with the court registry, failing which, the matter is to be listed again on October 4 for coercive steps against the petitioner.
Case Title: Sailen Das AND State By Kodigehalli Police Station & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.26873 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that criminal proceedings for cheating cannot be initiated against parties bound by a valid and subsisting contract.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a petition filed by one Sailen Das, a Director in a private limited company.
The court said, “The admitted position remains that the parties are bound by a valid and subsisting contract and the controversy essentially pertains to the performance of obligations arising therefrom. Such disputes are, in their nature, civil and are amenable to adjudication before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.”
Case Title: M/s BEE JAY Engineers v. Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 106642 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
The Karnataka High Court has held that an officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner cannot, by himself, inspect the premises of the assessee without authorisation under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax.
The bench further stated that there is no requirement to provide a copy of the authorisation and details of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, but the delegate who inspects or confiscates any document or goods would be required to provide the details of the authorisation to the taxable person.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that it would, however, be required that the concerned Officer, who carries out the inspection in terms of Subsection (2) of Section 67 of the Act, at least inform the taxable person of the authorisation having been received from the Joint Commissioner.
Case Title: M/s NCS Pearson INC. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 7635 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
The Karnataka High Court has stated that a failure to mention the correct value in returns or apply the correct GST rate is not suppression under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST).
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that "...though the revenue alleged in the impugned SCN that the assessee failed to mention the value of services correctly in the GSTR-5A returns and apply the correct GST rate on the consideration received, the mere omission to mention the value of services correctly in the returns and/or apply the correct GST rate would not be tantamount to wilful suppression…"
The assessee/petitioner has a division “Pearson Vue” which is engaged in providing computer-based test administration solutions, and pursuant to its contract with GMAC, USA, the assessee conducts GMAT on behalf of GMAC for candidates in India.
Case Title: X & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Agency & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15957 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
The Karnataka High Court recently drew an inference of the biological father's consent for the adoption of his minor son, after the father did not take a definite stand on whether his former wife can adopt the minor along with her now husband.
The mother (first petitioner) had approached the Central Adoption Resource Authority [CARA] for adoption of the minor. However, the State Adoption Resource Agency issued a communication calling upon her to provide consent of the biological father with whom her marriage had been dissolved.
Case Title: TTK Prestige Limited AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 27926/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
The Union Government on Monday informed the Karnataka High Court that it has relaxed the condition issued on September 9, mandating the declaration of revised retail sale price (MRP), on unsold stock manufactured/packed/imported, which would be effective from September 22, in addition to the existing retail sale price (MRP).
Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath placed on record a fresh advisory issued on September 18 and said, “We have superseded the impugned instruction and acceded to the suggestions made. They need not affix the sticker or stamping, it is a choice now and not mandatory.”
Case Title: SHARADA ACHAR AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.3379 OF 2024 (GM - RES) with others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside a Circular dated 03-09-2020, issued by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Karnataka (KRERA), which mandated the levy of “delay fee” for belated submission of quarterly updates and annual audit statements by promoters, without distinction to scale of the project, the stage of development, or the peculiar circumstances surrounding it.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a batch of petitions filed by promoters of various projects and said, “The circular purporting to impose delay fee is arbitrary, illegal and void, for the exactions made thereunder cannot be sustained in law and must in consequence, meet its inexorable fate - the fate of obliteration.”
Case title: PRAJWAL REVANNA AND STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP 29258/2025 and WP 29290/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (September 24) has refused to transfer the cases filed against former Hasan MP Prajwal Revanna for offences including sexual harassment, rape, etc, to another court after allegations of bias were raised by him against the presiding officer. Revanna had earlier been convicted for the offence of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment by the MP/MLA court.
Justice MI Arun held: "It is seen that the trial court intended to take the trial on a day-to-day basis. In the process any adjournments sought by the petitioner was frowned upon. The observations in the judgement may sound a bit harsh, but the same cannot be construed as bias on part of the presiding officer. Admittedly, the petitioner has tried to drag the case and resort to delay tactics, which has been frowned upon by the trial court."
Case Title: X CORP AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 7405/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (September 24) dismissed X Corp's plea seeking a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act does not confer authority on Central government officers to issue information blocking orders, which can only be issued after following the procedure under Section 69A of the Act, read with IT Rules.
Justice M Nagaprassana while dictating the order said,
"Social media, as modern amphitheater of ideas, cannot be left in a state of anarchich freedom. Regulation of information in this domain is neither novel nor unique. United States of America regulates it. Every sovereign nation regulates it. And India's resolve likewise, cannot by any stretch of Constitutional imagination, be branded as unlawful. Unregulated speech under the guise of liberty becomes a license to lawlessness. Regulated speech by contrast, preserves both liberty and order, the twin pillars upon which the democracy must stand. No social media platform in the modern day agora may even seem the semblance of exemption from rigour of discipline of laws of the land. None may presume to treat the Indian marketplace as a mere playground where information can be disseminated in defiance of statute or disregard to legality, and later adopting a posture of detachment or a hands off...The content on social media needs to be regulated and its regulation is a must, more so in cases of offences against women in particular failing which right to dignity as ordained in the Constitution of a citizen gets railroaded. We are a society governed by laws. Order is the architecture of our democracy. Every platform that seeks to operate within the jurisdiction of our nation, which they do must accept that liberty is with responsibility and the privilige of access carries with it the solemn duty of accountability."
Case Title: Krishnamurthy AND The Director UIDAI & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 105596 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
The Karnataka High Court has held that UIDAI can be directed to provide details of usage of Aadhaar card and the location where it has been used to the police for investigating a missing person's complaint.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “When during the course of investigation by police authority or any investigating authority in the event of usage of Aadhaar card including authentication, etc. are required, an application can be made before the High Court in terms of Section 33 of the Act of 2016---Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) and the High Court could examine the same after providing an opportunity to the UIDAI Authority and pass such orders as just and necessary, including providing of details of usage of Aadhaar card and the location where it has been used.”
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.21783 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
Disposing of a plea by an National Law School India University (NLSIU) student seeking alternate subject/exemption from studying Economics in view of her disability, the Karnataka High Court asked the varsity to have a liberal approach enabling the student to pass her first year course in case is clears all other subjects except Economics.
Justice R Devdas disposed the petition of a student who is stated to be suffering from specific learning disability known as 'Dyscalculia' resulting in difficulty in learning or comprehending Arithmetics, difficulty in understanding numbers, difficulty learning how to manipulate numbers, to perform mathematical calculations and difficulty in applying and analyzing such applications in/of Mathematics.
Case Title: Dror Shlomo Goldstein AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 22042/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
The Karnataka High Court on Friday permitted the Union of India to issue necessary travel documents to enable a mother and her children, who were found living in a cave in the state's Uttara Kannada district (Gokarna), to travel back to Russia.
Justice B M Shyam Prasad disposed of the petition filed by Dror Shlomo Goldstein, who claims to be the father of the children and had approached the court seeking to restrain the government from proceeding with the "sudden deportation" of his minor daughters from India to any other country.
Case Title: Syed Parveez Mushraff AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1493 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
Quoting Mahatma Gandhi who had said, "The day a woman can walk freely on the road at night, that day we can say that India has achieved independence”, the Karnataka High Court rejected a man's bail plea who is accused of facilitating the co-accused to commit rape on 19-year-old girl.
Justice S Rachaiah, rejected the appeal filed by appellant Syed Praveez Musharaff who along with co-accused has been booked under BNS sections 115(2)(Voluntarily causing hurt), 126(2)(wrongful restraint), 351(criminal intimidation), 64(rape), 3(5)(common intention) and provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, noting that the appellant also had the intention to commit rape upon the victim.
Case Title: DODDAGIRIYAPPACHARI AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.14207 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
The Karnataka High Court has differed from the view of a co-ordinate single bench which had held that that if land already restored in grantee's favour is sold again, the grantee is then not entitled to invoke Karnataka SCST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (PTCL) Act for a second time seeking resumption and restoration of the lands.
Justice R Devdas held PTCL Act does not prohibit filing of an application even if granted lands are transferred after being resumed and restored in favour of grantee or his legal heirs in an earlier round of litigation.
For context, in April Justice N S Sanjay Gowda in the case of Smt. Rudramma and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others had held that Section 4 of the Act is attracted only when the granted lands have been transferred for the first time in contravention of the terms of the grant and that it does not govern transfer made after the lands have been resumed and restored to the grantee.