Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 04 to August 10, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 258 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 264

Nominal Index:

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

Judgments/Orders

Karnataka High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Driver Who Kept Bribe Bag In Car On BESCOM Manager's Instructions

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.

Compassionate Appointment Applications Must Be Decided Within 90-Days: Karnataka High Court Issues Directions

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.”

Karnataka High Court Strikes Down State Rule Enabling Direct Private Complaints To Sessions Court, Says It May Lead To Double Jeopardy

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.”

Seat Of Arbitration Retains Jurisdiction Over Execution Proceedings Irrespective Of Location Of Judgment Debtor's Assets: Karnataka High Court

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.

 O.XI R.5(4) CPC | Right To Cross Examine Is Indispensable, Adverse Inference For Non-Compliance With Orders Can Only Be Drawn At End Of Trial: Karnataka HC

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.

Pre-University Education Rules | Denying Compassionate Appointment For Want Of Vacancy In Deceased's Institution Illegal: Karnataka High Court

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.