Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 23 - June 29, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 211 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 220

Nominal Index:

Abdul Sattar AND M Khalid & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 211

Arumugam AND Ananda. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 212

Basvaraj AND K M Altaf Hussain & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 213

M/s Sona Synthetics & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 214

Prabhakaran K AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 215

P Vasudeva Kamath & ANR AND Jayashri R Kamath. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 216

Basvaraj Bommai AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 217

Vikas M Dev AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 218

Arun Kumar Alva AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 219

Madiga Dandora AND The State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 220

Judgments/Orders

Counterclaim In A Suit For Permanent Injunction Can't Be Raised After Issues Are Framed By Trial Court: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Abdul Sattar AND M Khalid & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.2867/2020

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 211

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that defendants in a suit filed seeking permanent injunction cannot raise a counterclaim by amending the written statements after framing of issues by the trial court.

A single judge, Justice Vijaykumar A Patil held thus while allowing the petition filed by Abdul Sattar who had approached the court questioning a trial court order allowing the application filed by the defendants M Khalid and others under Section Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Premature Complaint Can't Be Ground For Drawer To Escape Prosecution For Cheque Dishonour Under NI Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Arumugam AND Ananda

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1021 OF 2017

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 212

The Karnataka High Court has said that drawer of the cheque can't escape prosecution on the ground that a premature complaint for cheque dishonour was filed against him before expiry of statutory period of 15 days as per the mandate of Section 138(c) of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar in his order said “Drawer of the cheque cannot be allowed to escape from prosecution merely on a technical count that a premature complaint was filed against him before expiry of the statutory period of 15 days as per the mandate of Section 138(c) of N.I. Act. Such a drawer of the cheque is liable to be prosecuted in a second successive complaint filed on the same facts by the holder of the cheque. The drawer of the cheque would not be absolved from penal consequences of dishonouring of cheque issued by him/her.”

Liability To Compensate Can't Be Fastened On Owner If Vehicle Was Plying Beyond Permit Route For Relief Works: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Basvaraj AND K M Altaf Hussain & Others

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101342 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101341 OF 2017 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101568 OF 2017 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101569 OF 2017.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 213

The Karnataka High Court recently came to the rescue of a bus owner who was asked by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to compensate the victims of an accident that occurred while the bus was plying beyond its permit route.

Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar noted that the bus was carrying out relief works and hence, the owner cannot be asked to pay compensation by exonerating the Insurance company.

It observed, “The offending vehicle was used as a relief vehicle. Therefore, there is no fundamental breach proved so as to exonerate the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, in this regard, has committed an error...mere deviation of rules in the circumstances as above discussed is not amounting to fundamental breach so as to exonerate the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the owner.”

Karnataka HC Strikes Down Amendment Imposing Tax On 'Minimum Tariff' In Electricity Charges, Says It Amounts To Taxing Units Not Yet Sold

Case Title: M/s Sona Synthetics & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3935 OF 2008 (GM-KEB) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.1644 OF 2009.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 214

The Karnataka High Court has declared Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1959, as amended by Act No.7 of 2003 and Act 40 No.5 of 2004, imposing tax on "minimum tariff" electricity charges, as unconstitutional.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has also held that “Supply of electricity to the consumer to ensure availability of electricity for consumption, does not amount to consumption or sale, unless the electricity consumed by the consumer and the State has no legislative competence under Entry No.53, List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India to levy tax on minimum tariff. The State is competent to levy tax under Entry No.53, List II of Seventh Schedule only on actual consumption or sale of electricity.”

RC Holder Can't Seek Quashing Of Offence On Ground That He Sold The Vehicle Before Accident: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Prabhakaran K AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10284 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 215

The Karnataka High Court has said that a scooter owner in whose name the RC is standing and which has met with a fatal accident cannot seek quashing of criminal offence registered against him on ground that he had already sold the vehicle.

Justice J M Khazi thus rejected the petition filed by Prabhakaran K, charged for offence punishable under section 279 and 304-A (causing death by negligence) IPC, following the death of a woman while riding the scooter registered in his name.

The bench said “It is not in dispute that as on the date of accident, accused No.2 was the owner of the scooter. Though he has claimed that he sold the scooter to the complainant and the complainant has released the said vehicle into his interim custody, still the RC is standing in the name of accused No.2. For all practical purposes, he is the owner of the scooter in question. In the light of the prima facie material, accused No.2 cannot seek quashing of the criminal proceedings.”

S.12A | Commercial Court Need Not Order Mediation If Civil Court Had Referred Parties To Mediation Before Returning Suit: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: P Vasudeva Kamath & ANR AND Jayashri R Kamath

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9697 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 216

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that Commercial Court need not refer parties to pre-institution mediation under Section 12A Commercial Courts Act, where suit was earlier presented before the competent civil Court which had initiated efforts for mediation but subsequently the plaint was returned on grounds of lack of civil court's jurisdiction.

For context, Section 12A mandates pre-institution mediation and settlement between parties before a suit can be instituted. It reads that a suit which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation and settlement.

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIRs Against Ex-CM Basavaraj Bommai For Comment On Waqf Properties

Case Title: Basvaraj Bommai AND State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No 12164/2024 & Criminal Petition No 12183/2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 217

The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed two criminal cases registered against former Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai accusing him of making objectionable statements during a protest rally held to condemn the actions of Waqf Board and State Government in allegedly grabbing the properties of farmers and temples.

Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition filed by Bommai and quashed the proceedings initiated under sections 196(1)(a) of the BNS by the Shiggaon police station.

Karnataka High Court Orders FIR Against Two Doctors Including One From Fortis For Allegedly Operating Man Without Consent

Case Title: Vikas M Dev AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24162 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 218

The Karnataka High Court has ordered registration of medical negligence FIR against two doctors attached to private hospitals, including Fortis, for allegedly operating on a man without proper consent.

One Vikas Dev alleged that the first accused doctor at Bengaluru based GM Hospital obtained his consent for inserting a catheter on the right side of his father's body but the procedure was done on the left side. As the father's condition deteriorated, he was shifted to Fortis Hospital, where his father succumbed to cardiac arrest while being operated on by the second accused doctor, again without consent.

Karnataka High Court Directs State To Frame Policy On Eligibility To Claim Remission For Good Behaviour, Participating In Prison Activities

Case Title: Arun Kumar Alva AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14015 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 219

The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to frame necessary guidelines in order to bring clarity regarding eligibility for remission when claimed on the ground of good behaviour, discipline and participation in institutional activities, under Section 166 (1) (e) of the Prison Manual.

Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav said “In order to ensue consideration of remission under Section 166 (i) (e), necessary guidelines will have to be framed by the State Government in order to bring clarity regarding eligibility for remission when claimed on the ground of good behaviour, discipline and participation in institutional activities...Till the Government frames guidelines and take steps either to amend the Prison Manual or frame the Rules, a Circular may be issued in order to consider the claims for remission by the Department which would be in the nature of executive instructions that would mould the field.”

Salvation Of Country Lies In Identifying People As Human Beings & Indians, Communal Identities Play Secondary Role: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Madiga Dandora AND The State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.201685 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 220

In lauding the communal harmony exhibited by people in the border area of Hyderabad and Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court has observed, “The salvation of the country lies in identifying human beings as a human being and as an Indian with the other identities playing a secondary role.”

Justice M I Arun pointed out that Yadgiri District, which is a part of Hyderabad Karnataka area, celebrates communal harmony, which is generally found in Hyderabad-Karnataka area. This includes the participation of both Hindus and Muslims in the festivals of each other's communities.

It said “The institutions like Sharanabasaveshwar Temple, Khaja Bandanawaz Dargah, are examples of the communal harmony, which can be followed by the entire country...In tune with the communal harmony, Muharram festival of the Muslim community is also celebrated by Hindus, wherein certain Hindu Deities are also worshipped by both Muslims and Hindus during the festival.”