Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 21 To July 27, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 241 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 250

Nominal Index:

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

Judgments/Orders

[S.138 NI Act] Trial Court Shall Order Payment Of Future Interest On Compensation Amount To Protect Complainant: Karnataka HC

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.”

'All Sports Are Equal': Karnataka High Court Slams State For Withholding Para-Swimmer's Cash Award, Imposes ₹2Lakh Cost On Officials

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.

'Systemic Fraud' Involving Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Denies Relief To Hotelier Accused Of Forging Aadhar To Usurp Vacant Lands

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"

Bengaluru's Century Club Built On Land Granted By Maharaja Of Mysore, Is Public Authority Under RTI Act: Karnataka High Court

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.”

Posthumous Registration Of Will Is Permissible Under Registration Act, Not Indicative Of Fraud: Karnataka High Court

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”.

Merely Distributing Pamphlets Promoting Islam & Explaining Its Beliefs At A Temple Not An Offence Unless Conversion Is Attempted: Karnataka HC

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.

DNA Profiling Not 100% Accurate, Can't Be Sole Basis For POCSO Conviction In Absence Of Corroborative Evidence: Karnataka High Court

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.”

Karnataka High Court Directs GST Department To Establish Tracking System For Notices Sent To Taxpayers Via Email

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.

'Google India' Can't Be Sued For 'Defamatory' Content Posted On 'Google LLC', 'YouTube'; They Are Distinct Entities: Karnataka HC

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.