Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: March 03 To March 09, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 83 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 93

Nominal Index:

Bhagavant Alagur AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 83

Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 84

BMTC AND IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 85

Vijaya Bank & AND AND Abhimanyu Kumar. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 86

Thomas Mani And G Shankar. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 87

The Divisional Controller AND Hussainsab. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 88

Uttaradi Mutt And State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 89

Starlog Enterprises Limited Board of Trustees of New Mangalore Port Trust. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 90

Parvathi AND Directorate of Enforcement (CRL.P 1132/2025) and another. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 91

ABC AND XYZ. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 92

Neelavva @Neelamma AND Chandravva & Others.. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 93

Judgments/Orders

Indiscriminate River Sand Mining Affects Drinking Water Supply: Karnataka High Court Asks State To Monitor Rivers Via Satellite Imagery

Case Title: Bhagavant Alagur AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 100263 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 83

The Karnataka High Court has asked the State government to implement a system which could give real time feedback on any changes, which occur to river banks and or sand bars in the State of Karnataka.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj has said “It is high time that the available technology is harnessed to address these kind of issues and the State of Karnataka implements a satellite based imagery system through the Department of Mines and Minerals and or such other departments like the Revenue Department, Forest Department etc., So that the boundaries of the rivers, Sand Bars and such other details are identified and marked on satellite maps and any change which occurs thereto, is notified to the concerned authorities to take necessary action.”

High Court Rejects PILs Seeking Enquiry Into PWD, Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Department Over Alleged Irregularities In Issuing Tenders

Case Title: Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 2036/2024 & WP 1040/2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 84

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed two public interest litigations seeking a direction to the State Government to hold high level enquiry into the alleged illegalities and irregularities committed by the Public Works Department and Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Department, during the period 2016-17 to 2021-22, while calling for tenders, tender process payment of bills making unauthorized advances to the contractor etc.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun dismissed the petition filed by Gurunath Vadde and said “Upon going through the averments and hearing the submission of advocate, the petition is based on general assertions. On the basis of general details, public interest jurisdiction cannot be exercised. Not only that petitioner has the remedy of approaching the Lokayukta or to pursue legal remedy if the individual cases are detected.”

'No Evidence': Karnataka HC Rejects BMTC's Claim That It Lost 13 Days Revenue As Bus Was In Repair After Accident, Refuses To Enhance Compensation

Case Title: BMTC AND IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR

Case No: M.F.A. NO. 3567 OF 2022

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 85

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal by Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal towards damages for a bus involved in a road accident.

The court dismissed the plea after noting that the BMTC could not produce cogent evidence to prove that the bus was kept idle for 13 days, for carrying out repairs to the bus after the accident.

Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha dismissed the appeal filed by BMTC and said “This Court is of the view that there are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal. Thus this Court ultimately holds that the appeal lacks merits and deserves dismissal”.

Karnataka High Court Lets Vijaya Bank Retain ₹3 Lakh Indemnity Recovered From Employee Who Left Before Completing Mandatory Service Period

Case Title: Vijaya Bank & AND AND Abhimanyu Kumar

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.138 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 86

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single judge order directing Vijaya Bank to refund the indemnity bond amount collected from a former employee, who left its services before completing mandatory service period of three years and preferred employment with SAIL.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind noted that a clause in the employee's joining letter issued by the bank required him to execute an indemnity bond for Rs.3,00,000/- and it was stipulated that the amount will have to be paid, if he leaves the service before the stipulated period.

The employee had joined the bank on 02.11.2011 and put in his papers on on 05.04.2012, i.e. after 5 months. As such, his request to waive of indemnity bond was declined and he was given a relieving letter after making the payment.

Negotiable Instruments Act | Complainant Can Prefer Appeal Against Acquittal Order Before Sessions Court: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Thomas Mani And G Shankar

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 851 OF 2016

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 87

The Karnataka High Court has said that a complainant in a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, can file an appeal against an acquittal order before the Sessions Court and need not approach the high court.

In doing so the court set aside a sessions court order which had dismissed the complainant's appeal against an acquittal order as not maintainable and had asked the complainant to file an appeal before the high court instead. Against this dismissal by sessions court, the complainant moved the high court.

The Sessions Court while dismissing the complainant–Thoman Mani's appeal as not maintainable, had relied on a decision by a coordinate single judge of the high court which had held that the complainant under provisions of Section 142 of NI Act and victim under Section 2(wa) of CrPC, are not one and the same.

Karnataka HC Debunks RTC's Contrary Actions In Defending Bus Driver Before Motor Claims Tribunal But Taking Disciplinary Action Against Him

Case Title: The Divisional Controller AND Hussainsab.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 148260 OF 2020

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 88

The Karnataka High Court recently said that a Road Transport Corporation cannot take different stands in respect of a road accident involving its driver before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal and in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the driver for the same incident.

A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “If any accident occurs, in pursuance of which the Corporation were to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a driver. The Corporation cannot take a different stand in a claim proceeding filed in MVC matters.”

It added “The Corporation being a government entity and a State under the Constitution is required to be a model litigant. A model litigant cannot take two contradictory stands, on the one hand, contending that the driver was driving in a proper manner, virtually certifying the driver's conduct and driving abilities and, on the other hand, initiate proceedings against a driver for rash and negligent driving by contending that there is a misconduct.”

Karnataka High Court Orders Inquiry Against Police Inspector For "Undue Indulgence" In Dispute Between Two Religious Institution

Case Title: Uttaradi Mutt And State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.100199 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 89

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Police Commissioner, Dharwad to initiate departmental inquiry against a police inspector for allegedly interfering with the functioning of a religious institution.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “There is material in the case at hand to demonstrate that the 3 rd respondent has indulged in abuse of his power. Therefore, it becomes a fit case to direct the Commissioner, to initiate a departmental inquiry against the 3rd respondent. The departmental inquiry shall be guided to unearth the fact as to what led the 3rd respondent; who led the 3rd respondent; why was he led, to show over indulgence in the matter, in which he should not have been interfered, unless there was a law and order problem.”

Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Invoked Again Over Matters Which Have Already Been Adjudicated: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Starlog Enterprises Limited Board of Trustees of New Mangalore Port Trust

Case No: CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 372 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 90

The Karnataka High Court has said the Arbitration clause in the lease agreement cannot be invoked for matters that have already been adjudicated upon and concluded by both the Arbitral Tribunal and the competent courts.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Starlog Enterprises Limited, who had approached the court praying for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes that had arisen between him and New Mangalore Port Trust.

It said, “Given that both critical issues, the legality of the contract's termination and the refund of amounts claimed have attained finality through due legal process, the petitioner cannot invoke the arbitration clause again on the same grounds. The petitioner's attempt to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is therefore fundamentally misconceived and legally impermissible.”

Karnataka High Court Quashes ED Summons Issued To Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's Wife, Minister BS Suresh In MUDA Case

Case Title: Parvathi AND Directorate of Enforcement (CRL.P 1132/2025) and another

Case No: CRL.P 1132/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 91

The Karnataka High Court on Friday allowed the pleas by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's wife Parvathi and Minister B S Suresh for quashing summons issued by Enforcement Directorate for their alleged involvement in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing order said, "Allowed and quashed".

The court had reserved its order last month.

During the hearing senior advocate Sandesh J Chouta appearing for Parvathy had submitted that she has surrendered the sites which are alleged to be issued illegally and is neither enjoying it nor is in possession of proceeds of crime. However, in haste the ED registered its ECIR soon after an FIR was registered by the Lokayukta police on the directions of the court, he said.

Imprisonment Of Husband Cannot Exceed One Month In Single Application Claiming Arrears Of Maintenance: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ABC AND XYZ

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103364 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 92

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a subsequent order passed by the trial court sentencing a husband to suffer two more months civil imprisonment after he had already spent one month, on account of non-payment of maintenance to the wife.

Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by one Chandrashekhar who had challenged the order sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for an additional period of two months for non-payment of arrears of maintenance.

The bench referred to the co-ordinate bench judgment in the case of Shri. Kallappa vs. Smt. Yallaubai, wherein it was held that a wife or person entitled to maintenance may file an application for recovery of arrears of maintenance either for the whole amount due or for each month's allowance separately. If the application is for the whole amount of arrears, the imprisonment may extend to one month, unless the payment is made sooner. Further successive applications can be filed for each month's maintenance; however, where an application is filed for the entire arrears, the imprisonment imposed cannot exceed one month, it had said.

Beneficiary Nomination Under Insurance Act Can't Override Succession Law: Karnataka HC Suggests 'Better Practices' To Follow While Enacting, Amending Law

Case Title: Neelavva @Neelamma AND Chandravva & Others.

Case No: RFA NO.100471 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 93

The Karnataka High Court has held that the amended Section 39 of the Insurance Act is not intended to override the provisions of law relating to succession.

In doing so the court said that a mother cannot, by virtue of being a beneficiary nominee under Section 39, claim absolute ownership over the benefits flowing from her son's insurance policy in view of the claim laid by the heirs of the deceased.

The court held that if the legal heirs of the deceased policy holder make a claim on the holder's policy, then the "nominee's claim has to yield to the personal law governing succession".