Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: September 29 - October 05, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 323 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 329

Nominal Index:

Syed Parveez Mushraff AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 323

DODDAGIRIYAPPACHARI AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 324

Vishwanath Kadli AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 325

The Principal Secretary To Government & ANR AND Shivanagouda Vasand & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 326

Baburao AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 327

Dr K Sudhakar AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 328

L AND T INFRA INVESTMENT PARTNERS VERSUS BHORUKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED. Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 329

Judgments/Orders

'Act Will Remain As A Scar In Her Life': Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Facilitating Co-Accused Rape A Woman

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.

PTCL Act Can Be Invoked For Second Time If Granted Lands Are Transferred After Being Restored In Favor Of Grantee: Karnataka High Court

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.

S.21 Drugs & Cosmetics Act | Fresh Notification Need Not Be Issued Every Time An Inspector Is Transferred: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Vishwanath Kadli AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103433 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 325

The Karnataka High Court has clarified that it would be unreasonable to issue a notification under Section 21 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act on every occasion when an Inspector is transferred, adding that such a narrow interpretation of the provision is not in furtherance of the object of the Act.

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty in his order observed that the Section 21(1) of the Act provides that Central Government or State Government, may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint qualified persons to be Inspectors for such areas as may be assigned to them.

Corruption Threatens Democracy & Undermines Rule Of Law, Courts Must Ensure Accountability: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: The Principal Secretary To Government & ANR AND Shivanagouda Vasand & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 100268 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 326

The Karnataka High Court has said that courts or tribunals should not lightly interfere in the matter of misconduct arising out of charges of corruption.

A division bench of Justice S.Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil, said “Corruption is a menace that not only threatens the very fundamental principles of democracy, but also undermines the rule of law and the institutions that serve as its guardian.”

It added “In the face of corruption, the courts are not mere spectators but rather the last bastion of justice, duty-bound to uphold the rule of law and ensure that accountability prevails over impunity.”

Karnataka HC Upholds Amendments To Civil Courts Act & High Court Act On Jurisdiction To Hear Appeals, Strikes Down Retrospective Operation

Case Title: Baburao AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.201536 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar). 327

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the amendments made to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 and the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 insofar as it relates to appeals from the Civil Judge (Senior Division) lying to the District Court, and the first appeals lying to the High Court from the City Civil Court being heard by a Single Judge irrespective of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Justice M I Arun said, “All other amendments to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1964), amended by way of Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Karnataka Act No.33 of 2024) are upheld. Amendments to the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No.5 of 1962) amended by way of Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Karnataka Act No.32 of 2024) are upheld.”

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against BJP MP For Seeking IAS Officer's Help After EC's Flying Squad Seized ₹4Cr Cash From Co-Accused

Case Title: Dr K Sudhakar AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 18910/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 328

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a criminal case against BJP MP Dr K Sudhakar booked for texting an IAS officer for help after the Election Commission seized Rs 4.8 crore cash from a co-accused's house, a day before the Lok Sabha Elections in April 2024.

Justice M I Arun quashed the case registered for offences punishable under sections 171B (bribery), 171C (undue influence of election), and 511(Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment) IPC and Section 123 (Corrupt practices) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

Mere Change In Arbitral Rules Does Not Frustrate Arbitration Agreement: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: L AND T INFRA INVESTMENT PARTNERS VERSUS BHORUKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

Case Number: COMAP No. 261 of 2025 C/W COMAP No.279 of 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 329

The Karnataka High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice C.M. Joshi has set aside interim injunctions granted by Commercial Court by which it restrained L & T Infra Investment Partners Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (“L&T Infra”) from proceeding with arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules against Bhoruka Power Corporation Limited (“BPCL”) and its promoter shareholders.