Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: October 20 - October 26, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 354 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

Nominal Index:

Shakuntala Desai AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 354

Deputy Director AND Asadullah Khan. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 355

Nara Suryanarayana Reddy AND Initiating Officer & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 356

Gurnunath Vadde AND Deputy Commissioner & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 357

ALTHAF HUSSAIN YANE ALTHAF MOOSA AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

Prakash Chimanlal Sheth AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

BABOON INVESTMENTS HOLDING Versus M/S. ATRIA BRINDVAN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

S. Gowri Shankar and another v. The Karnataka State Bar Council and others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

Judgments/Orders

Karnataka High Court Directs Sensitisation Of Convicts On Penal Consequences Of Overstaying Parole Leave

Case Title: Shakuntala Desai AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200105 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 354

The Karnataka High Court has directed prison administration to educate and sensitize convicts regarding the legal obligations attached to parole and the severe penal consequences that follow in case of non-compliance.

For context Section 58 of the Karnataka Prisons (Amendment) Act, 2022, contemplates imprisonment which may extend up to five years, and fine, for any convict who, having been released on parole, fails to surrender within the time stipulated in the order granting such release.

A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said “The underlying legislative intent is to ensure that the limited liberty granted to convicts under parole is not abused, and that the sanctity of judicial orders and prison discipline is maintained. It has come to the notice of this Court in several cases that convicts released on parole often remain unaware of the stringent consequences of failing to surrender within the prescribed time, and such ignorance frequently results in further criminal prosecution under Section 58 of the Act.”

Properties Mortgaged To Bank For Advancement Of Loans Cannot Be Attached Under PMLA: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Deputy Director AND Asadullah Khan

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2020 C/W MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2020, MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2020 & MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2020.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 355

The Karnataka High Court has held that properties which are mortgaged to the Bank are not the proceeds of crime, and an attachment order cannot be passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, in respect of the properties mortgaged to the Bank for the advancement of loans.

A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T held thus while dismissing the appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Act, which allowed the appeals filed by the accused challenging the confirmation order of attachment regarding seven properties and quashed the confirmation order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Initiating Officer Under Benami Property Act Must Call For Beneficial Owner's Reply In Notice: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Nara Suryanarayana Reddy AND Initiating Officer & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.107184 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 356

The Karnataka High Court recently directed that Initiating Officers appointed under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, to henceforth, in any notice issued under sub-Section (1) of Section 24 of the Act to a Benamidar and marked to the beneficial owner categorically state that the beneficial owner is also required to reply, submit explanation or submission within the time frame as that provided to the Benaminar in the said notice.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the direction while allowing a petition filed by one Nara Suryanarayana Reddy who is the beneficial owner of a Benami property.

Karnataka High Court Tells BSNL To Consider Plea For Installing Tower In Village Without Any Mobile Connectivity

Case Title: Gurnunath Vadde AND Deputy Commissioner & ANR

Case No: WP 25174/2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 357

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited to consider a representation for installing mobile network towers in the Bhavani Bijalgao village, of Kamalanagar Taluk, Bidar District, as residents of the said locality are unable to avail of various services and benefits for want of connectivity.

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha while hearing the petition filed by Gurunath Vadde asked the counsel for the petitioner a pointed query about whether there is no Airtel or any other private service provider operational in the area apart from BSNL.

Karnataka High Court Declines To Quash Case Against Man For Circulating WhatsApp Audio Clips Criticising State's Handling Of COVID-19

Case Title: ALTHAF HUSSAIN YANE ALTHAF MOOSA AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7272 OF 2025.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash a case registered in the year 2020, against a person accused of circulating audio clips in WhatsApp groups wherein he criticized the Government, local MLA, and the manner in which the State Authorities were handling the COVID-19 pandemic.

A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed the petition filed by one Althaf Hussain Yane Althaf Moosa, who is charged under section 153A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench said “This Court is of the prima facie view that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner at this stage. Section 153A IPC is attracted where any person, by words spoken or written, or by signs or otherwise, makes an attempt with the intention of promoting enmity or provoking disharmony, which is likely to result in disturbance of public tranquillity. This Court cannot lose sight of the magnitude of panic that prevailed during the first phase of COVID-19 pandemic. Whether the audio recording released by the petitioner was made recklessly, maliciously, or with total disregard for the prevailing crisis, is a matter that necessarily requires determination in a full-fledged trial.”

Copy Of Passport Can't Be Given To Third Party Under RTI Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Prakash Chimanlal Sheth AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17341 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

The Karnataka High Court has said that information relating to the passport of a person accused of cheque dishonour, including a copy of the passport is personal in nature and cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act.

The court also observed that the disclosure was exempted under Section 8(1)(h) as being information the disclosure of which would impede the probe and Section 24(4) as per which the Act is not applicable on special intelligence and security organization/units organized and established by the State Government.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj said: “The disclosure of the information like a passport, in my considered opinion, being personal in nature would cause immense harm and injury to a person. The details of a passport are private to a person and if those details of a passport are made available to any third party, including the petitioner who has filed Section 138 of NI Act proceedings, it could cause a danger to the life or physical safety of the concerned person.”

When Two Or More Courts Have Jurisdiction, Parties' Choice Of Court Prevails Even If Cause Of Action Arises Elsewhere: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: BABOON INVESTMENTS HOLDING Versus M/S. ATRIA BRINDVAN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED

Case Number:COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

The Karnataka High Court held that when parties to a contract have agreed to exclusive jurisdiction of a particular court, suit instituted in other courts is not maintainable even if the cause of action has arisen in other jurisdiction.

Setting aside the interim injunction granted by the commercial court at Bengaluru, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that the Debenture Trust Deed (DTD) clearly conferred exclusive jurisdiction on a court located at Mumbai thereby ousting the jurisdiction of other courts.

It held that “Where more than one Court has jurisdiction, and the parties agree that one or more of those Courts would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes, such agreement is lawful and binding".

Validity Of AIBE Results Extended Till March 21, 2026 By BCI, Notes Karnataka High Court

Case : S. Gowri Shankar and another v. The Karnataka State Bar Council and others

Case No: Writ Petition No. 28203 OF 2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

The Karnataka High Court recently recorded the Bar Council of India's (BCI) decision to extend the validity of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) results till March 21, 2026, while disposing of a writ petition filed by two law graduates complaining of delays in their enrolment as advocates.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, hearing the petition filed by S. Gowri Shankar and Vijay Chander T., noted that the BCI had “taken into consideration the problems which would be caused to the students who have passed the AIBE results” and therefore “thought it fit to extend the validity of the AIBE Results until 21.03.2026.”