Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 226 To 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 448Caretaker Of Property Obliged To Handover Possession To Owners On Demand, Cannot Seek Injunction Against Them: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Sriramulu AND U Ravi Rao & OthersCase No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3281 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 226The Karnataka High Court has said that a caretaker of the...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 226 To 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 448
Case Title: Sriramulu AND U Ravi Rao & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3281 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
The Karnataka High Court has said that a caretaker of the property continues in possession of the property only on behalf of the owners and cannot be held to have acquired any interest in the property and is under an obligation to handover possession to the defendants on demand.
Justice C M Poonacha held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by one Sriramulu who had challenged the order of the trial court rejecting his application seeking a temporary injunction against the defendants from interfering in his possession and also restrain them from alienating the suit property.
The bench said “The Trial Court having appreciated the relevant factual matrix and having rejected the application filed for injunction by the plaintiff, the appellant has failed in demonstrating that the said order is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal.”
Case Title: Rachappa Satish Kumar & ANR AND M/s Eaglesight Media Private Limited & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13365 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
The Karnataka High Court has said that orders of temporary injunctions can be granted only against those who are made defendants in the suit and restraining orders against third parties who are not made parties to the suit cannot be granted.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by journalist Rachappa Sathish Kumar and M/s Btv Kannada Private Limited who had challenged an ex-parte temporary injunction order passed by the City Civil and Sessions Court whereby it directed blocking of Btv Kannada's social media page in April this year by all social media platforms.
The high court said “Temporary injunctions can be granted only against those who are made defendants in the suit. Restraint orders against third parties who are not made parties to the suit cannot be granted by any cannon of law. While litigants may make or may not make certain parties as defendants, though seeking a prayer against those persons, but, the concerned Court cannot blissfully ignore the law and pass the orders of the kind that is now passed.”
Case Title: B S Gupta AND The Commissioner & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 46688 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an advertisement tax demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to an educational institution for displaying non-commercial signage and boards on its own property.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing the petition filed by BS Gupta, Secretary of Gupta Education Trust, who had challenged the legality/validity of the order issued by BBMP, under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976.
The court said “This Court is of the view that power to levy advertisement tax under Section 134 of the Act must be strictly confined to displays that fall within the statutory definition of advertisement under the above said section, which necessitates a commercial or promotional character. The signage in question or hoardings being a non-commercial institutional identifier does not meet this threshold.”
Case Title: Devibai AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200940 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
The Karnataka High court has said that in absence of any violation of bail conditions, the order of Sessions Court granting bail to an accused cannot be sought to be cancelled before the High Court by filing an application under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023.
A Single judge, Justice V Srishananda held thus while dismissing the petition filed by the mother of a rape victim, challenging grant of bail to the accused charged under provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). It was her case that grant of bail for such a serious offence had resulted in miscarriage of justice.
The court said “Even though concurrent powers vested in this Court along with the Special Court or the Sessions Court to grant or cancel the bail, the application seeking cancellation of bail shall not be construed as if it is an appeal over the order of grant of bail. Even in BNSS, 2023, no such provision is carved out by the legislature so as to vest the power of either revision or appeal over the discretionary order of grant of bail.”
Karnataka High Court Quashes Man's Sexual Assault Complaint Against Malayalam Film Director Ranjith
Case Title: Ranjith Balkrishnan AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 32231/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed the criminal case filed by a man against Malayalam film director Ranjith Balkrishnan alleging sexual harassment.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition and quashed the case registered for offences under Section 377 (unnatural sex) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The complainant, claiming to be an aspiring actor, alleged that he was called into the hotel room in Bangalore by Ranjith and was subjected to sexual harassment.
Case Title: C Bhavani @Hamsa AND The Petitions Committee Karnataka Legislative Council & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 30129 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a direction issued by the Petition Committee of the Karnataka Legislative Council regarding the alleged encroachment of a public road in Rajakaluve.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by C Bhavani @Hamsa and quashed the directive issued by the Committee on March 8, 2017. It said “The impugned direction dated 8.3.2017 issued by the Respondent No.1, is hereby quashed.”
Case Title: M/S. KALPATHARU BREWERIES & DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.26031 OF 2017 (LB - RES) C/W Others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 232
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Gram Panchayat cannot levy or collect property taxes in respect of Industrial establishments located within areas notified by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). Mere execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement or any administrative communication cannot vest power in the Gram Panchayat to levy tax in the absence of express delegation or statutory backing.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a batch of petitions and quashing the demand notices issued by the Sompura Gram Panchayat levying property tax on the industrial property of the petitioners located within the notified industrial area established and maintained by the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB).
Case Title: Muthulaxmi B N AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.10897 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
"Justice Delayed Is Justice Dented", said the Karnataka High Court while imposing exemplary cost of Rs 2 Lakh on the Chairman, members of District Caste and Income Verification Committee of Hassan District for refusing to issue a caste and income certificate to an assistant Public Prosecutor, despite the law being settled on this aspect.
The court underscored that the cost will be paid to the lawyer out of their own funds and not from State's funds, observing that the imposition of such cost is to be seen as a cautionary call to those who hold public office that dereliction cloaked in ignorance shall find no refuge before court.
Case Title: Venugopal Krishnamurthy & ANR AND M Tejaswini
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.21479 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
"Judicial discretion must not be exercised in favour of a party indulging in contumacious defiance. No party has a right to be heard on merits, when interim orders are violated with impunity,” said the Karnataka High Court while quashing a trial court order which rejected a landlord' plea to strike off the tenant's defence in an eviction suit.
Noting that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent for the last five years despite court orders, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the application filed by property owner Venugopal Krishnamurthy. The bench said,
“This Court is not unmindful of the fact that the power to strike off a defence must be exercised with restraint and circumspection. Yet, in the present circumstance, where the orders of this Court and the trial Court have been wilfully ignored and no cogent justification exists for such non-compliance, indulgence would tantamount to rewarding disobedience.”
Case Title: Suresh Babu C AND V Varadarajan & ANR
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1340 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
The Karnataka High Court has held that the moment a landlord files a counter-claim seeking ejectment preceded by a statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the very foundation of the tenant's suit for injunction alleging unlawful dispossession collapses.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by a tenant, Suresh Babu C, challenging the trial court order which held that in a bare suit for injunction filed by the appellant/tenant, the respondents/landlords are entitled to seek relief of ejectment by filing a counter claim.
Case Title: Mohamed Umar Seeni Ariff Khan & ANR AND Mrs Tanzia Bano
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2025 (CPC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 332 OF 2025 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2025 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 489 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
The Karnataka High Court has said that provisions of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, must be interpreted in a purposive and inclusive manner, to not exclude genuine relationships from legal protection, simply due to procedural irregularities.
Justice Ramachandra D Huddar further clarified that “Even if a marriage is not registered under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, it can still be treated as valid marriage under Indian law for interim purposes, particularly when party asserting the marriage supports it with documents such as photos, proof of residence, joint account or correspondence.”
Case Title: M/S. VISWAS TEXTILE PROCESSORS AND ICICI BANK LIMITED & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17588 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
The Karnataka High Court has said that misappropriation of funds, or loss of funds from a customer's 'current account' maintained by a banking institution, is a commercial dispute and the customer's recovery suit against the bank is maintainable before the Commercial Court.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing the petition filed by M/s. Viswas Textile Processors. The petitioner had approached the court against an order passed by the Commercial Court dated August 30, 2022, holding that the petitioner's recovery suit was not maintainable before it.
“The suit instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff for misappropriation of funds, or loss of funds from the current account maintained by the banking institution, based on the withdrawals of money by defendant No.3 by encashing forged cheques would become the subject matter of a commercial dispute, as it is arising from the ordinary transaction between the petitioner-plaintiff and defendant No.1 - banking institution.”
Case Title: Dr Manjunath R AND The Secretary To Government of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.15289 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 238
The Karnataka High Court set aside the of termination of a guest lecturer appointed to Department of Journalism and Mass Communication in Bengaluru North University Kolar, after he made a statement in the press on grants sanctioned to Kolar District claiming that these were not properly utilised by the officials.
Justice H T Narendra Prasad allowed the petition filed by Dr Manjunath R and quashed the termination order issued dated 09.04.2025 passed by Vice Chancellor, relieving the petitioner from the post of temporary Guest Lecturer in the University and also ordered not to accept his application for appointment to the post of Guest Lecturer in the respondent – University, for three years.
Case Title: Rohit Jawa AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8536 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 239
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against Rohit Jawa, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Hindustan Unilever Ltd under Food Safety and Standards Act, after certain allegedly "unsafe" samples of Horlicks biscuits were purportedly recovered from a person's house.
Case Title: Abhishek Mishra AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.8596 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 240
The Karnataka High Court recently dropped charges of stalking levelled against a man saying that merely sending text messages to the complainant (victim) containing foul language does not constitute the offence of stalking under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Section 354-D deals with stalking. Any man who follows a woman and contacts or attempts to contact such a woman to foster personal interaction or monitors the woman on the internet, email or electronic communication commits the offence of stalking.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while partly allowing the petition filed by one Abhishek Mishra who had approached the court seeking quashing of a criminal case registered against him.
It said, “Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 354D i.e., stalking is concerned, the allegation against the petitioner and the complainant is of sexual acts. Mere sending messages between the two or exchange of messages which contained profanity would not amount to stalking. Therefore, the offence of stalking is loosely laid against the petitioner.”
Case Title: Asif & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201594 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 241
The Karnataka High Court has asked the State Government to frame rules under Section 174 BNSS which mandates the police officer to lodge information on the commission of a non-cognizable offence in a book, in such form as prescribed under the relevant rules framed by the state government.
The court said this after noting that even though BNSS came into force from July 1, 2024 till date no such rules have been framed by the state.
Case Title: Balakrishna K P & ANR AND K P Puttaraju & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.51712/2019
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 242
The Karnataka High Court has said that the exercise of power by the trial Court to consider the application for police protection is an inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court may pass such an order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
A single judge, Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil held thus and issued guidelines to be followed by trial courts while considering the application made seeking police protection by the plaintiff in a suit. It said, “I am of the view that the consideration of the application filed for police protection before the trial Court shall be based on various factors like:
Case Title: M Sharadamma & Others AND Kiran Kumar & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.50575/2019
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 243
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order of the trial court which allowed an application filed by a plaintiff in a suit filed for specific performance of contract, seeking to summon the defendant in the case as a witness.
The Trial Court had concluded that any party to the suit can be summoned as a witness and allowed the application as per Rule 21 of Order XVI (summoning and attendance of witnesses) CPC. The defendants in the suit M Sharadamma and others had approached the high court challenging trial court's 12-09-2019 order.
Case Title: Ansari AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100081/2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 244
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the order of the trial court sentencing a 27-year-old man to undergo 20 years ' rigorous imprisonment after convicting him for offences under Section 377 (Unnatural offence) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
A single judge, Justice J M Khazi, dismissed the appeal filed by Ansair Khasim Jingru, who had challenged the trial court order dated 24-11-2022 convicting him.
It said “The examination of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution clearly establishes the allegations made against the accused. The trial Court on detailed and thorough analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution has come to a correct conclusion that the accused has committed the offences alleged and convicted and sentenced him. The conclusions arrived at by the trial Court is consistent with the evidence on record and this Court finds no perversity calling for interference.”
Case Title: Vishwas K S AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.20895 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 245
"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.
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) 246
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"
Case Title: Century Club AND S Umapathy & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 13336 OF 2018
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 247
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.”
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) 248
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.
Case Title: Mustafa & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 101905 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 249
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.
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) 250
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.
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND Nagesh
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100570 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 251
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.”
Case title - Google India Pvt. Ltd vs Nayana Krishna
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.22125/2019
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 252
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.
Case Title: M D Devamma AND K V Kalavathi & Others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 253
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”.
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) 254
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.
Case Title: K M Gurushivakumar AND LIC Of India & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15186 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 255
Taking note of the "considerable time" taken by labour courts in deciding workman's plea for recovery of money due from employer, the Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines for expeditious adjudication of applications made by workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde in his order said: “This Court has also taken note of considerable time taken by the Tribunals or Labour Courts in deciding application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, 1947. It is also noticed that many times enquiry is held without ascertaining the actual disputed claim and the admitted claim. In this process, even compliance of the undisputed terms of the award gets delayed.”
Case Title: Ningappa AND PRABHATBHAI & ANR
Case No: MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202819 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
The Karnataka High Court has said that residing together cannot be added as an additional condition which is to be established by a claimant in order to be entitled for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground of loss of dependency
Justice Ravi V Hosmani said this while modifying the order of the tribunal which had refused the claim made by the husband seeking compensation on the grounds of loss of dependency after his wife died in a road accident. The court said, "Residing together cannot be added as additional condition to be established by claimant in order to be entitled for compensation. Burden to establish separation would be on Insurer".
Case Title: Shivegowda AND Nanjeshgowda & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.617 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
The Karnataka High Court has held that contributory negligence cannot be attributed to the rider of a motorcycle who meets with a road accident, only because he was not holding a driving license to ride his vehicle.
A single judge Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha said “Only because the appellant was not holding driving license to ride his vehicle which is involved in the accident it cannot be held that he contributed to the accident to occur when all other convincing evidence speaks that the rider of the other vehicle which is involved in the accident was solely at fault.”
Case Title: Vivek Kariappa C K AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9436 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 258
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against a man who was booked by the police for forwarding a video on a WhatsApp group, showing a person allegedly shooting a cow, and the writing that the said shooting was incorrect.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition and quashed the case filed against 29-year-old Vivek Kariappa C K, who was charged for offences punishable under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Chief Administrative Officer & ANR AND Mallappa Basappa Sajjan
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 259
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a single judge's order which had set aside a communication issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kollar cancelling the offer of appointment to the post of 'Peon' in the Judicial Department of Kolar District.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the appeal filed by the Chief Administrative Office, of the Principal District and Sessions court, and said:
“We concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that conviction for a petty offence would not be a ground for cancelling the offer of appointment. It is also well-settled that non-disclosure of a conviction for petty offence, does not necessarily provide sufficient ground for cancellation of an appointment.”
Case Title: Dilipraj Pukkella & ANR AND Union of India & OThers
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3465 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 260
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 164 of the Companies Act 2013, an individual can be disqualified from being a Director in a company against which allegations are made, as well as regarding any other company in which the individual is a director against whom no allegations are made.
The petitioner directors had argued that they had been disqualified from the company–M/s Vihaan, as regards which allegations have been made, but also as regards any other company, and that they cannot be disqualified as an interim measure from all companies.
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co Ltd AND Pratik Kumar Tripathy & ANR
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4090/2016.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
The Karnataka High Court has urged the Central and State governments to consider bringing amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 so as to absolve the liability of an insurer in drunken driving cases.
As per Section 149 MV Act, insurer can avoid liability only in the circumstances specified in sub-section (2). Drunk driving is not a ground to avoid liability thereunder.
Case Title: Kudla Rampage AND Harshendra Kumar D & Others
Case No: WP 22528/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (August 01) quashed the ex-parte gag order passed against YouTube Channel 'Kudla Rampage' in connection with the Dharmasthala Burial case.
Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the trial court order did not mention any alleged defamatory content based on which it was passed, adding that the order granted a "mandatory sweeping injunction". It further said that the order was so broad that it "threatens" any voice against the respondent-plaintiff Harshendra Kumar D, the family or even the place Dharmasthala.
Case Title – Nayeem Noor Mohamed & Anr. V. Nazim Noor Mohamed
Case No: COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.302 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
The Karnataka High Court Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Justice K Manmadha has observed that an order under Section 33, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”), even of an interim nature, amounts to an arbitral award and not an interlocutory order.
The Court highlighted that the scope of Section 33, ACA was limited to a correction of a clerical or similar mistake or a recomputation or a consideration of a claim presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the arbitral award, but there is no scope for an "additional adjudication" under Section 33, ACA.
Case Title: Murali Krishna R AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.204 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the corruption case registered against a driver attached to the Chief General Manager of BESCOM, for merely keeping a bag containing bribe in the Manager's car on his instruction.
Noting that the demand and acceptance of bribe were made by the Manager who was booked as the first accused, Justice M Nagaprasanna held it is unfair to prosecute the "humble contract employee" who was just 40 days into service and was merely following instructions.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & ANR AND Mahaboob Patel
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.202187 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
The Karnataka High Court has directed authorities concerned to decide applications received for Compassionate Appointment within a maximum period of 90 days, from date of receipt of the application.
A division bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz And Justice K S Hemalekha said, “Compassionate appointment matters being a welfare measure designed to provide immediate financial relief to bereaved families, the State bears a high duty of procedural fairness."
Karnataka High Court Asks Centre To Check If Regulations Are Needed To Curb 'Profile Funding' Scam
Case Title: Vijayeendra G Muddebihalkar & Others AND Union of India & Others.
Case No: WP 23590/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (August 5) asked the Union Ministry of Finance to take note of the petitions filed by persons claiming to be victims of 'Profile Funding' and see whether regulations are to be put in place.
For context, profile funding is an alleged scam wherein victims are purportedly promised by scammers that the victims' bank account will be funded based on the their profile, in lieu of personal and financial details. Victims are allegedly told that their profiles will be used for applying for loans.
Justice B M Shyam Prasad while dictating his order said “This court must also state that petitions of this nature are too frequent to be ignored and the Secretary of Ministry of Finance, Union of India must take note of the same, to see whether regulations must be put in place.”
Case title: Vijay Mahantesh Mathapati & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 200873 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 267
The Karnataka High Court has struck down Rule 6 of Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules 2006, wherein a victim can directly approach a sessions court in a private complaint instead of Commission conducting an inquiry, holding it to be unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
For context, Rule 6 states that a victim of an offence arising out of violation of human rights, his legal representative, or a registered NGO or a public person may file a complaint against a public servant who has committed or abetted the commission of such an offence. The Court on receipt of such a complaint, shall either order an investigation into the offence or it may proceed to conduct its own inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the procedure for dealing with private complaints in CrPC.
A court has been defined in the rules to mean a Court of Sessions designated as Human Rights Court by the State Government with the concurrence of Chief Justice of the High Court to try an offence of violation of human rights.
Justice S Rachaiah in his order said: “The striking down of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 is justified in law and principle for the reason that, the Rule impermissibly expands the scope of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 by enabling the private party or victim to file a complaint directly by invoking the jurisdiction of the Court established under Section 30 of the Act, by bypassing the provisions of the Act. This would lead to not only disrupting the legislative intent and scheme, but also invading the Central Act.”
Case Title: Ms. Sumita Abhishek Sundaram v. Sankalpan Infrastructure Private Limited
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.35715 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 268
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has held that the seat court of an arbitration always retains jurisdiction over execution proceedings irrespective of where the award-debtor is located or has its assets, even when another execution petition is pending in another jurisdiction.
Case Title: Sivagami N AND M/s Vinayaka Travels & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.17796 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 269
The Karnataka High Court has said that the right to cross-examination, whether or not encoded in statute, emerges as a sine qua non of adjudication. It is not merely permissible, it is an indispensable right.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while upholding an order passed by the Commercial Court dismissing an application filed by the petitioner Sivagami N, seeking the trial court to draw an adverse inference and deny cross-examination to the plaintiffs.
Case Title: Santosh Yamanappa Wadakar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.103894 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 270
The Karnataka High Court set aside an order passed by Pre-University Education department which had rejected a compassionate appointment plea filed by the son of a deceased employee of a Pre-University solely on the ground that there was no vacancy in the institution where the deceased was working.
In doing so the court held that the rejection was in contravention to the state Pre-University Education (Academic, Registration, Administration, Grant-in-aid etc.) (Amendment) Rules, and the respondent-authority must strictly follow the rules while deciding such a plea.
Civil Suit Seeking Corrections In Birth/Death Certificate Not Maintainable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Suhas L AND The Chief Registrar Births And Deaths & Others
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2454 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 271
The Karnataka High Court has held that a civil suit for seeking rectification of entries in a Death Certificate is not maintainable.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “This Court is of the considered view that the present suit, filed before the Civil Court seeking rectification of entries in the Death Certificate, is not maintainable. There exists a clear bar under Section 9 of the CPC, as the nature of the relief falls exclusively within the domain of the Registrar under Section 15 of the 1969 Act (Registration of Births And Deaths Act)."
Case Title: Spunklane Media Private Limited AND Harshendra Kumar D
Case No: Writ Petition No 23819/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 272
The Karnataka High Court was on Monday (August 11) informed that the trial court had refused to extend its July 18 ex-parte interim 'gag' order restraining various media entities and YouTube channels from publishing any "defamatory content" about Harshendra Kumar D and his kin, in connection with the Dharmasthala Burial case.
The development happened in a plea filed by Spunklane Media Pvt. Ltd., a company which owns and operates 'The News Minute' web portal, challenging the ex-parte interim 'gag order'.
Case Title: Murali Krishna Brahmandam AND Chief Secretary & Others
Case No: WP 23824/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday imposed a fine of Rs 1 Lakh on a litigant seeking direction to various government departments to discuss 'Karnataka Government Transformation Bill 2025' which was drafted by him.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar while dismissing a petition filed by one Murali Krishna Brahmandam said PIL (jurisdiction) is not for litigants to vent their ideas, however bright they may be.
The petitioner who claimed to be a political economist had approached the court seeking a direction to all the concerned principal secretaries, secretaries, and special secretaries of the 34 ministries and their 44 departments of Karnataka to discuss and propose the Karnataka Government Transformation Bill, 2025, which was drafted by him.
Case Title: Girish Bharadwaj & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others Case No: WP 5838/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (August 12) dismissed a PIL challenging Congress-led State government's 2023 decision to stall implementation of the Centre's National Education Policy 2020.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar observed that it cannot intervene in matters of policy unless the Petitioner establishes violation of any Fundamental/ statutory rights.
“How can we direct the government to follow a particular policy and not to follow a particular policy? Under which law can we compel them (State government) to accept or reject a policy?” the judges orally remarked during the hearing.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Abetment FIR Against Wife Despite Husband's Suicide Note
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100661 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
The Karnataka High Court quashed an abetment to suicide FIR lodged against a woman after her estranged husband allegedly committed suicide, noting that there was no act mentioned in his "death note" which had any nexus to his death.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed a petition filed by the woman booked for abetment to suicide (Section 108 BNS) observing that a reading of the complaint in the case would show that necessary ingredients to attract the alleged offence were not found.
Case Title: Jayalakshmi M AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 12535/2025 c/w WP 12987/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
The Karnataka High Court today refused to entertain two petitions filed questioning State's decision mandating new electricity consumers to install smart pre-paid meters, the cost of which is higher than what is prevalent in neighbouring states.
Justice M Nagaprasanna had reserved orders in the matter on July 22. However, noting that a PIL raising similar issues is already pending before a division bench of the High Court, the judge said, "Judicial discipline demands, hierarchy and propriety requires this Court to show judicial hands off to the present petitions. Therefore the subject petitions are not entertainable."
Case Title: PIO & THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NIRMITI KENDRA AND THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 52581 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
The Karnataka High Court has held that Nirmiti Kendras qualify as 'public authority' in terms of Section 2(h) of the Right To Information Act and thus, they are bound to disclose available information under the Act.
For context, the object of Nirmiti Kendra is to develop skills in the construction area and carry out civil contracts assigned by the State.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the petition filed by the Public Information Officer of the Kendra, who had approached the court challenging an order of the State Information Commissioner directing it to provide necessary information sought for by the applicant.
Case Title: Muzammil Kazi & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.101767 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
The Karnataka High Court has held that mere non-admission of a minor student in a private unaided school would not amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Muzammil Kazi, who had approached the court seeking a direction to St. Paul's High School to admit his minor son to its school in LKG grade.
The bench said, “The mere non-admission of petitioner No.2 in respondent No.3 school would not amount to a violation of Article 21, inasmuch as the petitioners have access to various other schools where petitioner No.2 could apply and obtain admission.”
Case Title: Assistant Director, ESI Corporation AND M/s. Sansera Engineering P Ltd
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3687 OF 2016.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
The Karnataka High Court has held that labourers engaged through contractors for construction and repair works within a factory premises are treated as 'employees' within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance (ESI) Act.
Justice Ramchandra D Huddar added that in such a case, contribution under the Act will have to be paid by the company employing them. The bench reasoned, "Expression `Employee' under Section 2(9) of the Act has been defined in conclusive and expansive terms. It not only encompasses persons directly employed by the Principal Employer but, also includes persons employed through an immediate employer (such as a contractor) so long as they are engaged in connection with the work of the factory or establishment or work which is incidental or preliminary to or connected with the main work of the factory."
Export Incentives Can't Be Denied For Inadvertent Error In Shipping Bill: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 9005 OF 2025 (T-CUS)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
The Karnataka High Court held that export incentives can't be denied for inadvertent error in shipping bill.
The bench opined that," …there are situations where the assessee by inadvertence or even otherwise has uploaded certificate/forms or returns which contains some errors which would require correction. The said correction or amendment cannot be denied on the basis of the technological system which has been introduced by the Department to contend that the software does not allow for such amendment…"
Case Title: Ramamurthy C K & Others AND Bosch Limited & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.17695 OF 2021 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.12656 OF 2021 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.21703 OF 2021 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.23395 OF 2021(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.23730 OF 2021(L) WRIT PETITION NO.23786 OF 2021(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.1434 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
The Karnataka High Court has held that if a dispute is raised questioning the validity of a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, before a conciliation officer, the appropriate Government is required to assign reasons for referring it to adjudication.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held thus while partly allowing the petitions filed by the Management of Bosch Ltd which had challenged the order dated 28.06.2021, passed by the appropriate Government, referring the dispute raised by around 160 workmen for adjudication before the labour court.
The bench said, “Where at least one of the parties alleges that settlement is recorded under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1947, in the presence of the Conciliation Officer, and the other party disputes it, the standard of scrutiny required to be undertaken by the appropriate Government under Section 12(5) is couple of degrees higher, as compared to disputes not emanating from a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1947.”
Case Title: Archana Patil AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 12777/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (August 18) dismissed a 52-year-old woman's plea for quashing a sexual assault complaint registered by the parents of a minor boy against her under the POCSO Act, observing that the provisions of the Act apply to both men and women and thus the act is "gender neutral".
Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said “POSCO Act being a progressive enactment is intended to safe guard sanctity of childhood it is rooted in gender neutrality with its beneficient object being protection of children, irrespective of sex. The act is thus gender neutral.”
It added, “Section 3 and 5 (POCSO Act), which form the foundation of offences under sections 4 and 6 of the Act delineate various forms of assault, although certain provisions may employ gendered pronouns the preamble and the purpose of the act render such usage inclusive, therefore it is inclusive of both male and female...The ingredients of Section 4 of the Act dealing with penetrative sexual assault are equally applicable to both men and women. The language of provision clearly indicates inclusivity, the ingredients of offences the once punishable under section 4 and 6 are clearly met in the case at hand, albeit prima facie.”
Case Title: Karnataka State Pollution Control Board AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24118 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
The Karnataka High Court has directed implementation of the Government order prohibiting the manufacture, sale and immersion of plaster of paris (POP) structures and also directed the district administration, local bodies and police department to cooperate for the enforcement of the said order.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi said “The issue raised is a serious one and we expect that the State Authority shall implement the notification with all seriousness and to its full extent.”
Case Title: Munisanjeevamma & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 49527 OF 2016
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
The Karnataka High Court has held that the sale deed executed in furtherance of a decree for Specific Performance, after contesting, the stamp duty liable to be paid would not be as per the valuation of the property on the date on which the document was presented for registration and but would be on the agreement value.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “ I am of the considered opinion that merely because Sri.Khader Mohiddin came forward to execute a sale date in favour of the petitioners would not require the petitioner to make payment of the stamp duty and registration fee as per the market value on the date of presentation of the said sale date. The benefit which would be available as regards sale deed executed and registered in the course of Execution Proceedings would equally apply to a sale date voluntarily executed by judgment debtor in favour of the decree holder.”
Case title: Mohammed Shoiab AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 19674 OF 2024 (GM-FOR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.392 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
The Karnataka High Court passed a slew of directions to incorporate use of modern technology to resolve complex title disputes and protect forest areas from illegal conversion, including formation of a high level committee of various State departments' officials to oversee the implementation of its directions.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while considering a land dispute case and noticed:
"traditional, paper-based, and siloed administrative systems are inadequate to resolve complex land title conflicts. While Karnataka has made significant strides in land records modernisation, the current situation proves that digitisation alone is insufficient. The critical failure is the lack of a single, unified source of truth".
Noting the limitations of the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme as presented by the matter before it, the court noted that while records are digitised, they are not necessarily integrated.
Case Title: Eshwaramma AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.101311 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
The Karnataka High Court has said that a convict who files a parole plea, cannot be deprived of consideration for parole merely because he did not move an application for suspension of sentence or bail.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said thus while partly allowing a petition filed by Eshwaramma seeking release of her son on general parole for 90 days, sought on account of her illness.
“...it would not be required for a convict to file an application for suspension of sentence and/or bail instead of filing an application for parole.The non-filing of such an application for suspension of sentence and/or bail would not deprive the convict of consideration for parole, if such application is submitted”.
Case Title: Lakshmavva Goshellanavar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.102208 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 287
The Karnataka High Court has asked the Managing Director of North West Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC) to formulate a humane policy for compassionate appointment of kin of deceased employees who expire during course of employment.
The court also directed the Divisional Controller KSRTC, Gadag Division (respondent no. 4) to appoint a woman, widow of deceased employee of NWKRTC, as a group D employee of the corporation, without reference to the upper age limit as per the usual terms of service conditions applicable to a class-D employee of the corporation.
The woman, sole survivor who did not have any children, had moved the high court claiming that because she had crossed the upper age limit of 45 years, her plea for appointment had been rejected by the corporation.
Case Title: K M Gangadhar AND State Of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 288
The Karnataka High Court upheld an order which refused to interfere with the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on a Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn), accused of threatening the police and interfering in police investigations, observing that there was no infirmity in procedure.
The decision came in an appeal filed by a civil judge against an order passed by high court's single judge bench. The appellant had earlier filed the writ petition before the single judge challenging an October 1, 2012 decision imposing penalty of compulsory retirement, after the enquiry officer found that the appellant had threatened a Police Inspector.
Case Title: Chooti Bee AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.101912 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 289
The Karnataka High Court has said that the grant of parole is a valuable right of a convict, which would also be a right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It said that the concerned authorities must apply their mind in a proper manner and pass a reasoned order on case to case basis, rather than reproducing the same grounds in all the reports which are submitted.
The court passed the order in a case where although the prison authorities had recommended parole for a convict, however the recommendation was not acted upon on account of the police report
Case Title: Shankar AND Secretary & Others
Case No: WP 23349/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
The Karnataka High Court on Saturday dismissed the petition filed by an officer bearer of Karnataka Light Music and Cultural Artists Association, challenging the decision of Police to prohibit DJ's and use of sound systems, in processions and public pandals, during Gauri Ganesh and Eid-Milad festivals.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner Shankar.
It said “The decibel levels in residential areas in daytime are required to be restricted to 55 decibel and 45 decibel at night time. It is difficult for this court to accept that use of sound systems and DJ in public places would be in compliance with the said decibel levels. We find no infirmity in issuance of circular restraining the use of sound system and DJ in public gatherings.”
Case Title: Mantavva & ANR AND The Divisional Controller.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 101661 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 291
The Karnataka High Court has said that if the spouse of an employee has predeceased the employee and there are no children, the mere marriage of the deceased employee cannot be a ground to reject an application for compassionate appointment to the brother of the deceased.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by Mantava and Sanganna, mother and brother of deceased employee Veeresh Mantappa Lolasar, an employee working with K.K.R.T.C, Ballari Division.
Case Title: Malurappa AND Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1222 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order which dismissed a plea by an employee of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) accused of securing an appointment on the basis of a false certificate regarding his educational qualifications.
In doing so, the high court rejected the bus driver's reliance on a BMTC circular protecting employees from dismissal on grounds of suppression, after noting that the circular did not contemplate a case where an ineligible employee has secured appointment by furnishing a forged document to satisfy the eligibility condition.
Upholding the single judge's order, a division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the petition filed by one Malurappa and said “We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”
Case Title: Subhan Khan AND Prabha Mallikarjun
Case No: ELECTION PETITION NO.3 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
The Karnataka High Court has said that any alleged corrupt act done by a candidate prior to being nominated for elections cannot be termed as a corrupt practice under the Representation of People Act.
For context, Section 123 of the RP Act pertains to corrupt practices, which includes bribery.
Bribery is explained as any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person with the object of inducing (a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election; (b) or an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election.
Case Title: Seetha Nayak & Others AND Laxmi Kom Nagesh Naik
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.102555 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
The Karnataka High Court has said that only the defendant who has filed a written statement, in a suit seeking partition and separate possession, can seek amendment of the written statement filed by him, other defendants who have adopted the written statement are not permitted to amend it.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Seeta Nayak and others. He said “In my considered opinion, it would not be permissible for defendant No.4, who has not filed a written statement, to seek amendment of a written statement not filed by defendant No.4.”
Case Title: Sanjana V Tumkur AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6014 OF 2018
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
The Karnataka High Court directed Sri Siddartha Academy of Higher Education a deemed to be University running Sri Siddhartha Medical College to pay Rs. 15 Lakh as compensation to a student for denying her admission to the MBBS course for academic year 2017-18, despite her paying fee for the first year within time.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K Manmadha Rao held thus while disposing of a petition filed by a student Sanjana V Tumkur.
“We notice that the instant case was one where the writ petitioner was not at fault and it was only on account of the illegal demand raised by respondent No.6 that she was unable to join a MBBS Course in the Academic Year 2017-2018. She had paid the first year fees before the prescribed date, she had also provided the Bank Guarantee immediately thereafter, that is, on 08.09.2017. Hence, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case, where compensation should be awarded to the petitioner by respondent No.6 College for the denial of admission for the year 2017-2018.”
Case Title: Jagrutka Karnatak Jagrutha Bharata AND The Secretary & Others
Case No: WP 33695/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
The Karnataka High Court today (August 28) dismissed a PIL filed seeking directions to Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and others to throw light on 'Volume 2' of Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography— My Experiments with Truth, stated to be 'missing'.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi dismissed the plea filed by an organisation namely 'Jagrutha Karnataka, Jagrutha Bharatha', which was represented by its President K N Manjunatha in person.
Case Title: S Venkateshappa AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3612/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
The Karnataka High Court has said that the transfer of a government employee would not be vitiated for being made solely at the instance or recommendation of a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA).
A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice K V Aravind said thus while dismissing the petition filed by S Venkateshappa, a Tashildar, challenging the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal rejecting his prayer to quash the impugned order of transfer and posting of respondent No.4 in his place under notification dated 31.12.2024.
Court Can't Decide Station, Number Of Stops On Metro Line: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: C Naveen Kumar & Other AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 23534/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 1) dismissed a plea by residents of Chikkajala Village seeking a direction to Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) to ensure that a metro station is constructed at the village on Phase 2B BlueLine Metro, which is to connect Krishnarajapuram with Kempegowda International Airport.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi said, “The question whether a metro station is required to be constructed at a particular spot on the metro line is clearly a question that is not required to be examined by this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.”
Case Title: Deepa Angadi AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 107708 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no embargo under Rule 164(v) of the State Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021 against the grant of remission, and merely because a detenue is sentenced to 21 years imprisonment, it cannot be said that he is not entitled to remission.
In doing so, the court held that even if the order is for a specified term, a detenue would be entitled to remission unless the sentence makes it clear that the detainee shall not be entitled to premature release or remission or parole.
Case Title: G Satyanarayana Varma AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.17876 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
The Karnataka High Court has said that a second quashing plea under Section 482 CrPC/ BNSS 528 is neither maintainable nor entertainable unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance and the grounds which were manifestly available at the time of first plea cannot be exhumed later to prop up a second petition.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said: "The second petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS is neither maintainable nor entertainable, unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance. Grounds that were manifestly available at the time of first petition, cannot be exhumed later, to prop up a second petition...Law cannot bend to repeated challenges, devoid of new substance nor it can ignore the gravity of allegations that undoubtedly wants an adjudication in a full blown trial.”
Case Title: Hareesh AND A S Umesh & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.20342 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
The Karnataka High Court has said that a DNA test must be permitted only in terms of Section 112 of the Evidence Act, after demonstrable non-access between the parents during the period of birth of the child is proved, as the presumption under Section 112 is rooted in public morality and societal peace.
The court added that compelling such tests without a need for the same violates the sanctity of marriage as well as the fundamental right to privacy and dignity granted to a couple.
Case Title: K J Jaljakshi AND The Honourable Chairman
Case No: WP 19864/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
The Karnataka High Court quashed the suspension of Deputy Secretary of State Legislative Council K J Jalajakshi, on the allegation that she failed to place the photograph of Dr B R Ambedkar at the Constitution Day function conducted on November 26, 2024.
Justice H T Narendra Prasad on going through the records said: “Whether the petitioner is responsible for not placing the portrait of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar during the Constitution Day function held on 26.11.2024 in the office of Respondent No.1 – Council, and whether the petitioner alone is responsible for the same, is a matter that requires to be decided by conducting an enquiry.”
Case Title: Dadapeer Bhanuvalli AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.100890 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a lawyer appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor against an order of the State Administrative Tribunal, which rejected his plea challenging the entrustment of an enquiry to the Lokayukta against him for alleged actions done prior to his appointment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha dismissed the petition filed by Dadapeer Bhanuvalli. The Director of the Department of Prosecutions had issued a Notification on 16.05.2012 to fill up 197 Posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors cum Government Pleaders. The petitioner, having made an application pursuant to the said Notification, was selected and appointed to the post of APP cum Assistant Government Pleader on 17.06.2014, and he reported for duty on 30.06.2014.
Case Title: Mrs Maheshwari M AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WPHC NO. 81 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh on a 72-year-old woman for filing a habeas corpus petition with an ulterior motive to take revenge against the police, after being dissatisfied with the probe conducted by the police on a complaint given by her.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Rajesh Rai K while dismissing the petition filed by Maheshwari M said “We are of the view that in order to curb frivolous and malicious invocation of habeas corpus to protect the judicial process, it is necessary to impose punitive costs on such litigants. In that view of the matter, we dismiss this petition by imposing costs of Rs.2,00,000 on the petitioner who has approached this Court with unclean hands by suppression of facts.”
Case Title: Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited AND Malathi B & ANR
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1577 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
The Karnataka High Court has said that pensionary and retiral benefits of a former employee cannot be withheld indefinitely on account of a possible disciplinary proceedings on a future date.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi held thus while dismissing appeal by Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited against single judge's order directing the company to pay all retirement benefits–death-cum-retirement gratuity, entitlement for leave encashment benefit and other pensionary benefits along with interest from the date of retirement to one Malathi B. "We are not persuaded to accept that the pensionary and retiral benefits of respondent No.1 could be withheld indefinitely on account of a possible disciplinary proceedings at a future date," the bench said.
Case Title: SRI HONNESHWARASWAMY DEVASTHANA JEERNODHARA SEVA SAMITHI TRUST (R) AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 25313/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
The Karnataka government informed the High Court on Wednesday that it "will withdraw notice" a notice issued by the concerned jurisdictional police stipulating not to sacrifice animals and consume non-vegetarian food around the precincts of Sri Honneshwara Deity temple located in Shivanagere Village in Tumakuru district.
The state government said that it would issue a fresh notice within a week, "limiting it only to sacrifice of animals".
Justice B M Shyam Prasad accordingly disposed of a petition filed by the Honneshwaraswamy Devasthana Jeernodhara Seva Samithi Trust (R) had challenged the notice issued to it by the police dated July 13, 2024 stipulating that no one should sacrifice or consume meat for an area around 200 meters from the temple.
Case Title: Chandrappa AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that the act of sexual assault on a minor girl by a married man is unpardonable and has to be viewed strictly, not only in order to restore the confidence in the minds of children and women, but also to send a strong signal to society at large.
It held, “It is noticed here that, the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and she is so susceptible to persons like appellant, for the purpose of exploitation. Hence, it is high time to send a strong signal to the society at large to be more vigilant on women and children belonging to weaker sections of the society.”
Case Title: Sunil H Bohra & Others AND Assistant Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13448 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
The Karnataka High Court has recommended to the Union Government to revisit Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which prescribes a ceiling of Rs 10,000 which can be ordered to be paid as maintenance to senior citizens by the Tribunal.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said “This Court deems it fit to recommend, with earnestness that the Union revisit Section 9 and revise the ceiling in tune with the cost of living index, so that the Act may not be reduced to a hollow promise, but remain a living guarantee of dignity in old age, as the Nation's wealth is not measured by its material progress, but by the welfare of the child and the care of the elderly-old.”
It also opined, “The Court laments of neglected elders and resonates as a clarion call to the legislature that the aged must not be abandoned to indignity, that maintenance must match reality and the twilight of life must not be shadowed by want, but illuminated by care.”
Case Title: Vikas Kumar S J AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12352 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6267 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed an attempt to murder case registered against an Indian Air Force Officer, who was involved in a road rage fight with a call centre employee in Bengaluru.
Notably the video of the fight between the accused Shiladitya Bose and one Vikas Kumar S J had gone viral on social media. Initially based on the complaint filed by Bose's wife Madhumita, who is a squadron leader and was driving the car when the incident occurred the Byappanahalli police, arrested Kumar under sections 115(2), 116(H), 117(1), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5), 324, 351, 352 OF BNS 2023.
However, acting on cross complaint filed by Kumar and on going through the CCTv footage the police had registered the case against the Air Force officer under Sections 109 (attempt to murder), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 304 (snatching for theft), 324 (crime of mischief), 352 (intentional insult with an intent to provoke breach of peace. Soon after the incident Bose had posted a video on social media claiming he was assaulted and verbally abused by a man in a road rage incident in Bengaluru, allegedly claiming that the biker assaulted him for not speaking Kannada.
Case Title: State Bank of India AND M/s Swait Agencies & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 105775 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
The Karnataka High Court has said that once the property is said to be a secured property (secured asset), it would be subject to Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI) and cannot be made subject to rights of any third parties.
The court said that any person having any interest in the secured interest cannot agitate that claim before the magistrate exercising powers under Section 14, but he has to avail remedy under Section 17 by filing appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Case Title: Prathap Simha v. State of Karnataka and Batch
Case No: WP 27595/2025 c/w WP 27692/2025, WP 27824/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 15) dismissed pleas challenging State Government's decision to nominate author and Booker prize winner Banu Mushtaq as the Chief Guest for the inauguration of the upcoming Dasara Festival in Mysuru.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi after hearing the arguments said: "We are not persuaded to accept that permitting person of different faith to the function organised by the state violates any legal or constitutional right of petitioners or in any manner opposed to values enshrined in the Constitution of India. Accordingly, petitions are dismissed".
Case Title: Shaik Nowshera AND M/s 1-Help Technology And Software Solution Pvt Ltd & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6013 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6015 OF 2025 & Others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
The Karnataka High Court recently held that once a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under Negotiable Instruments Act, the proceedings cannot be quashed on a mere technical plea that the company has not been properly described in the cause title, unless it is demonstrably shown that no notice under Section 138(b) of NI Act, was served on the company.
A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said,“Where notice has been duly issued and served on the company through its CEO, MD or authorised signatory, the mere inversion or irregularity in the description of accused cannot be a ground to terminate the prosecution.”
It added “Service of notice on the officer who signed the cheque in his or her official capacity constitutes valid notice on the company itself. Conversely, where the company has been duly served, such notice, by operation of Section 141, is deemed notice to the Directors and officers responsible for the conduct of its business.”
Case title: SRI H.S. GAURAV v/ State of Karnataka
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
“Participation of a person practicing a particular faith or religion, in celebrations of festivals of other religion does not offend the rights available under the Constitution of India,” the Karnataka High Court has held.
The observation was made while dismissing a batch of petitions challenging State's invite to Booker Prize winner Banu Mushtaq as the Chief Guest for inauguration of Dasara festival in Mysuru.
Case Title: DR. SHIVANANDAPPA DODDAGOUDAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106571 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
The Karnataka High Court has said that medical reimbursement cannot be denied on the ground that a hospital which was earlier recognised by the Government in the list of private hospitals permitted to provide treatment to employees, changed its name.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by Dr. Shivanandappa Doddagoudar an Associate Professor at Government First Grade College Ranebennur Taluka.
It said, “Medical reimbursement cannot be denied solely due to a change in the name of the hospital, even though it remains the same entity that was previously recognised.”
Case Title: K.S MANJUNATH GOWDA AND K.Y.NANJE GOWDA & Others
Case No: Election Petition 10 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday set aside the 2023 election of Congress Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) K Y Nanjegowda representing Malur constituency (Kolar district).
During the 2023 assembly election, Nanjegowda won by a margin of 248 votes against BJP candidate KS Manjunath Gowda.
Justice R Devdas, while allowing the petition filed by defeated candidate KS Manjunath Gowda said: “The elections petition is allowed in part directing recounting of votes and then to declare the results afresh. The election of Respondent no 1 to Malur Assembly constituency in Kolar District during the election held in May 2023, is hereby set aside.”
Case Title: M/s BEE JAY Engineers v. Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 106642 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
The Karnataka High Court has held that an officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner cannot, by himself, inspect the premises of the assessee without authorisation under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax.
The bench further stated that there is no requirement to provide a copy of the authorisation and details of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, but the delegate who inspects or confiscates any document or goods would be required to provide the details of the authorisation to the taxable person.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that it would, however, be required that the concerned Officer, who carries out the inspection in terms of Subsection (2) of Section 67 of the Act, at least inform the taxable person of the authorisation having been received from the Joint Commissioner.
Case Title: M/s NCS Pearson INC. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 7635 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
The Karnataka High Court has stated that a failure to mention the correct value in returns or apply the correct GST rate is not suppression under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST).
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that "...though the revenue alleged in the impugned SCN that the assessee failed to mention the value of services correctly in the GSTR-5A returns and apply the correct GST rate on the consideration received, the mere omission to mention the value of services correctly in the returns and/or apply the correct GST rate would not be tantamount to wilful suppression…"
The assessee/petitioner has a division “Pearson Vue” which is engaged in providing computer-based test administration solutions, and pursuant to its contract with GMAC, USA, the assessee conducts GMAT on behalf of GMAC for candidates in India.
Karnataka High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Plea Seeking To Stall Release Of 'Jolly LLB 3' Film
Case Title: Syeda Neelfur AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 27215/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation filed seeking a direction to stop the release and exhibition of the film Jolly LLB 3 scheduled for release on September 19.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the petition filed by Syeda Neelufur and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner for unjustifiable consumption of judicial time.
The court has directed the cost to be deposited with the court registry, failing which, the matter is to be listed again on October 4 for coercive steps against the petitioner.
Case Title: Sailen Das AND State By Kodigehalli Police Station & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.26873 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that criminal proceedings for cheating cannot be initiated against parties bound by a valid and subsisting contract.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a petition filed by one Sailen Das, a Director in a private limited company.
The court said, “The admitted position remains that the parties are bound by a valid and subsisting contract and the controversy essentially pertains to the performance of obligations arising therefrom. Such disputes are, in their nature, civil and are amenable to adjudication before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.”
Case Title: X & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Agency & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15957 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
The Karnataka High Court recently drew an inference of the biological father's consent for the adoption of his minor son, after the father did not take a definite stand on whether his former wife can adopt the minor along with her now husband.
The mother (first petitioner) had approached the Central Adoption Resource Authority [CARA] for adoption of the minor. However, the State Adoption Resource Agency issued a communication calling upon her to provide consent of the biological father with whom her marriage had been dissolved.
Case Title: TTK Prestige Limited AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 27926/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
The Union Government on Monday informed the Karnataka High Court that it has relaxed the condition issued on September 9, mandating the declaration of revised retail sale price (MRP), on unsold stock manufactured/packed/imported, which would be effective from September 22, in addition to the existing retail sale price (MRP).
Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath placed on record a fresh advisory issued on September 18 and said, “We have superseded the impugned instruction and acceded to the suggestions made. They need not affix the sticker or stamping, it is a choice now and not mandatory.”
Case Title: SHARADA ACHAR AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.3379 OF 2024 (GM - RES) with others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside a Circular dated 03-09-2020, issued by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Karnataka (KRERA), which mandated the levy of “delay fee” for belated submission of quarterly updates and annual audit statements by promoters, without distinction to scale of the project, the stage of development, or the peculiar circumstances surrounding it.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a batch of petitions filed by promoters of various projects and said, “The circular purporting to impose delay fee is arbitrary, illegal and void, for the exactions made thereunder cannot be sustained in law and must in consequence, meet its inexorable fate - the fate of obliteration.”
Case title: PRAJWAL REVANNA AND STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP 29258/2025 and WP 29290/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (September 24) has refused to transfer the cases filed against former Hasan MP Prajwal Revanna for offences including sexual harassment, rape, etc, to another court after allegations of bias were raised by him against the presiding officer. Revanna had earlier been convicted for the offence of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment by the MP/MLA court.
Justice MI Arun held: "It is seen that the trial court intended to take the trial on a day-to-day basis. In the process any adjournments sought by the petitioner was frowned upon. The observations in the judgement may sound a bit harsh, but the same cannot be construed as bias on part of the presiding officer. Admittedly, the petitioner has tried to drag the case and resort to delay tactics, which has been frowned upon by the trial court."
Case Title: X CORP AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 7405/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (September 24) dismissed X Corp's plea seeking a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act does not confer authority on Central government officers to issue information blocking orders, which can only be issued after following the procedure under Section 69A of the Act, read with IT Rules.
Justice M Nagaprassana while dictating the order said,
"Social media, as modern amphitheater of ideas, cannot be left in a state of anarchich freedom. Regulation of information in this domain is neither novel nor unique. United States of America regulates it. Every sovereign nation regulates it. And India's resolve likewise, cannot by any stretch of Constitutional imagination, be branded as unlawful. Unregulated speech under the guise of liberty becomes a license to lawlessness. Regulated speech by contrast, preserves both liberty and order, the twin pillars upon which the democracy must stand. No social media platform in the modern day agora may even seem the semblance of exemption from rigour of discipline of laws of the land. None may presume to treat the Indian marketplace as a mere playground where information can be disseminated in defiance of statute or disregard to legality, and later adopting a posture of detachment or a hands off...The content on social media needs to be regulated and its regulation is a must, more so in cases of offences against women in particular failing which right to dignity as ordained in the Constitution of a citizen gets railroaded. We are a society governed by laws. Order is the architecture of our democracy. Every platform that seeks to operate within the jurisdiction of our nation, which they do must accept that liberty is with responsibility and the privilige of access carries with it the solemn duty of accountability."
Case Title: Krishnamurthy AND The Director UIDAI & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 105596 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 325
The Karnataka High Court has held that UIDAI can be directed to provide details of usage of Aadhaar card and the location where it has been used to the police for investigating a missing person's complaint.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “When during the course of investigation by police authority or any investigating authority in the event of usage of Aadhaar card including authentication, etc. are required, an application can be made before the High Court in terms of Section 33 of the Act of 2016---Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) and the High Court could examine the same after providing an opportunity to the UIDAI Authority and pass such orders as just and necessary, including providing of details of usage of Aadhaar card and the location where it has been used.”
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.21783 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 326
Disposing of a plea by an National Law School India University (NLSIU) student seeking alternate subject/exemption from studying Economics in view of her disability, the Karnataka High Court asked the varsity to have a liberal approach enabling the student to pass her first year course in case is clears all other subjects except Economics.
Justice R Devdas disposed the petition of a student who is stated to be suffering from specific learning disability known as 'Dyscalculia' resulting in difficulty in learning or comprehending Arithmetics, difficulty in understanding numbers, difficulty learning how to manipulate numbers, to perform mathematical calculations and difficulty in applying and analyzing such applications in/of Mathematics.
Case Title: Dror Shlomo Goldstein AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 22042/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 327
The Karnataka High Court on Friday permitted the Union of India to issue necessary travel documents to enable a mother and her children, who were found living in a cave in the state's Uttara Kannada district (Gokarna), to travel back to Russia.
Justice B M Shyam Prasad disposed of the petition filed by Dror Shlomo Goldstein, who claims to be the father of the children and had approached the court seeking to restrain the government from proceeding with the "sudden deportation" of his minor daughters from India to any other country.
Case Title: Syed Parveez Mushraff AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1493 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
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.
Case Title: DODDAGIRIYAPPACHARI AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.14207 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
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.
Case Title: Vishwanath Kadli AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103433 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
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.
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) 331
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.”
Case Title: Dr K Sudhakar AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 18910/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
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.
Case Title: Baburao AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.201536 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar). 333
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.”
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) 334
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.
Case Title: Nishat R Kolyal AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23759 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 335
The Karnataka High Court has held that no court can pass an order contrary to the regulations and norms prescribed by any University.
Justice R Devdas held thus and dismissed a mercy petition filed by a medical student seeking a direction to the authorities to permit her to appear for the 5th time to clear the Biochemistry subject examination.
The petitioner, Nisha R Kolyal, a student of Dr. Ambedkar Medical College and Hospita,l had contended that a 5th attempt may be permitted to her, although the regulation would prescribe only 4 attempts on the ground that there is only one paper remaining for her to clear.
Case Title: Channappar AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1593 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 336
Denying bail to a 68-year-old man who along with other accused were booked for the gang rape of a minor girl, the Karnataka High Court remarked that the act of committing sexual assault by taking advantage of the victim's poverty and her community is a "ruthless act".
Justice S Rachaiah dismissed the appeal filed by Channappar @ Rajaiah who was charged Sections 376(3)(rape of girl under 16 years), 376(2)(n)(commits rape repeatedly on the same woman), 376(DA) (Punishment for gang rape on woman under sixteen years of age) read with section 149(common object) of IPC as well as provisions of the POCSO Act and the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) ACT.
Case Title: Muniyappa AND The Managing Director
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4426 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
The Karnataka High Court recently came to the aid of a vegetable vendor and increased the compensation amount awarded to him by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal from Rs 5, 98,300 to Rs 11,40,795.
Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha said, “For a vegetable vendor, it will be highly difficult to continue his occupation and earn in the light of loss of one of the lower limbs. For assessing the functional disability, the occupation of the claimant and the nature of duties which he is supposed to attend on a daily basis is required to be considered.”
Case Title: U Mamatha AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 21648 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
The Karnataka High Court has suggested to the State Government to devise a comprehensive scheme to regulate transactions regarding purchase of land/site on converted lands which are not part of any sanctioned layouts.
A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “With increasing instances of purchasers acquiring sites in converted lands which are not part of sanctioned layouts, there is a pressing necessity for the State to devise a comprehensive scheme to regulate such transactions. Unless and until the State formulates appropriate guidelines or a regularisation mechanism consistent with the object of Section 17(2B), (Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961). Courts cannot, in individual cases, bypass the statutory mandate and issue directions contrary to law.”
Case Title: Lokanna & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106967 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 339
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that once an award under Section 30 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, is passed, it is for the Collector to as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days to deposit the amount so awarded under a general award into the bank account of the land loser unless there is a dispute as regards the title to the property acquired.
Justice Suraj Govindraj said, “Once the amount is received into the bank account of the land loser, land loser could always protest the quantum of compensation and if so protested, then the proceedings under sub-Section 1 of Section 64 could be undertaken. If no protest is made within a reasonable period of time, then it would be deemed that the land loser has received the amount as compensation into his bank account and has conceded to the quantum of compensation so awarded under Section 30.”
Case Title: Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Wp 1363/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday disposed of a PIL seeking directions to the state authorities to install additional sign boards, information boards at conspicuous places and at the places which are prone to accidents in the state highways, district highways and inter village connectivity roads of Bidar district.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha disposed of the petition filed by one Gurunath Vadde. The petitioner's counsel argued that due to insufficient signages, there are multiple road accidents.
Case Title: Veerabhadrapa & Others AND Channappa Gowda D & Others
Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 807 OF 2014
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
While considering a dispute involving a partition suit, the Karnataka High Court has suggested the legislature to revisit and suitably amend the Civil Procedure Code to facilitate quick resolution of final decree proceedings.
Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde said:
“When it comes to delay in court proceedings, partition suits occupy the top of the list, among various categories of litigation. The reasons are plenty. Probably one of the prime reasons is the procedure of passing the preliminary decree and final decree and providing two appeals up to the High Court (If the valuation of the plaintiff's share is less than Rs.10 lakhs), both on preliminary decree and final decree.”
Case Title: Dr C Anusha AND National Board of Examinations In Medical Sciences & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 27597 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a medical student's petition seeking a direction on the authorities to permit her to change her category from General category candidate to OBC candidate after the declaration of the results of NEET-PG 2025.
A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed the plea filed by Dr C Anusha. It said “A candidate has filled up his/her form for NEET-UG/PG belonging to a particular category and if he/she fails to correct the application form during the period provided for correction by the National Testing Agency, a candidate, after declaration of the result would not be entitled to change his/her category.”
Case title: A Alam Pasha AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 19284/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
The Karnataka Government on Thursday informed the High Court that it has withdrawn its earlier order dated August 30, 2023, authorising the State Waqf Board and its officers to issue marriage certificates to married Muslim applicants.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha in its order noted that “AGA has handed over a memo enclosing there with a Government Order, withdrawing the order impugned in the present petition. Thus the relief sought for petitioner does not survive and accordingly the petition is disposed of.”
Earlier by its order dated November 21, 2024 had kept in abeyance the impugned order. A public interest litigation filed by one A Alam Pasha had questioned the government order.
Case Title: MALLAPPA CHAYAPPA AKSHARAD AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 29267/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday disposed of a PIL seeking to restrain Maharashtra Ekikarana Samiti (MES) from observing or publicizing 'black day' on Kannada Rajyotsava (November 01) in Belagavi or any other Kannada speaking region.
Reportedly, MES is a body which has sought the merger of Belagavi district in Karnataka with Maharashtra.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha disposed of the petition filed by one Mallappa Chayappa Aksharad, stating, “Blanket orders restraining persons for holding demonstrations or protests cannot be granted.” The Court added that MES can organise any protest/demonstration/rally, only after requisite permission is obtained from the concerned authorities.
Case Title: G Mahesh AND THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. TEKNIC EUCHNER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.25658 OF 2014
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
The Karnataka High Court has confirmed an order passed by the labour court dismissing an employee of a private company on the grounds of misconduct after it was proved that he lodged a false complaint of assault against the senior manager of the company.
Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde dismissed the petition filed by G Mahesh and said, “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, more particularly, considering the fact that the petitioner is differently abled, with less employment opportunities, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be awarded a compensation of Rs.4,00,000. In exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India respondent is directed to pay Rs.4,00,000 to the petitioner, confirming the order of dismissal.”
Case Title: Pramodh K AND State of Karnataka and batch
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12940 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12867 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12917 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12936 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12944 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13166 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to five persons who are stated to be followers of actor Darshan, arrested for allegedly sending sexually coloured remarks, offensive and threatening messages to former MP and actress Ramya on Instagram.
The court further granted anticipatory bail to one Vikas B A.
The actress on July 28, had filed a complaint giving details of 43 accounts from which she faced harassment. She had claimed that many of the messages were from fans of Darshan. The alleged messages were sent after she shared an article on Supreme Court proceedings in the Renukaswamy murder case, in which actor Darshan is the second accused and is presently in custody.
Case Title: M/S JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) PVT LTD V SRI PRASHANT RAO
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 15526 OF 2017 (L-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
The Karnataka High Court recently directed liquidation bound Jet Airways to pay back wages of ₹13,00,000, along with accrued interest, to a former employee who was dismissed from its services.
A division bench of the High Court dismissed Jet Airways' plea challenging a 2017 Industrial Tribunal order on the grounds that the workman's right to the back wages had "crystallized on the date of the award,” long before the airline underwent liquidation.
Case Title: M/S. ANNAPURNESHWARI MINERALS AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.265 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
The Karnataka High Court has said that an application for renewal of the license of quarry lease can be made on the last day of the expiry period upto midnight and if the last day is a public holiday, then it can be made on the following day.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi held thus while allowing a petition filed by M/s Annapurneshwari Minerals who had approached the court challenging the order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the Joint Director and Revision Authority, Department of Mines and Geology, South Zone, Mysuru. The rejection was in terms of Rule 28 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994.
SARFAESI Charge Created Before GST Charge Takes Precedence Over It: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The Canara Bank v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 103730 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
The Karnataka High Court held that a SARFAESI charge created prior in time takes precedence over a GST Charge.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that if there is a conflict between the GST Act and the SARFAESI Act (or the RDB Act), the priority of the charge must be determined based on the order in which the charges were created. If the charge under the GST Act was created prior to that under the SARFAESI Act, the GST Act will prevail, and vice versa.
Case Title: R D Chaitra AND Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: WP 26754/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 350
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (October 15) dismissed the petition filed by wife of Congress MLA KC Veerendra for declaring his arrest in an alleged illegal betting case under PMLA as illegal, arbitrary and violative of his fundamental rights and to release him.
Justice MI Arun said, "It is only on the ground that one FIR is alive in which 'B' report is filed that allows them (ED) to proceed."Observations made herein above are in relation to case in hand and if petitioner were to make any application for bail the same would be considered by the court in accordance with law. If the 'B' report were to be accepted by the trial court in FIR no...petitioner would be at liberty to make necessary application for quashing of proceedings against him" the court said.
Case Title: GNANESHWARA M AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 26229/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 351
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed a PIL seeking directions to the State to review and correct the Karnataka State Emblem and ensure full compliance of State Emblem of India (Prohibition Of Improper Use) Act, 2005.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha dismissed the petition filed by one Gnaneshwara M, seeking to ensure that the script 'Satyameva Jayate' is placed in its "correct statutory position" in the State Emblem, as prescribed in Appendix I and II of the 2005 Act.
The Court however, on going through the records and averments, observed, “The contention that use of the Karnataka State Emblem falls foul with Section 3 of the State Emblem Act, 2005. We find no merit in the aforesaid contention. Petition is accordingly dismissed.”
Case Title: THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND M/S DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PVT LTD.
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 352
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has no power to remand back to consider afresh the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, confirming the provisional attachment order.
A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T allowed the appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate and said “Tribunal is creation of the Statute and it exercises limited power as conferred on it, by the Statute. There is no inherent power in a Tribunal, inasmuch as the Tribunal is not a regular Court. If the Statute does not confer a power of remand, and there is no inherent power vested in the Tribunal, it cannot remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority unless it is specifically provided in the Statute itself.”
Tax Demands Raised Post Approval Of IBC Resolution Plan Are Not Enforceable: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : OLIVE LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No.15951 AND 15459 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 353
The Karnataka High Court recently reiterated that tax demands raised by revenue authorities after the approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) are unenforceable if the claims were not submitted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed,
“There is no jurisdiction to parallelly initiate proceedings and raise a demand. In the light of CIRP becoming moratorium kicking in resolution plan acceptance up to the date of CIRP, all the claims are, therefore, before the resolution professional. If there is no claim registered by the State or the Centre, they would lose the right to demand from the corporate debtor. In that light, the petitions deserve to succeed by obliteration of the impugned order.”
Mens Rea Not Prerequisite For Imposing Penalty U/S 117 Of Customs Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Pigeon International
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 7 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 354
The Karnataka High Court held that mens rea is not a prerequisite for imposing a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act.
Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, addresses penalties for contraventions not specifically mentioned elsewhere in the Act.
Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind stated that a plain reading of Section 117 of the Act makes it clear that whenever any person contravenes any provision of the Act or fails to comply therewith, a penalty is attracted. Reading a requirement of mens rea into the provision would amount to rewriting the statute, which is impermissible. Since Section 117, in its plain language, does not indicate the necessity of mens rea. The contrary finding recorded by the CESTAT is incorrect and unsustainable.
Case Title: Prathap Simha AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: Criminal Petition No 14363/2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 355
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (October 16) frowned upon police officers for filing defective chargesheets in offences related to Elections involving prominent personalities.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav observed “The seriousness with which election offences are dealt with requires to be commented upon. There is a separate chapter---Chapter IXA for offences relating to Elections in the Indian Penal Code".
The court added,“It appears to be that the officials concerned, in some matters involving prominent personalities, may resort to filing of defective chargesheets, in order that the same is set aside by the court, only to create a facade of having adhered to law. But in reality leaving a door open for the court to set it aside. Such an attitude of officials is required to be frowned upon.”
Case Title: EMBASSY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus ITI LIMITED
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.303 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 356
The Karnataka High Court held that renewal of lease agreements with public sector undertakings are arbitrable and such disputes are not prohibited under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) when lessee continues in possession lawfully and the rent is being accepted by the lessor. Accordingly, the present application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator was allowed.
Case Title: Akash S AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 28122/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 357
The Karnataka High Court on Friday directed the National Highways Authority and other respondents to take remedial steps to ensure safe, motorable and scientifically maintained roads on National Highway-66, National Highway-275 (Stretch between Mangalore-Udupi) and other arterial roads of coastal Karnataka.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha disposed of the petition filed by Advocate Akash S. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the road on the mentioned highways is in bad condition and recently a fatal accident occurred due to potholes.
Case Title: RADHAMMA AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17723 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 358
The Karnataka High Court has suggested that applications seeking parole leave–which presently have to be drafted on paper and submitted physically, be permitted to be filed and processed electronically and the details of the same must be made available in electronic form.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj in his order noted that all the applications for parole are made on physical paper, are submitted physically and require a physical follow-up.
Case Title: SRI. ADRUSHYA KADESHWARA SWAMIJI GURU MUPPINA KADESHWARA SWAMJI AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.203149 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 359
The Karnataka High Court on Friday upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapura District, restraining the Sri Adrushya Kadeshwara Swamiji Guru Muppina Kadeshwara Swamiji, from entering the territorial limits of Vijayapura District for the period from 16.10.2025 to 14.12.2025.
Following offensive remarks against Lingayat leaders, Kadasiddheshwara Swamiji of Kaneri Mutt had been banned from entering the Vijayapura district of Karnataka for two months. The restraining order was issued on October 16, after the petitioner was alleged to have made comments targeting Lingayat leaders and devotees in his speech.
Case Title: Shakuntala Desai AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200105 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 360
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.”
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) 361
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.
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) 362
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.
Case Title: Gurnunath Vadde AND Deputy Commissioner & ANR
Case No: WP 25174/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 363
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.
Case Title: Nara Suryanarayana Reddy AND Initiating Officer & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.107184 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 364
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.
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) 365
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) 366
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.”
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) 367
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.”
Case Title: M/S KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD AND T Nalini & ANR
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1641 OF 2024
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 368
The Karnataka High Court has said that Rule 11A(2) of State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules does not contemplate giving an opportunity to the delinquent officer before Disciplinary authority recording the point of disagreement on the findings made by the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge.
A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Rajesh Rai K said, “We are of the view that no such opportunity is required to be given to the delinquent officer under sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A of the CCA Rules at the stage of recording the points of disagreement on the findings of Enquiry Officer of any of the charge(s).”
Case Title: Sampras Anthony AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.31144 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
"A relationship born of mutual volition, even if it founders in disappointment, cannot, save in clearest of cases, be transmuted into an offence under the criminal law," said the Karnataka High Court while quashing an FIR registered against a 23-year-old man accused of rape a woman he met on dating app Bumble.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said so while allowing a petition filed by Sampras Anthony who was charged under Section 64 (rape) BNS. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the victim become acquainted through the virtual corridors of the dating application 'Bumble' and thereafter, nurtured their acquaintance for over years through the exchange of images and conversations upon the platform of Instagram.
Case Title: M/s Kishore Vidyaniketan Society (R) v. Arbitration and Conciliation Centre
Case Number: COMAP No. 487 of 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), holding that no appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act lies against an order passed under section 39(2) of the Act. The court further held that the appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act is maintainable against those orders enumerated under Order 43 of the CPC or under section 37 of the Act and that section 39(2) does not fall within that scope.
Case Title: Meera M R AND Gangadhara
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 8205 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
The Karnataka High Court has held that a person who claims a right against the Testator's interests cannot be allowed to come on record to oppose the Will, and such a person also cannot be considered to have a caveatable interest.
Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty made this observation while allowing a petition filed by Meera M.R., and setting aside the trial court's order dated 11.12.2023, which had permitted Gangadhara to be impleaded in the proceedings.
Case Title: PRANAVA K N & Others AND The Karnataka State Law University & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.23190/2025 (EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.23985/2025 (EDN-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 24257 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a circular issued by Karnataka State Law University enhancing the fee structure for registration of students for the 5-year and 3-year courses.
Justice R Devdas passed the order while allowing a batch of petitions filed by Pranava KN and others, all law students.
Prior to the circular dated 02-07-2025, the respondent-University was levying and collecting University Fees and charges at the rate of Rs.3,700, from every student. However, by the circular the charges were enhanced to Rs. 8,580.
The court said “As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, although Section 5 of the (Karnataka State Law University) Act empowers the University to demand and receive fees and other charges, nevertheless such levy and collection of fee should be provided for by the Statutes, Regulations or Ordinances. No material is placed by the respondent-University showing the enactment of such Statutes, Regulations or Ordinances in the matter of levy and collection of fees and other charges.”
Case Title: BASAVARAJ S/O. PUNDALIKAPPA AND The State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106080 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 373
The Karnataka High Court has held that subsistence allowance is mandatory in any circumstance of suspension of an employee, and “he cannot be denied his statutory subsistence allowance.”
Justice M. Nagaprasanna said this while allowing a petition by Basavaraj Pundalikappa and quashing the suspension order dated 22-07-2025. The petitioner joined as an attender in Bagalkote Municipal Council in 1985 and has completed 41 years of service.
Case Title: N Shreyas AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 32517/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (October 31) refused to direct the State authorities to extend the last date for submission of online applications for its 'Laptop and Braille Kit Scheme 2025' by another 60 days.
The last date for submission of the application is today i.e. October 31. The court passed the order while hearing a PIL seeking a direction for extension of the last date.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha disposed of the petition filed by Advocate N Shreyas stating, “Since the deadline is extended twice before, we do not find any reason to direct a further extension of the deadline for filing an application. However, we clarify that this order will not preclude any affected individuals who have been unable to file his application on account of any difficulty to approach this court for seeking appropriate relief. Petition is disposed of.”
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 25691 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 375
The Karnataka High Court recently permitted a wife to record her examination-in-chief and be cross-examined by her husband in a cruelty case, via video conferencing from her residence in the USA, by relaxing the provisions of the 2020 Video Conferencing Rules.
For Context, Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules, 2020 requires that where the deponent is situated outside the territory of India, the recording of evidence must ordinarily be facilitated through the Indian Embassy or Consulate.
Rule 5.1 of the Rules contemplates the presence of a Coordinator at the remote point, where a witness or an accused person is to be examined.
In doing so the court while relaxing the rules, dispensed with the recording of the woman's evidence through Indian Embassy or the High Commission of India.
Case Title: Karnataka Sangha AND The Chief Administrator & ANR
Case No: WP 32440/2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 376
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday disposed of a plea by Karnataka Sangha of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), an employees association seeking a direction to BHEL's Management to grant the petitioner permission to conduct the 69th Kannada Rajyotsava function at the BHEL Bengaluru premises.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj disposed of the petition after the management submitted that it would be holding the Karnataka Rajyotsava celebrations by itself at the Bengaluru premises on November 1.
Case Title: Saroja Kondai AND Managing Director & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106296 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 377
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside decision of the Northwestern Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (NWKSRTC) rejecting a widow's pleas seeking compassionate appointment, on the ground that she had crossed the cut-off age as prescribed in the scheme.
Justice M Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition by Saroja Kondai and set aside the endorsements dated 17.01.2025 and 10.05.2025, issued by the corporation which had rejected her request.
Further it remitted the matter back to the Corporation to reconsider the application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds within 8 weeks.
Case Title: THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS AND BARRISTERS LAW FIRM AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 3155/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 378
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (November 4) disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Central Government to ban certain websites and applications (Apps) allegedly displaying nudity and pornography.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha disposed of the petition filed by the Legal Attorneys and Barristers Law Firm, after it was informed by Deputy Solicitor General Shanthi Bhushan H that the same issue is pending consideration before the Supreme Court
Case Title: KARNATAKA PRADESH HOTEL & RESTAURANTS ASSOCIATION & ANR AND Union of India & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.25756 OF 2012
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 379
The Karnataka High Court recently directed Central government to enact law or guidelines specifically and separately for restaurant businesses bifurcating them into small, medium and large businesses so that standards of food and health are maintained at every rung of consumption.
For Context, under the Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses Regulations, 2011 at present lines of demarcation is upon annual turnover, distinguishing the petty business from the large restaurant, merely one economic scale.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said: “Mandamus issues to the 1st respondent/Union of India to tripartite the guidelines of all nuances under the Regulations into small, medium and large restaurants qua the implementation of the Regulations, owing to the necessity of health standards and apprehension of health hazards by bringing in appropriate Regulations or guidelines.”
Case Title: DEENANATH AND CHANDRAHAS & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 796 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 380
The Karnataka High Court has said that in a suit where there are multiple issues framed, the right to lead the evidence is always on the plaintiff, even if the burden of proving some of the issues is on the defendant.
Further, in a case where the plaintiff intends to reserve his right to lead evidence in rebuttal after the defendant leads his evidence, the plaintiff can always make such a request to the court; however it is for the defendant to decide whether he wants to begin with his evidence.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said thus while allowing a petition filed by one Deenanath and set aside the order of the trial court. "From a plain reading of Rule 1 and 3 of Order XVIII it is clear that in a case which falls under Rule 1 normally it is for the plaintiff to lead his evidence first. It also enables defendant to exercise his right subject to the contingency mentioned in the Rule. In a case where plaintiff intends to reserve his right to lead evidence in rebuttal after the defendant leads his evidence, he can always make such a request to the Court, but then it is for the defendant to decide whether he wants to begin with the evidence. When there are several issues in a case, in respect to the issue where the burden is on the defendant to prove, the plaintiff can exercise the option as provided under Rule 1. However, in respect to the other issues the right to lead the evidence is always on the plaintiff".
Case Title: X AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 30971 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 381
The Karnataka High Court has directed he State to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure for the Protection and Rehabilitation of Minor Victims of Sexual Offences— which will have a binding effect on all agencies and authorities specified herein.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “Directions having been issued on several occasions, they continue to be ignored, and there is no compliance. I am of the opinion that all these could be resolved if a proper SOP is formulated by the Principal Secretary, Women and Child Welfare and the Director General of Police for all stakeholders to comply with. Until then, I propose to formulate the following indicative SOP, which would be in force until such a SOP is formulated.”
Case Title: Rajashekar AND Bar Council of India & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24401 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 382
The Karnataka High Court has held that any person who has graduated from any law college in India can register with the State Bar Council where they intend to practice.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj made this ruling while allowing a petition filed by Rajashekar, whose application for enrolment as an advocate with the Karnataka State Bar Council had not been considered because he completed his law degree outside Karnataka.
Case Title: Amit Ashok Vyas AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.6227 OF 2024 C/W WRIT PETITION No.5800 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 383
The Karnataka High Court recently appreciated Advocate Sarah Sunny, a hearing-impaired counsel who appeared in court and argued a case with the help of a sign language interpreter. It said, “This court records with profound admiration, its appreciation for Miss Sarah Sunny, who has transcended the boundaries of silence.”
Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, “Her endeavour shall remain an enduring inspiration, a luminous reminder that justice in its truest form, not only listens through the ear, but through the heart.”
It added, “The court said Miss Sarah Sunny is a distinguished member of the bar who, despite being hearing impaired, has demonstrated that true advocacy transcends barriers of sound.”
Case Title: B S Kiran Kumar & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 27474 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 384
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that “the city of Bengaluru, despite its stature as a global metropolis, is plagued by the chronic issue of “garbage blackspots,” which are areas of recurrent, unauthorised waste dumping that pose a significant and ongoing threat to public health and the urban environment.”
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, to tackle this issue, has directed the establishment of an Integrated-Technology-Driven, Solid Waste Management Governance Framework.
He said, “This Court is of the considered opinion that the management of solid waste is not merely a statutory duty of municipal corporations but a profound constitutional obligation, inextricably linked to the fundamental Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title: RAVICHANDRAGOUDA R. PATIL AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 105477 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 385
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Karnataka State Bar Council to refund the excess enrollment fee collected contrary to the statutory enrollment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
For Context: The prescribed statutory fee is ₹750; the Karnataka State Bar Council has been collecting optional fees of ₹6800.
The petitioner Advocate Ravichandragouda R Patil was enrolled as an advocate in the month of October 2024. It was his case that, beyond the prescribed statutory fee of ₹750, the Karnataka State Bar Council has been collecting optional fees of ₹6800.
Case Title: PRAMOD SHIVASHANKAR AND ABC
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8217 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 386
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by an accused seeking the quashing of a criminal defamation complaint registered against him by his estranged sister-in-law who alleged that the accused has been harassing the respondent and defaming her by way of creating fake social media accounts.
Justice M I Arun dismissed the petition filed by Pramod Shivashankar, who is charged with offences punishable under Section 499 & 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 (c), 66(d) and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act.
The woman alleged that the petitioner has been harassing her and defaming her by way of creating fake social media accounts. It is alleged that one such account is created as though it belongs to the respondent, and she is portrayed as a call girl looking for men. While in some other accounts, the identity of the account holder is not revealed, and a lot of defamatory messages are mentioned. The said social media accounts are not private in nature and any random person can view them, thereby giving the content a wide degree of publicity.
Case Title: BS Yediyurappa AND The Criminal Investigating Department
Case No: WP 7447/2025 c/w WP 7322/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 387
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the POCSO case lodged against former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa.
Justice M I Arun thus upheld the trial court order dated February 28— taking cognizance of the alleged offence and issuing summons to the former MP.
The single judge however asked the trial court not to insist upon the BJP leader's appearance, unless it is necessary during the course of the trial. It ordered that the trail court "will entertain the exemption application filed on behalf of A-1, unless his presence is essential."
Case title: Ashok Patil AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case No: WP 203166 of 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 388
The Karnataka High Court, on Thursday, disposed of a petition filed by the Convenor of RSS Kalaburagi for holding a proposed march (Pathasanchalana) in Chittapur Town.
Justice MGS Kamal took into account the order issued by the Tahsildar of Chittapur Town granting permission for the route march on November 16, by imposing certain conditions. In the previous hearing, the State had informed the court that it would positively consider the proposal for the route march.
Case Title: Maverick Motors LLP & Others AND Rohith Murthy
Case No: CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 34 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 389
The Karnataka High Court has said that Entry 14 of the First Schedule of the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008 is in effect a statutory and compulsory arbitration, which is required to be adhered to by the partners in a limited liability partnership.
For Context: Entry 14 of the First Schedule of LLP Act, 2008 reads thus: All disputes between the partners arising out of the limited liability partnership agreement which cannot be resolved in terms of such agreement shall be referred for arbitration as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).
The petitioner Maverick Motors LLP and the respondent Rohith Murthy had entered into a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement on 15.10.2022. The said agreement did not refer to any arbitration clause. There being disputes which arose between the parties, the Petitioners vide email dated 08.01.2024 indicated that the matter could be referred to arbitration. The respondent vide his email dated 10.01.2024 in principle agreed for reference of the matter to arbitration, but had sought for some time.
Case Title: S N Suresh Babu AND T Gururaj
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1094 OF 2013
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
The Karnataka High Court has convicted an Editor of a newspaper for publishing defamatory articles in the newspaper against a circle Inspector of police at K.R. Police Station at Mysuru.
Justice S Rachaiah said “Allegations are made against an officer and failed to prove any one of such allegations by producing any complaints by public amounts to defamation.”
The court allowed the appeal filed by the Officer S N Suresh Babu and convicted T Gururaj, Editor of the Hello Mysore Newspaper. The court said, “The respondent is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000. Further, the respondent is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 501 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.”
Case Title: Sri Mukesh Gupta v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO 283 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 391
The Karnataka High Court has held that a loan raised by mortgaging property and advancing to a company does not constitute business expenditure, and the interest is not deductible against salary income.
The bench opined that unless expenditure is incurred in the course of the business or professional service, the assessee is not entitled to a deduction, merely due to it being incurred on the amount borrowed and advanced to the company.
Justices D K Singh and Rajesh Rai K stated that merely raising a loan by mortgaging the assessee's property and advancing it to the company itself would not be considered as the expenditure incurred for the purpose of business/profession, added the bench.
Case Name: Gunnam Infra Projects Private Limited
Case No. : WP(C) No.611 of 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 392
The Karnataka High Court holds that payments made by assessee through Form GST DRC-03 at the time of search or pursuant to an investigation cannot be treated as 'voluntary payments' when amount was not determined through any formal assessment or adjudication.
A Bench comprising of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, quashed deficiency memos issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax (Revenue) on two different dates rejecting refund sought by assessee. On this score, it was observed that “the petitioner is entitled for refund of the payments made in form DRC-03” as a deficiency memo cannot be issued when a refund application is complete in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Case Title: REESHAN THAJUDDIN SHEIKH AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24840 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 393
The Karnataka High Court recently held that if the transfer of an under-trial prisoner from one prison to another is to be ordered, the Court must balance the security concerns projected by the authorities with the legitimate rights of the prisoner to education, rehabilitation, family visitation, and access to legal assistance.
A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a petition filed by one Reeshan Thajuddin Sheikh who had approached the court after he was transferred from Bengaluru Central Prison to Belagavi Central Prison.
Dead Person's Fingerprint Can't Be Used To Identify Her From Aadhar Database: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION & ANR
Case No: WP 25182/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by the Bengaluru Police, seeking to identify a deceased woman by matching her fingerprints with the Aadhar data maintained by Unique Identification Authority of India.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that a live fingerprint is required for the purpose of authentication and as such, "a dead person's fingerprint cannot be directed to be identified through a search on the UIDAI database.”
The single bench also cited "technical constraints" in matching a dead fingerprint. It observed, “There being technical constraints in such matching fingerprint with the Aadhar number as also there being a requirement to maintain privacy of individuals and also on account of security that a live fingerprint is required for the purpose of authentication, I am of the opinion that the dead person's fingerprint cannot be directed to be identified through a search on the UIDAI database.”
Case Title: M/s Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 27259 OF 2024 (T-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Centre cannot retain wrongly paid IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) once the correct tax is paid to the State authorities.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar observed that since the assessee had wrongly paid IGST and later paid the correct tax to the State GST, the Central government must refund IGST to the assessee.
The assessee/appellant is a Science and Technology Company operating across healthcare, life science and electronics and has been engaged in providing intermediary services to foreign entities.
Case Title: PANDURANG S/O. TUKARAM SHIVANE AND DURDUNDI MALAGOUDA PATIL & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103215 OF 2014 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103214 OF 2014
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
The Karnataka High Court held that failure on the part of hospital authorities to give intimation to the police about a road accident should not affect the claimants' chances of securing compensation in motor accident cases.
Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha said so while allowing the appeals filed by Pandurang Shivane and his wife, who had challenged the trial court's order dismissing their claim petitions on the ground that they failed to prove they were injured in a road traffic accident.
The petitioners argued that immediately after the accident, they were shifted to the hospital for treatment. The wound certificates revealed the nature of the injuries sustained. As they were undergoing treatment and attending to one another, they were unable to lodge a complaint with the police immediately. A complaint was later filed, and the police, after investigation, filed a chargesheet against the rider of the offending vehicle. However, the Tribunal, without considering these facts, dismissed the claim petitions.
Case Title: DR ARCHANA BHAT K AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 27135/2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed the State to take immediate steps for implementation of Rule 138 (7) of Central Motor Vehicle (Second Amendment) Rules 2022, which prescribes maximum speed limit for two-wheelers when children ride pillion. The Rule also mandates helmet and safety harness for kids.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha observed, “Though state authorities have taken some steps towards implementation of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, in effect the said rule is not implemented yet. It is apparent that there is no cavil that the said rule is required to be implemented. Therefore, the state is now required to take effective steps to ensure that the rule is implemented. We accordingly dispose of the petition by directing the state to take immediate steps to ensure that the said rule is implemented."
Case Title: MICHAEL MAHESH CHRIS SALDANHA AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 30532 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
The Karnataka High Court has held that when an application under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016, is made during the lifetime of the licensee, so long as the licensee is aged more than 70 years or has been holding the firearm licence for more than 25 years, he can nominate any of his legal heirs for transfer of licence and transfer of arm and there will be no requirement for the transferee to establish that there is any threat to life.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by Michael Mahesh Chris Saldanha. The court directed respondent No.3 (Commissioner of Police, Managaluru) to process the application of the petitioner in terms of clause (b) of Rule 25(1) and issue a licence within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Married Sister Can Be Dependent For Claiming Motor Accident Compensation: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ANd GEORGE MENEZES & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3886 OF 2020 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4216 OF 2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
The Karnataka High Court recently said that in Indian social context, it is not uncommon for daughters and sisters, even after marriage, to maintain a close relationship with their parental family.
The earning member of the family often contributes towards their welfare and social needs, it added. "Therefore, their right to claim compensation cannot be denied merely on the ground of their marital status," said Justice Umesh M Adiga while dismissing an appeal filed by the Insurer against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Case Title: M/s DNA Entertainment Networks Private Limited AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 22323/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 400
The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed the plea filed by Event management firm M/s DNA Entertainment Network Private Limited seeking quashing of a judicial inquiry report regarding Bengaluru Stampede which occurred in May.
A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju passed the order. A detailed copy of the order is yet to be made available.
The Government of Karnataka, had on June 5, issued a Government Order, appointing a Commission of Inquiry headed by Retired justice John Michael Cunha and further directed that the Inquiry should be completed within a period of one month.
Karnataka High Court Directs State Cricket Association Elections To Be Held On December 07
Case Title: Karnataka State Cricket Association AND ELECTORAL OFFICER, KSCA.
Case No: WP 34890/2025 C/w WP 34902/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed the letter dated November 17, issued by the Electoral Officer of Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), postponing elections to its Managing Committee, initially scheduled to be held on November 30.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindraj allowed the petitions filed by KSCA and B K Ravi, one of the members of the Committee. It said,
“The Electoral officer is directed to conduct the election to Karnataka State Cricket Association as per the existing byelaws of KSCA and complete the elections as per the following calendar events, without being influenced by any interpretation sought to be given to the byelaws by any quarters.”
Case Title: Revanna H D AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4932 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 402
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the charge of outraging woman's modesty under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, levelled against Janata Dal (S) leader HD Revanna, by his former house help.
However, the court has upheld the charge under Section 354A (Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment) leveled against him and asked the trial court to examine if the same can be invoked despite lapse of limitation period prescribed under Section 468 CrPC.
Justice M I Arun said, “This Court is of the opinion that the allegations made in the complaint attract the provision of Section 354A of IPC and not Section 354 of IPC.”
Case Title: Alphonso Saldana AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3773 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 403
The Karnataka High Court has held that in criminal cases, a mere plea of insanity is not sufficient, and that the onus is on the accused to prove it. It was stated that while considering such a plea, courts have to consider the state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of the offence and not whether the accused is of unsound mind as of today or not.
Justice M. I. Arun, held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Alphonsa Saldana, a murder accused who had approached the court challenging the order of the trial court rejecting the applications filed by him.
Case Title: ANIL S/O. MALLAPPA KANAWADE & Others AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 104367 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 404
In a case concerning government teachers who had not been paid their salaries for 19 months, the Karnataka High Court recently said, “To force these teachers or indeed any employee, to toil without wages strikes at the very heart of human dignity and stands in stark violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India, which proscribes begar in all its forms.”
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made this observation while allowing a petition filed by four teachers of a government-aided school who were not paid their salaries for 19 months. The bench directed, “The second respondent to release the salaries of the petitioners from May, 2024 to till this date, on or before 04.12.2025. In the event, the salaries are not released on or before 04.12.2025, the petitioners become entitled to cost of litigation at Rs.25,000/- each.”
Motor Accident Victim Seeking Compensation Must Lodge Complaint In Time: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Suresh Vathar AND Siddaramma & ANR
Case No: MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200941 OF 2019
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld an order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal which refused compensation to a claimant, observing that the possibility of planting or involving the offending vehicle in the alleged accident cannot be ruled out.
A single judge, Justice P Sree Sudha dismissed the appeal stating, "the delay is not at all explained and injured not filed any certified copies of FIR complaint, spot panchanama, MV report, injury certificate and the charge sheet before the Court."
Case Title: T H Hosamani AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 109449 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 406
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell does not have the power to take up suo motu investigation into cases related to validity of caste certificates.
"....the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell does not have the power to take up suo motu investigation into the caste certificate of the petitioner," Justice M Nagaprasanna said while allowing a petition filed by one T H Hosamani.
“The statute is unambiguous with regard to the power of the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell emerging only upon a reference being made by the District Caste Verification Committee. Therefore, the proceedings that have now emerged from the hands of the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell and all action in its aftermath would become a nullity in law," the Court said.
Case Title: YANKAPPA R SAKRE @ VENAKATESH R SAKRE AND Principal Secretary
Case No: WP 34065/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 407
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday disposed of a public interest litigation filed seeking to declare that the fixation of 42 percent minimum qualifying marks without gazette notification for OBC candidates for admission to the 3-year LLB course by Karnataka State Law University (KSLU) as illegal, arbitrary, and ultra vires.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha disposed of the petition filed by Yankappa R Sakre. It said “The petitioner's challenge to notification of KSLU cannot be faulted and the petition is accordingly disposed of.”
Case Title: SRI ADRUSHYA KADESHWARA SWAMIJI AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.108686 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 408
The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) on Tuesday (November 25) set aside a prohibitory order dated November 04 passed against Adrushya Kadeshwara Swamiji, restraining him from entering the territorial limits of Dharwad district, for the period commencing from November 05 till January 03 next year.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and said: "The order is devoid of reasons, proceeds purely on conjectures for imposition of restraint of manifestly excessive duration. Thus, the impugned order fails the test of constitutionality and legality.”
Case Title: Sunil AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.108099 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a notification cancelling the appointment of an Additional District Government Pleader within 24-hours of his appointment and appointing another advocate in his place.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The appointment made is on one day, and undone the next day, within a span of just 24 hours. The petitioner so appointed, as Government Pleader, assumed charge, appeared in the Court and was abruptly removed without reason and the 3rd respondent was appointed, all in 24 hours. Perhaps, this is the first case in the annals of judicial review of such gross arbitrary exercise of power; in 24 hours the State changes its own orders, to its whim.”
Case Title: Sri J Ramesh Chand v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 9890 OF 2023 (T-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 410
The Karnataka High Court held that the assessee's payment of Rs. 10 crores could not be treated as a voluntary payment under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act (Central Goods and Services Tax Act), as the DRC-03 shows 'NIL' entries for both interest and penalty. The bench observed that the 'NIL' entries clearly indicated that the payment was made by the assessee under coercion and under the threat of arrest.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that prior to the search and inspection conducted by the department, they did not issue any notice to the assessee nor were any proceedings to ascertain, adjudicate or determine the tax, interest and penalty payable by the assessee which indicates that there was no occasion for the assessee to pay the said sum voluntarily by way of self-ascertainment to the department, thereby indicating that the said amount was not paid voluntarily by the assessee.
Case Title: DEVANAND PUTTAPPA NAYAK AND STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26355 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 411
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the State government to frame, in three months, appropriate guidelines for selection and appointment of Chairperson and Members to the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts.
Justice Ashok S Kinagi, while allowing a petition filed by a former district judge, Devananda Puttappa Nayak said, "The impugned notice or advertisement issued by the respondents is without any procedure or guidelines for the selection in the case of multiple candidates applying for the same post. The State Government is interested with the powers to make rules regarding the appointment, it has not specified any procedure under which the selection is likely to be undertaken. The failure to prescribe any selection criteria or process is the dereliction of duty on the part of the State and results in the infringement of fundamental rights to an equal opportunity in public employment.”
Case Title: X AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8134 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9412 OF 2021.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 412
The Karnataka High Court has held that the provisions of Section 498A IPC (cruelty) are attracted even in cases of a void or voidable marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage such as live-in relationships provided the ingredients of the offence are otherwise established.
The petitioner had alleged that the complainant and him were not legally married and thus she could not have lodged a cruelty case against him for allegedly trying to set her ablaze and at most his relationship with her could be called a "live-in" relationship for which cruelty cannot be invoked.
Case Title: INTAK RAJU N AND KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26292 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 413
The Karnataka High Court recently said that merely being a Right to Information activist would not give a person the right to seek answer scripts of a person who had appeared for the exam conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC).
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said thus while dismissing the petition filed by one Intak Raju N, who claimed to be a RTI activist and President of the Mysore District Right to Information and Human Rights Protection Association.
Karnataka High Court Restores Classic Legends' Rights To The 'Yezdi' Marks For Motorcycles
Case Title: Boman R. Irani v. The Official Liquidator of Ideal Jawa
Case Number: OSA NO. 2/2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 414
The Karnataka High Court has recently allowed a series of appeals filed by Classic Legends Pvt. Ltd. and its founder, restoring their right to use the 'Yezdi' name and logos for motorcycles. The judgment overturns a 2022 decision that had declared the marks to be the property of Ideal Jawa, the defunct manufacturer of the original Yezdi bikes.
A Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T held that the single judge had erred in concluding that Ideal Jawa continued to own the Yezdi trademarks, noting that the marks had lapsed many years ago and the company had taken no steps to revive or protect them. The bench highlighted that goodwill cannot survive after the business itself has ceased.
Case Title: H P Ramesh & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.3982 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 415
The Karnataka High Court has said that delay, even extending across 'half a century', does not semi articulate the landowners claim to just compensation, when it is admitted by the State that it has without legal formalities taken over the private land.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by a father-daughter duo Ramesh and Sushmitha, questioning an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Tumkuru District, denying them compensation for the usage of their land, under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Case Title: K N SHANTH KUMAR AND ELECTORAL OFFICER & Others
Case No: WP 35584/2025
Citation No 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 416
The Karnataka High Court on Saturday directed the Electoral Officer conducting the elections to the Karnataka State Cricket Association to declare KN Shanth Kumar as a valid candidate to contest the elections to the post of President.
It thus allowed Kumar's plea. Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 24.11.2025 passed by respondent No.1 is quashed. A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.1 to declare the petitioner to be a valid candidate for the purpose of contesting the elections of Respondent No.2-Association. The elections are to be carried out as per the calendar of events, which has been fixed".
Case Title: SOUMYA W/O. LATE SURESH RAO AND RATNAKUMARI & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.104795 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Assistant Commissioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act can issue an eviction order reiterating that this "jurisdiction is extraordinary" and must be invoked where rights of the elderly need protection.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while dismissing a petition filed by a daughter-in-law who had challenged an order of the Assistant Commissioner which had allowed her mother-in-law Ratnakumari's plea.
The Commissioner had in its order directed the petitioner to vacate within 30 days a house, and handover the vacant possession to her mother-in-law. Against this the petitioner moved the high court.
Case Title: Jayna Kothari v. Manish Kumar & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19619 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
The Karnataka High Court quashed a complaint by a former male employee of Zoomcar India Private Limited, alleging professional misconduct against Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari before the State Bar Council (KSBC).
Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the complaint filed by the man, who was terminated from service after being found guilty of sexual harassment wherein Kothari was part of the company's Internal Complaints Committee as an external member. It also quashed a notice issued to Kothari by the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC).
It said: “The foundation in the complaint, inter alia, touches upon the merits of the opinion of the Committee which decided to terminate the services of the 1st respondent. To wreak vengeance the complaint is registered before the Bar Council, without having any locus to do so, as there is no contract or a client-advocate relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. In that light, permitting the complaint to proceed any further would amount to becoming an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice"
License To Run Fair Price Shop Not Transferable: Karnataka High Court Reiterates
Case Title: LAKSHMAMMA AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 31337 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
The Karnataka High Court has said that authorisation to run a fair price shop issued to a dealer cannot be transferred to any other person.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Lakshmamma who had sought to quash the endorsement issued by the authority and consider his representation seeking for transfer of the authorization to run a fair price shop.
RERA Orders Not Decrees, Cannot Be Executed Through Civil Courts: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Snil Pathiyam Veetil & Ors
Case Number: W.P. Nos. 17821/2025 C/w W.P 18348/2025 & W.P 19184/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 420
The Karnataka High Court has recently ruled that an order passed by a Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) does not amount to a civil court decree and cannot be executed through civil execution proceedings, holding that RERA orders must be enforced only through the statutory recovery mechanism provided under the Act.
A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said the statutory scheme shows that RERA is a 'self-contained code' whose decisions do not conform to any of the requirements of a decree as defined in Section 2(2) CPC, and therefore its orders cannot be executed as civil decrees.
Case Title: KJ George AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Criminal Petition 11573/2025 c/w Criminal Petition No. 11571/2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 421
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 2) quashed a private complaint by BJP leaders against State Energy Minister KJ George and BESCOM officials, alleging irregularities in the issuance of tender regarding procurement and installation of smart electric meters in the State.
Allowing George's plea Justice M I Arun said “Petitions are allowed. Consequently the proceedings pending before the trial court are quashed.”
Case Title: SRI. RAMAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND M/S SKILLETCH ENGINEERS AND CONTACTORS PVT LTD.
Case No: CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 4 OF 2025 C/W CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 5 OF 2025 CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 6 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 422
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if an arbitration clause were to exist in an agreement between the parties and the dispute were required to be adjudicated by way of arbitration, then the statutory requirement under the Cooperative Societies Act would not apply.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said this while allowing the petition filed by Ramakrishna House Building, which had approached the court for the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Case Title: ABC AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23848 OF 2025 (GM-PASS) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 23851 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 423
The Karnataka High Court has said that when an application is made for issuance of a passport to a minor child by one spouse/parent, the declaration required to be made by the parents must be factually correct, and if it is stated that a decree of divorce has been passed with custody, then those documents must be enclosed along with the application.
A single Judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj, observed this while allowing petitions filed by two minors through their mother seeking issuance of a fresh passport and renewal of an existing passport. The petitioners had approached the Court after their applications were not considered on the ground that, since they were minors, the required undertaking from both parents had not been enclosed.
Case Title: Mr. Yash v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 6530 OF 2021 (T-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 424
The Karnataka High Court has held that the search conducted at Actor Yash's residence makes him a 'searched person' under the Income Tax Act, as documents were seized from him, during the search and a panchanama was drawn. Hence, the order under Section 153C of the Act, which applies to persons other than the one originally searched, is without jurisdiction.
Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows the Income Tax Department to assess or reassess the income of a person other than the one originally searched (a “third party”).
Case Title: Lubna Shah v. B. M. Jayeshankar & Others
Case No: CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 155 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 425
The Karnataka High Court has held that arbitration could be only between parties to the Arbitration Agreement; non-parties cannot be made parties to arbitration unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by Lubna Shah. Shah and Varun Infra Projects (respondent No 3) had entered into a Joint Development Agreement on 27.06.2016, which is governed by an arbitration Clause in terms of Clause 22.
Shah, by a letter dated 27.01.2025, called upon Varun Infra Projects for amicable settlement. No amicable settlement having occurred, Shah invoked the arbitration Clause and issued a notice on 18.02.2025 nominating her arbitrator. Varun Infra Projects replied on 04.03.2025 seeking some time to respond to the notice. However, Shah approached the court, contending that there is no consent or concurrence and sought the appointment of an arbitrator.
Case Title: Exotic Mile Private Limited v. DPAC Ventures LLP
Case Number: Commercial Appeal No. 617 of 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 426
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order directing a consumer electronics brand to prominently display the disclaimer “formerly BOULT” on all products sold under its new name “GoBoult,” saying the step was necessary to prevent confusion with rival brand “GoBold.”
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha delivered the order on November 24, 2025, dismissing the appeal filed by Exotic Mile, which owns and operates the GoBoult brand, against the Commercial Court's November 10 ruling.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & ANR AND YALLAGAIAH G & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.150 OF 2024 (S-R) C/W CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.88 OF 2024 REVIEW PETITION NO.526 OF 2024 WRIT APPEAL NO.164 OF 2024 (S-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO.175 OF 2024 (S-R) WRIT APPEAL NO.267 OF 2024 (S-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO.1689 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 427
The Karnataka High Court has held that employees of the Karnataka Media Academy or the Karnataka State Temperance Board are not eligible to pension as Government servants, noting that there was no provision making their service pensionable under relevant rules.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil held thus while allowing a batch of appeals filed by the State Government questioning an order of single judge which had directed the government to pay pension and arrears to the writ petitioners.
However, it said, “It is for the Government to take an informed decision taking note of all relevant aspects of the matter as also the orders passed in respect of other Institutions and to take a decision whether the employment of the writ petitioners is to be made pensionable.”
Case Title: SUNIL KUMAR @ SILENT SUNIL AND STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18789 OF 2019
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 428
The Karnataka High Court has partly allowed a petition filed by rowdy sheeter Sunil Kumar alias Silent Sunil, who sought a direction to all officers of the Karnataka State Police Department to issue a notice to him whenever his appearance is needed for the purpose of enquiry or investigation.
Justice R. Nataraj said, “So long as the petitioner does not involve in the commission of any offence and is not suspected of being involved in a crime, the Police shall not summon him orally only on the ground that his name appears in the rowdy list.”
"Whatever might be the consequences, when there is no procedure prescribed in law to summon a rowdy sheeter, the respondent-State cannot justify summoning them orally and detaining them in the Police station for long hours as that would infringe their personal liberty,” the court said.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Govt Order Closing Jan Aushadhi Kendras In Govt Hospitals
Case Title: RAKESH M S/O. MAHALINGAPPA L. And STATE OF KARNATAKA.
Case No: WP 103827/2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 429
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday allowed a batch of petitions and quashed a government order dated May 14 which directed closure of all Jan Aushadhi Kendras (JAKs) operating within the premises of government hospitals.
A single judge Justice M Nagaprasanna sitting at Dharwad bench allowed the petition filed by Rakesh Mahalingappa L and Others. It said “Allowed and quashed.” A detailed order is yet to be made available. It orally said “We will not allow one wing of the government to tinker with the medicines being given to the poor whether it is free of cost or for nominal price.”
Case Title: PAVAN VIJAY SHARMA AND THE UNION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WP 36734/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 430
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday disposed of a PIL seeking issuance of show cause notice by authorities before freezing bank accounts of persons where complaints of cybercrime are reported.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha orally observed, “You have to look at it from the perspective of ensuring recovering instantaneously. The first hour is called the golden hour, what do you want...you want a person to lose the money?"
Petitioner Pavan Vijay Sharma argued that a show cause notice is required to be issued before such drastic action of freezing accounts. However, respondents submitted that if the state authorities spend time in issuing show cause notice then it may not be possible to recover the proceeds of crime.
Case Title: Bhimappa AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100335 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 431
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Director General and Inspector General of Police of Karnataka and the Director of the Department of Prosecutions to issue necessary instructions to all concerned to mandatorily collect the blood samples of the injured or the deceased, as the case may be, and to submit such blood grouping reports to the court as part of the prosecution papers during trial.
A Division Bench of Justice R. Devdas and Justice B. Muralidhara Pai issued this direction while dismissing an appeal filed by one Bhimappa, who was convicted and sentenced for murdering his wife.
On appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution in the trial court, the Bench noted that the investigating agency had not obtained the blood grouping report of the deceased.
GST | Non-Mentioning Vehicle Number In Part-B Of E-Way Bill Is Curable Defect: Karnataka High Court
Case Name: BVM TRANS Solutions Private Limited
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 5465 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 432
The Karnataka High Court in a matter concerning non-uploading of Part-B of E-way Bill, has set aside the revisional order and restored the order of Appellate Authority which allowed release of seized vehicle and imposed a General Penalty of Rs. 25000.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar directed to refund the entire amount imposed on the Petitioner as penalty excluding Rs. 25000 as also instructed to return the bank guarantee. The Karnataka High Court emphasized on how omission of vehicle number in Part-B of E-way Bill a 'curable effect' and procedural lapses as such would not invalidate the E-way Bill especially when the other documents viz., Invoice etc., tally at the time of interception, inspection and detention.
Case Title: CHARAN H V AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2056 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 433
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to an accused charged under provisions of the Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, after the police failed to produce him before the court for extension of his remand.
The accused was arrested on September 15, for commission of offences under sections 69, 89, 351(2) of BNSS-2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. On the next day he was remanded to judicial custody till 30.09.2025. However, on 30.09.2025, the trial court passed an order that the accused was not produced from judicial custody and to await final report list on 10.10.2025.
The petitioner argued that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jigar Alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2023) 6 SCC 484 wherein the court has observed that no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused in the custody of the Police unless the accused produced before him in-person. Since, the investigating Officer has not complied with the mandatory provisions of 187(4) of BNSS 2023, he should be granted bail.
Karnataka High Court Permits Doctor To Donate One Of Her Kidney's As Altruistic Donor Without Compensation
Case Title: ABC AND THE CHAIRPERSON HOSPITAL BASED AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29161 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 434
The Karnataka High Court has permitted a doctor to donate one of her kidneys to a deserving person as an “altruistic donor” without seeking any compensation of any nature.
The 58-year-old doctor had approached the court after her application to the Chairperson of the Hospital Based Authorization Committee, seeking permission for the donation, was rejected. The doctor submitted that she is not making any choice as regards who the donee has to be. The donee could be identified by the hospital concerned, and so long as all the tests and matches are made, the donor has no objection to donating one of her kidneys without compensation.
Case Title: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 22377 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 435
The Karnataka High Court held that bona fide errors in GSTR-3B returns are rectifiable and cannot be a ground to initiate proceedings under Section 73 of the KGST /CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) Act.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar directed the department to accept the revised returns, noting that the Supreme Court has also directed the CBIC to re-examine the provisions/timelines fixed for correcting the bona fide errors.
Judicial Officers May Err Sometimes, But Shouldn't Pass Inconsistent Orders: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/S SREE GURURAJA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S CIMEC ENTERPRISES ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 36643 OF 2018.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 436
While setting aside an order passed by the trial court staying proceedings in a suit filed for recovery of money, the Karnataka High Court held that while a judicial officer may err and pass illegal orders, he should not pass inconsistent orders which would undermine the faith of the general public in the institution.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said, “The courts while rendering judgments or passing interim orders should maintain consistency. Judicial discipline and propriety largely depends on such consistency and the purpose and object behind the same is to prevent discrimination and arbitrariness. Otherwise, there is scope of being accused of being partial, unfair and discriminatory.”
It added “A judicial officer may have a different view on a point for consideration, but on the same point in the same proceeding if an order is already passed earlier, he is bound to maintain consistency.”
Case Title: M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.6126 OF 2024 (T-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 437
The Karnataka High Court held that for the purpose of determining the place of supply under Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act, the factor is the location where the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient and not the place where the goods are handed over to the common carrier.
Section 10(1)(a) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017, provides that the place of supply for goods that are moved, whether by the supplier, recipient, or another party, is the location where the movement of goods concludes for delivery to the recipient.
Justice S. R. Krishna Kumar stated that the assessee had not handed over the goods to the common carrier for the purpose of delivery to the ultimate destination; the liability to pay IGST under Section 10(1)(a) would arise only upon the movement of the goods terminating for delivery to the recipient at various places outside Karnataka. Undisputedly, the supply of goods is inter-State supply and not intra-State supply so as to attract CGST or KGST.
Case Title: M A Hameed AND Karnataka State Bar Council
Case No: WP 1949/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 438
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday held that a member of the Karnataka State Bar Council who has surrendered his sanath/registration and after having received financial benefit as per the Advocate Welfare Fund Act, wishes to withdraw the surrender and seeks re-registration, then it would be duty of the KSBC to permit it.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “Non permitting the same would infringe the Fundamental Right of a citizen to practise his profession, in this case profession of law under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.”
The court held thus while allowing a petition filed by one M A Hameed who was a practising advocate who had practised for more than 25 years having registered himself with Karnataka State Bar Council. However, during Covid-19 pandemic, he had made an application for surrender of his sanath and requested for making a payment of the monies as provided under the Karnataka State Advocate Welfare Fund Act.
Case Title: H P Rohini AND Joint Secretary & Others
Case No: WPHC 47/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 439
The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed the petition filed by the mother of arrested Kannada actress Harshavardhini Ranya Rao, seeking to declare that her detention under COFEPOSA, as illegal and void-ab initio.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the petition. The court had on December 1, reserved its judgment on the petition after hearing the parties.
The detention order was passed while the accused was in judicial custody after being arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on allegations of smuggling gold and booked for offences u/s 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b), 135 (1)(a)(i)(a) 135(1)(a)(i)(b), 135(1)(b)(i)(a), 135(1)(b)(i)(b) of the Customs Act. On April 26, the court had rejected her bail plea.
Case Title: M/s Pramur Homes and Shelters v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 33081 OF 2025 (T-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 440
The Karnataka High Court held that issuing a consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act.
The bench opined that a composite notice for multiple financial years enables the Department to blur the statutory distinction between Section 73 (non-fraud, etc.,- 3 year limitation) and Section 74 (fraud etc., - 5 year limitation). If certain years fall under Section 73, but the entire block is treated under Section 74, the authority artificially extends limitation and bypasses mandatory statutory constraints and if such a course is permitted it clearly tantamounts to a colorable exercise of power which is impermissible in law.
Case Title: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ASTROPHYSICS AND K Dhananjay
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 441
The Karnataka High Court recently convicted one K. Dhananjay, for criminal contempt and sentenced him to four month imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,000 for making scandalous and unfounded allegations against judges and judicial institution as a whole.
The court directed him to be taken into custody forthwith.
The accused was convicted for making false and unsubstantiated allegations against Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT' for short) and Judges of the Karnataka High Court in multiple proceedings and representations.
Case Title: Arun Kumar M AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1270 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 442
The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal and acquitted Arun Kumar M, who had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly murdering his wife after she made an objectionable post on Facebook against his alleged paramour.
A Division Bench of Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T observed, “The chain of events being sought to be projected is laden with deficiency, creating a significant gap, leading to other possible hypotheses. Due to such missing links, the finding of guilt cannot be recorded. The benefit of doubt must be extended to accused No.1 (Kumar).”
Case Title: Mohammed Azeem AND Sabeeha & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 22223 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 443
The Karnataka High Court has held that a Family Court has no power to issue a Look Out Circular (LOC) while executing an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which relates to maintenance for wives, children and parents.
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed that maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC create a civil obligation enforced through judicial orders. If a party defaults, the remedy available is execution of the order through attachment of property, issuance of a warrant of arrest, or civil imprisonment. The Court clarified that Look Out Circulars are intended to prevent accused persons or offenders from evading the criminal process, and cannot be issued for recovery of maintenance dues.
Case Title: Abdul Sattar & ANR AND KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF WAQF & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9113 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 444
The Karnataka High Court recently held that the Managing Committee of a Wakf would not have any power to remove a member of the Managing Committee appointed by the WAKF Board.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by Abdul Sattar and another, who had questioned the decision of the Badariya Jumma Masjid, Muslim Jamath, removing them from the Managing Committee.
The petitioners argued that only the respondent No.1- WAQF Board which has the powers under Section 32(2)(g) of the WAKF Act, 1995 to appoint or remove the “mutawallis”. The substantial provision as regards the reasons for removal is in terms of Section 64 the WAKF Act, 1995 and procedure under Rule 58 of Karnataka WAKF Rules, 2017 are required to be followed before removal of any “mutawallis”.
Case Title: Afzal Basha AND National Investigation Agency
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 445
The Karnataka High Court, while refusing bail to an accused in the 2020 Bengaluru Riots case, observed that, “The appellant is seeking bail on the ground that his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. He gets that right when he adheres to his fundamental duties encapsulated in Article 51A of the Constitution.”
A Division Bench comprising Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T stated: “Mahatma Gandhi famously said, 'The true source of rights is duty. If we all discharge our duties, rights will not be far to seek.' Another related quote of his is, 'Right is duty well performed.'”
Case Title: M/s Iprocess Clinical Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 10989 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 446
The Karnataka High Court held that IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) is not leviable on clinic observation studies for foreign recipients, as such services qualify as export of services with the recipient located outside India.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that having regard to the specific observations made in the 37th GST Council Meeting, whereby it was resolved to clarify the tax liability in GST liability in relation to foreign recipients for R & D services provided by Indian pharmaceutical companies, the impugned notification dated 30.09.2019 is clearly retrospective, being clarificatory and elucidatory in nature.
Case Title: Mantri Developers Pvt Ltd. Vs.Gokulam Shelters Private Limited
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 36101 Of 2024 (Gm-Res)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 447
The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with an arbitral tribunal's decision impleading a non signatory company in arbitration proceedings holding that where conduct, agreements and commercial involvement of a party demonstrates clear intent to be bound by the arbitration agreement, the Group of Companies would apply.
A Division Bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Umesh M Adiga dismissed a writ petition filed by Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd., challenging a majority order of the arbitral tribunal that allowed its impleadment despite it being a non-signatory to the Joint Development Agreement (JDA).
Case Title: ITW Consulting Private Limited Vs. Intellicomm Solutions And Enterprises Private Limited
Case Number: Commercial Appeal No.297/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 448
The Karnataka High Court has held that an order passed by an arbitral tribunal deciding a preliminary or a factual issue such as whether the directors were authorised to execute agreements does not amount to an arbitral award or an interim award and therefore cannot be challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act").
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil allowed a commercial appeal and set aside the order of the Commercial Court, which had interfered with such an arbitral order by entertaining a Section 34 petition