Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 370 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 409Nominal Index: Saroja Kondai AND Managing Director & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 370DEENANATH AND CHANDRAHAS & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 371THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS AND BARRISTERS LAW FIRM AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 372KARNATAKA PRADESH HOTEL & RESTAURANTS ASSOCIATION & ANR AND Union of India...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 370 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
Nominal Index:
Saroja Kondai AND Managing Director & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
DEENANATH AND CHANDRAHAS & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS AND BARRISTERS LAW FIRM AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
KARNATAKA PRADESH HOTEL & RESTAURANTS ASSOCIATION & ANR AND Union of India & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 373
X AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
Amit Ashok Vyas AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 375
Rajashekar AND Bar Council of India & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 376
B S Kiran Kumar & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 377
RAVICHANDRAGOUDA R. PATIL AND Karnataka State Bar Council & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 378
PRAMOD SHIVASHANKAR AND ABC. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 379
Maverick Motors LLP & Others AND Rohith Murthy. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 380
BS Yediyurappa AND The Criminal Investigating Department. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 381
Ashok Patil AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 382
S N Suresh Babu AND T Gururaj. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 383
Sri Mukesh Gupta v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 384
Gunnam Infra Projects Private Limited. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 385
REESHAN THAJUDDIN SHEIKH AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 386
State of Karnataka AND MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 387
PANDURANG S/O. TUKARAM SHIVANE AND DURDUNDI MALAGOUDA PATIL & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 388
DR ARCHANA BHAT K AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 389
MICHAEL MAHESH CHRIS SALDANHA AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ANd GEORGE MENEZES & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 391
M/s DNA Entertainment Networks Private Limited AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 392
Karnataka State Cricket Association AND ELECTORAL OFFICER, KSCA. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 393
Revanna H D AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
M/s Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
Alphonso Saldana AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
ANIL S/O. MALLAPPA KANAWADE & Others AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
T H Hosamani AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
Suresh Vathar AND Siddaramma & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
YANKAPPA R SAKRE @ VENAKATESH R SAKRE AND Principal Secretary. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 400
SRI ADRUSHYA KADESHWARA SWAMIJI AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
Sunil AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 402
DEVANAND PUTTAPPA NAYAK AND STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 403
Boman R. Irani v. The Official Liquidator of Ideal Jawa. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 404
INTAK RAJU N AND KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
X AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 406
H P Ramesh & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 407
K N SHANTH KUMAR AND ELECTORAL OFFICER & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 408
Sri J Ramesh Chand v. Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Saroja Kondai AND Managing Director & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106296 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
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: DEENANATH AND CHANDRAHAS & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 796 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
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: THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS AND BARRISTERS LAW FIRM AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 3155/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
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) 373
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: X AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 30971 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
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: 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) 375
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: Rajashekar AND Bar Council of India & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24401 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 376
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: B S Kiran Kumar & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 27474 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 377
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) 378
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) 379
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: Maverick Motors LLP & Others AND Rohith Murthy
Case No: CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 34 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 380
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: BS Yediyurappa AND The Criminal Investigating Department
Case No: WP 7447/2025 c/w WP 7322/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 381
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) 382
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: S N Suresh Babu AND T Gururaj
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1094 OF 2013
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 383
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) 384
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) 385
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) 386
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) 387
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: 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) 388
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) 389
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) 390
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) 391
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) 392
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) 393
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) 394
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: 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: Alphonso Saldana AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3773 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
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) 397
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.”
Case Title: T H Hosamani AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 109449 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
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.
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) 399
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: YANKAPPA R SAKRE @ VENAKATESH R SAKRE AND Principal Secretary
Case No: WP 34065/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 400
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) 401
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) 402
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: DEVANAND PUTTAPPA NAYAK AND STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26355 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 403
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.”
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) 404
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: INTAK RAJU N AND KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26292 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 405
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.
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) 406
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: H P Ramesh & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.3982 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 407
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) 408
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: Sri J Ramesh Chand v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 9890 OF 2023 (T-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
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.