Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 325 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 369Nominal Index: Vishwanath Kadli AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 325The Principal Secretary To Government & ANR AND Shivanagouda Vasand & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 326Baburao AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 327Dr K Sudhakar AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 328L AND T INFRA INVESTMENT PARTNERS...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 325 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
Nominal Index:
Vishwanath Kadli AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 325
The Principal Secretary To Government & ANR AND Shivanagouda Vasand & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 326
Baburao AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 327
Dr K Sudhakar AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
L AND T INFRA INVESTMENT PARTNERS VERSUS BHORUKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED. Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
Nishat R Kolyal AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
Channappar AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
U Mamatha AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
Lokanna & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 333
Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 334
Veerabhadrapa & Others AND Channappa Gowda D & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 335
Dr C Anusha AND National Board of Examinations In Medical Sciences & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 336
A Alam Pasha AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
MALLAPPA CHAYAPPA AKSHARAD AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
G Mahesh AND THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. TEKNIC EUCHNER ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 339
Pramodh K AND State of Karnataka and batch. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
Muniyappa AND The Managing Director. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
M/S. ANNAPURNESHWARI MINERALS AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
R D Chaitra AND Directorate of Enforcement. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
GNANESHWARA M AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND M/S DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PVT LTD. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
Prathap Simha AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
M/S JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) PVT LTD V SRI PRASHANT RAO. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
RADHAMMA AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
SRI. ADRUSHYA KADESHWARA SWAMIJI GURU MUPPINA KADESHWARA SWAMJI AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
The Canara Bank v. The State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 350
OLIVE LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 351
Principal Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Pigeon International. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 352
EMBASSY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus ITI LIMITED. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 353
Shakuntala Desai AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 354
Deputy Director AND Asadullah Khan. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 355
Nara Suryanarayana Reddy AND Initiating Officer & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 356
Gurnunath Vadde AND Deputy Commissioner & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 357
ALTHAF HUSSAIN YANE ALTHAF MOOSA AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 358
Prakash Chimanlal Sheth AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 359
BABOON INVESTMENTS HOLDING Versus M/S. ATRIA BRINDVAN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 360
S. Gowri Shankar and another v. The Karnataka State Bar Council and others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 361
Sampras Anthony AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 362
Meera M R AND Gangadhara. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 363
BASAVARAJ S/O. PUNDALIKAPPA AND The State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 364
PRANAVA K N & Others AND The Karnataka State Law University & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 365
N Shreyas AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 367
Karnataka Sangha AND The Chief Administrator & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 368
M/s Kishore Vidyaniketan Society (R) v. Arbitration and Conciliation Centre. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
Judgments/Order
Case Title: Vishwanath Kadli AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103433 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 325
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that it would be unreasonable to issue a notification under Section 21 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act on every occasion when an Inspector is transferred, adding that such a narrow interpretation of the provision is not in furtherance of the object of the Act.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty in his order observed that the Section 21(1) of the Act provides that Central Government or State Government, may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint qualified persons to be Inspectors for such areas as may be assigned to them.
Case Title: The Principal Secretary To Government & ANR AND Shivanagouda Vasand & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 100268 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 326
The Karnataka High Court has said that courts or tribunals should not lightly interfere in the matter of misconduct arising out of charges of corruption.
A division bench of Justice S.Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil, said “Corruption is a menace that not only threatens the very fundamental principles of democracy, but also undermines the rule of law and the institutions that serve as its guardian.”
It added “In the face of corruption, the courts are not mere spectators but rather the last bastion of justice, duty-bound to uphold the rule of law and ensure that accountability prevails over impunity.”
Case Title: Baburao AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.201536 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar). 327
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the amendments made to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 and the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 insofar as it relates to appeals from the Civil Judge (Senior Division) lying to the District Court, and the first appeals lying to the High Court from the City Civil Court being heard by a Single Judge irrespective of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Justice M I Arun said, “All other amendments to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1964), amended by way of Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Karnataka Act No.33 of 2024) are upheld. Amendments to the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No.5 of 1962) amended by way of Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Karnataka Act No.32 of 2024) are upheld.”
Case Title: Dr K Sudhakar AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 18910/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a criminal case against BJP MP Dr K Sudhakar booked for texting an IAS officer for help after the Election Commission seized Rs 4.8 crore cash from a co-accused's house, a day before the Lok Sabha Elections in April 2024.
Justice M I Arun quashed the case registered for offences punishable under sections 171B (bribery), 171C (undue influence of election), and 511(Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment) IPC and Section 123 (Corrupt practices) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Mere Change In Arbitral Rules Does Not Frustrate Arbitration Agreement: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: L AND T INFRA INVESTMENT PARTNERS VERSUS BHORUKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
Case Number: COMAP No. 261 of 2025 C/W COMAP No.279 of 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
The Karnataka High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice C.M. Joshi has set aside interim injunctions granted by Commercial Court by which it restrained L & T Infra Investment Partners Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (“L&T Infra”) from proceeding with arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules against Bhoruka Power Corporation Limited (“BPCL”) and its promoter shareholders.
Case Title: Nishat R Kolyal AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23759 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
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) 331
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: U Mamatha AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 21648 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
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) 333
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) 334
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) 335
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) 336
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) 337
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) 338
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) 339
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) 340
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: Muniyappa AND The Managing Director
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4426 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
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: M/S. ANNAPURNESHWARI MINERALS AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.265 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
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.
Case Title: R D Chaitra AND Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: WP 26754/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
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) 344
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) 345
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.”
Case Title: Prathap Simha AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: Criminal Petition No 14363/2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
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: 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: RADHAMMA AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17723 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
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.
The court thus said: "The family of a prisoner may not be resident within the jurisdiction where the prisoner is incarcerated. It would therefore for this and several other factors be required that the procedure for parole in Chapter 34 of the Manual of 2021(Karnataka Prisoners and Corrections Service Manual), be e-enabled such that all applications are filed electronically, processed electronically and the details thereof are also available electronically".
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) 349
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.
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) 350
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.
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) 351
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) 352
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: EMBASSY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Versus ITI LIMITED
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.303 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 353
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.
Justice E. S. Indiresh held that “in the instant case, the petitioner-Company is not an unauthorised occupant and further the respondent herein is receiving rents from the petitioner and proceedings initiated by the respondent by causing legal notice dated 12th September, 2025 is stayed by this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that , as the issue involved between the parties is for renewal of the lease period and same has to be adjudicated by an Arbitrator as per clause 7.7 of the Lease Deed dated 22nd June, 2008, the petition, seeking appointment of Arbitrator deserves to be allowed.”
Case Title: Shakuntala Desai AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200105 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 354
The Karnataka High Court has directed prison administration to educate and sensitize convicts regarding the legal obligations attached to parole and the severe penal consequences that follow in case of non-compliance.
For context Section 58 of the Karnataka Prisons (Amendment) Act, 2022, contemplates imprisonment which may extend up to five years, and fine, for any convict who, having been released on parole, fails to surrender within the time stipulated in the order granting such release.
A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said “The underlying legislative intent is to ensure that the limited liberty granted to convicts under parole is not abused, and that the sanctity of judicial orders and prison discipline is maintained. It has come to the notice of this Court in several cases that convicts released on parole often remain unaware of the stringent consequences of failing to surrender within the prescribed time, and such ignorance frequently results in further criminal prosecution under Section 58 of the Act.”
Case Title: Deputy Director AND Asadullah Khan
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2020 C/W MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2020, MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2020 & MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2020.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 355
The Karnataka High Court has held that properties which are mortgaged to the Bank are not the proceeds of crime, and an attachment order cannot be passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, in respect of the properties mortgaged to the Bank for the advancement of loans.
A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T held thus while dismissing the appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Act, which allowed the appeals filed by the accused challenging the confirmation order of attachment regarding seven properties and quashed the confirmation order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Case Title: Nara Suryanarayana Reddy AND Initiating Officer & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.107184 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 356
The Karnataka High Court recently directed that Initiating Officers appointed under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, to henceforth, in any notice issued under sub-Section (1) of Section 24 of the Act to a Benamidar and marked to the beneficial owner categorically state that the beneficial owner is also required to reply, submit explanation or submission within the time frame as that provided to the Benaminar in the said notice.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the direction while allowing a petition filed by one Nara Suryanarayana Reddy who is the beneficial owner of a Benami property.
Case Title: Gurnunath Vadde AND Deputy Commissioner & ANR
Case No: WP 25174/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 357
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited to consider a representation for installing mobile network towers in the Bhavani Bijalgao village, of Kamalanagar Taluk, Bidar District, as residents of the said locality are unable to avail of various services and benefits for want of connectivity.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha while hearing the petition filed by Gurunath Vadde asked the counsel for the petitioner a pointed query about whether there is no Airtel or any other private service provider operational in the area apart from BSNL.
Case Title: ALTHAF HUSSAIN YANE ALTHAF MOOSA AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7272 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 358
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash a case registered in the year 2020, against a person accused of circulating audio clips in WhatsApp groups wherein he criticized the Government, local MLA, and the manner in which the State Authorities were handling the COVID-19 pandemic.
A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed the petition filed by one Althaf Hussain Yane Althaf Moosa, who is charged under section 153A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench said “This Court is of the prima facie view that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner at this stage. Section 153A IPC is attracted where any person, by words spoken or written, or by signs or otherwise, makes an attempt with the intention of promoting enmity or provoking disharmony, which is likely to result in disturbance of public tranquillity. This Court cannot lose sight of the magnitude of panic that prevailed during the first phase of COVID-19 pandemic. Whether the audio recording released by the petitioner was made recklessly, maliciously, or with total disregard for the prevailing crisis, is a matter that necessarily requires determination in a full-fledged trial.”
Copy Of Passport Can't Be Given To Third Party Under RTI Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Prakash Chimanlal Sheth AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17341 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 359
The Karnataka High Court has said that information relating to the passport of a person accused of cheque dishonour, including a copy of the passport is personal in nature and cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act.
The court also observed that the disclosure was exempted under Section 8(1)(h) as being information the disclosure of which would impede the probe and Section 24(4) as per which the Act is not applicable on special intelligence and security organization/units organized and established by the State Government.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said: “The disclosure of the information like a passport, in my considered opinion, being personal in nature would cause immense harm and injury to a person. The details of a passport are private to a person and if those details of a passport are made available to any third party, including the petitioner who has filed Section 138 of NI Act proceedings, it could cause a danger to the life or physical safety of the concerned person.”
Case Title: BABOON INVESTMENTS HOLDING Versus M/S. ATRIA BRINDVAN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number:COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 360
The Karnataka High Court held that when parties to a contract have agreed to exclusive jurisdiction of a particular court, suit instituted in other courts is not maintainable even if the cause of action has arisen in other jurisdiction.
Setting aside the interim injunction granted by the commercial court at Bengaluru, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that the Debenture Trust Deed (DTD) clearly conferred exclusive jurisdiction on a court located at Mumbai thereby ousting the jurisdiction of other courts.
It held that “Where more than one Court has jurisdiction, and the parties agree that one or more of those Courts would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes, such agreement is lawful and binding".
Validity Of AIBE Results Extended Till March 21, 2026 By BCI, Notes Karnataka High Court
Case : S. Gowri Shankar and another v. The Karnataka State Bar Council and others
Case No: Writ Petition No. 28203 OF 2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 361
The Karnataka High Court recently recorded the Bar Council of India's (BCI) decision to extend the validity of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) results till March 21, 2026, while disposing of a writ petition filed by two law graduates complaining of delays in their enrolment as advocates.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, hearing the petition filed by S. Gowri Shankar and Vijay Chander T., noted that the BCI had “taken into consideration the problems which would be caused to the students who have passed the AIBE results” and therefore “thought it fit to extend the validity of the AIBE Results until 21.03.2026.”
Case Title: Sampras Anthony AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.31144 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 362
"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: Meera M R AND Gangadhara
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 8205 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 363
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: BASAVARAJ S/O. PUNDALIKAPPA AND The State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106080 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 364
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: 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) 365
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: N Shreyas AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 32517/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
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) 367
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) 368
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.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that it was a newly elected body and alleged that BHEL's management was siding with the rival sangha (association) and denying the petitioner permission to hold the celebrations.
To which the bench said “It is Kannada Rajyotsava Celebrations. Who celebrates it is not the question. Management itself is celebrating. Who are you to have a problem with?”
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) 369
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.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that “A plain reading of proviso to Sub-Section (1A) of Section 13 of the Act, 2015 specifies that an appeal is maintainable either from the orders of the Commercial Court, which are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or under Section 37 of the A&C Act. Neither Order XLIII of the CPC nor Section 37 of the A&C Act provides for an appeal against the order passed under Section 39(2) of A&C Act”.