Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 374 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 385Nominal Index:X AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 374Amit Ashok Vyas AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 375Rajashekar AND Bar Council of India & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 376B S Kiran Kumar & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 377RAVICHANDRAGOUDA R. PATIL...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 374 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 385
Nominal Index:
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
Judgments/Orders
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.