Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 410 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 419Nominal Index:SOUMYA W/O. LATE SURESH RAO AND RATNAKUMARI & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 410Jayna Kothari v. Manish Kumar & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 411LAKSHMAMMA AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 412KJ George AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 413SRI. RAMAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 410 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
Nominal Index:
SOUMYA W/O. LATE SURESH RAO AND RATNAKUMARI & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 410
Jayna Kothari v. Manish Kumar & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 411
LAKSHMAMMA AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 412
KJ George AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 413
SRI. RAMAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND M/S SKILLETCH ENGINEERS AND CONTACTORS PVT LTD. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 414
ABC AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 415
Lubna Shah v. B. M. Jayeshankar & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 416
Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Snil Pathiyam Veetil & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (kar) 417
Mr. Yash v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
Exotic Mile Private Limited v. DPAC Ventures LLP. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: SOUMYA W/O. LATE SURESH RAO AND RATNAKUMARI & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.104795 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 410
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Assistant Commissioner under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act can issue an eviction order reiterating that this "jurisdiction is extraordinary" and must be invoked where rights of the elderly need protection.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while dismissing a petition filed by a daughter-in-law who had challenged an order of the Assistant Commissioner which had allowed her mother-in-law Ratnakumari's plea.
The Commissioner had in its order directed the petitioner to vacate within 30 days a house, and handover the vacant possession to her mother-in-law. Against this the petitioner moved the high court.
Case Title: Jayna Kothari v. Manish Kumar & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19619 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 411
The Karnataka High Court quashed a complaint by a former male employee of Zoomcar India Private Limited, alleging professional misconduct against Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari before the State Bar Council (KSBC).
Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the complaint filed by the man, who was terminated from service after being found guilty of sexual harassment wherein Kothari was part of the company's Internal Complaints Committee as an external member. It also quashed a notice issued to Kothari by the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC).
It said: “The foundation in the complaint, inter alia, touches upon the merits of the opinion of the Committee which decided to terminate the services of the 1st respondent. To wreak vengeance the complaint is registered before the Bar Council, without having any locus to do so, as there is no contract or a client-advocate relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. In that light, permitting the complaint to proceed any further would amount to becoming an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice"
License To Run Fair Price Shop Not Transferable: Karnataka High Court Reiterates
Case Title: LAKSHMAMMA AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 31337 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 412
The Karnataka High Court has said that authorisation to run a fair price shop issued to a dealer cannot be transferred to any other person.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Lakshmamma who had sought to quash the endorsement issued by the authority and consider his representation seeking for transfer of the authorization to run a fair price shop.
Case Title: KJ George AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Criminal Petition 11573/2025 c/w Criminal Petition No. 11571/2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 413
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 2) quashed a private complaint by BJP leaders against State Energy Minister KJ George and BESCOM officials, alleging irregularities in the issuance of tender regarding procurement and installation of smart electric meters in the State.
Allowing George's plea Justice M I Arun said “Petitions are allowed. Consequently the proceedings pending before the trial court are quashed.”
Case Title: SRI. RAMAKRISHNA HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND M/S SKILLETCH ENGINEERS AND CONTACTORS PVT LTD.
Case No: CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 4 OF 2025 C/W CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 5 OF 2025 CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 6 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 414
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if an arbitration clause were to exist in an agreement between the parties and the dispute were required to be adjudicated by way of arbitration, then the statutory requirement under the Cooperative Societies Act would not apply.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said this while allowing the petition filed by Ramakrishna House Building, which had approached the court for the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Case Title: ABC AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23848 OF 2025 (GM-PASS) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 23851 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 415
The Karnataka High Court has said that when an application is made for issuance of a passport to a minor child by one spouse/parent, the declaration required to be made by the parents must be factually correct, and if it is stated that a decree of divorce has been passed with custody, then those documents must be enclosed along with the application.
A single Judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj, observed this while allowing petitions filed by two minors through their mother seeking issuance of a fresh passport and renewal of an existing passport. The petitioners had approached the Court after their applications were not considered on the ground that, since they were minors, the required undertaking from both parents had not been enclosed.
Case Title: Lubna Shah v. B. M. Jayeshankar & Others
Case No: CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 155 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 416
The Karnataka High Court has held that arbitration could be only between parties to the Arbitration Agreement; non-parties cannot be made parties to arbitration unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by Lubna Shah. Shah and Varun Infra Projects (respondent No 3) had entered into a Joint Development Agreement on 27.06.2016, which is governed by an arbitration Clause in terms of Clause 22.
Shah, by a letter dated 27.01.2025, called upon Varun Infra Projects for amicable settlement. No amicable settlement having occurred, Shah invoked the arbitration Clause and issued a notice on 18.02.2025 nominating her arbitrator. Varun Infra Projects replied on 04.03.2025 seeking some time to respond to the notice. However, Shah approached the court, contending that there is no consent or concurrence and sought the appointment of an arbitrator.
RERA Orders Not Decrees, Cannot Be Executed Through Civil Courts: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Snil Pathiyam Veetil & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. Nos. 17821/2025 C/w W.P 18348/2025 & W.P 19184/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
The Karnataka High Court has recently ruled that an order passed by a Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) does not amount to a civil court decree and cannot be executed through civil execution proceedings, holding that RERA orders must be enforced only through the statutory recovery mechanism provided under the Act.
A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said the statutory scheme shows that RERA is a 'self-contained code' whose decisions do not conform to any of the requirements of a decree as defined in Section 2(2) CPC, and therefore its orders cannot be executed as civil decrees.
Case Title: Mr. Yash v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 6530 OF 2021 (T-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
The Karnataka High Court has held that the search conducted at Actor Yash's residence makes him a 'searched person' under the Income Tax Act, as documents were seized from him, during the search and a panchanama was drawn. Hence, the order under Section 153C of the Act, which applies to persons other than the one originally searched, is without jurisdiction.
Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allows the Income Tax Department to assess or reassess the income of a person other than the one originally searched (a “third party”).
Case Title: Exotic Mile Private Limited v. DPAC Ventures LLP
Case Number: Commercial Appeal No. 617 of 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 419
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order directing a consumer electronics brand to prominently display the disclaimer “formerly BOULT” on all products sold under its new name “GoBoult,” saying the step was necessary to prevent confusion with rival brand “GoBold.”
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha delivered the order on November 24, 2025, dismissing the appeal filed by Exotic Mile, which owns and operates the GoBoult brand, against the Commercial Court's November 10 ruling.