Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 420 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 425Nominal Index:State of Karnataka & ANR AND YALLAGAIAH G & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 420SUNIL KUMAR @ SILENT SUNIL AND STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 421RAKESH M S/O. MAHALINGAPPA L. And STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 422PAVAN VIJAY SHARMA AND THE UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 420 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 425
Nominal Index:
State of Karnataka & ANR AND YALLAGAIAH G & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 420
SUNIL KUMAR @ SILENT SUNIL AND STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 421
RAKESH M S/O. MAHALINGAPPA L. And STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 422
PAVAN VIJAY SHARMA AND THE UNION OF INDIA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 423
Bhimappa AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 424
BVM TRANS Solutions Private Limited. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 425
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: State of Karnataka & ANR AND YALLAGAIAH G & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.150 OF 2024 (S-R) C/W CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.88 OF 2024 REVIEW PETITION NO.526 OF 2024 WRIT APPEAL NO.164 OF 2024 (S-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO.175 OF 2024 (S-R) WRIT APPEAL NO.267 OF 2024 (S-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO.1689 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 420
The Karnataka High Court has held that employees of the Karnataka Media Academy or the Karnataka State Temperance Board are not eligible to pension as Government servants, noting that there was no provision making their service pensionable under relevant rules.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil held thus while allowing a batch of appeals filed by the State Government questioning an order of single judge which had directed the government to pay pension and arrears to the writ petitioners.
However, it said, “It is for the Government to take an informed decision taking note of all relevant aspects of the matter as also the orders passed in respect of other Institutions and to take a decision whether the employment of the writ petitioners is to be made pensionable.”
Case Title: SUNIL KUMAR @ SILENT SUNIL AND STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18789 OF 2019
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 421
The Karnataka High Court has partly allowed a petition filed by rowdy sheeter Sunil Kumar alias Silent Sunil, who sought a direction to all officers of the Karnataka State Police Department to issue a notice to him whenever his appearance is needed for the purpose of enquiry or investigation.
Justice R. Nataraj said, “So long as the petitioner does not involve in the commission of any offence and is not suspected of being involved in a crime, the Police shall not summon him orally only on the ground that his name appears in the rowdy list.”
"Whatever might be the consequences, when there is no procedure prescribed in law to summon a rowdy sheeter, the respondent-State cannot justify summoning them orally and detaining them in the Police station for long hours as that would infringe their personal liberty,” the court said.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Govt Order Closing Jan Aushadhi Kendras In Govt Hospitals
Case Title: RAKESH M S/O. MAHALINGAPPA L. And STATE OF KARNATAKA.
Case No: WP 103827/2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 422
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday allowed a batch of petitions and quashed a government order dated May 14 which directed closure of all Jan Aushadhi Kendras (JAKs) operating within the premises of government hospitals.
A single judge Justice M Nagaprasanna sitting at Dharwad bench allowed the petition filed by Rakesh Mahalingappa L and Others. It said “Allowed and quashed.” A detailed order is yet to be made available. It orally said “We will not allow one wing of the government to tinker with the medicines being given to the poor whether it is free of cost or for nominal price.”
Case Title: PAVAN VIJAY SHARMA AND THE UNION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WP 36734/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 423
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday disposed of a PIL seeking issuance of show cause notice by authorities before freezing bank accounts of persons where complaints of cybercrime are reported.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha orally observed, “You have to look at it from the perspective of ensuring recovering instantaneously. The first hour is called the golden hour, what do you want...you want a person to lose the money?"
Petitioner Pavan Vijay Sharma argued that a show cause notice is required to be issued before such drastic action of freezing accounts. However, respondents submitted that if the state authorities spend time in issuing show cause notice then it may not be possible to recover the proceeds of crime.
Case Title: Bhimappa AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100335 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 424
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Director General and Inspector General of Police of Karnataka and the Director of the Department of Prosecutions to issue necessary instructions to all concerned to mandatorily collect the blood samples of the injured or the deceased, as the case may be, and to submit such blood grouping reports to the court as part of the prosecution papers during trial.
A Division Bench of Justice R. Devdas and Justice B. Muralidhara Pai issued this direction while dismissing an appeal filed by one Bhimappa, who was convicted and sentenced for murdering his wife.
On appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution in the trial court, the Bench noted that the investigating agency had not obtained the blood grouping report of the deceased.
GST | Non-Mentioning Vehicle Number In Part-B Of E-Way Bill Is Curable Defect: Karnataka High Court
Case Name: BVM TRANS Solutions Private Limited
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 5465 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 425
The Karnataka High Court in a matter concerning non-uploading of Part-B of E-way Bill, has set aside the revisional order and restored the order of Appellate Authority which allowed release of seized vehicle and imposed a General Penalty of Rs. 25000.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar directed to refund the entire amount imposed on the Petitioner as penalty excluding Rs. 25000 as also instructed to return the bank guarantee. The Karnataka High Court emphasized on how omission of vehicle number in Part-B of E-way Bill a 'curable effect' and procedural lapses as such would not invalidate the E-way Bill especially when the other documents viz., Invoice etc., tally at the time of interception, inspection and detention.