Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 396 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 409Nominal Index:Alphonso Saldana AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 396ANIL S/O. MALLAPPA KANAWADE & Others AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 397T H Hosamani AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 398Suresh Vathar AND Siddaramma & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 399YANKAPPA R SAKRE...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 396 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 409
Nominal Index:
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
Judgements/Orders
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.