Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: October 27 - November 02, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 362 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 369

Nominal Index:

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

'Relationship Born Of Mutual Volition Can't Be Criminalised': Karnataka High Court Relief To Man Booked For Rape By Woman He Met On Bumble

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.

'Person Claiming Adverse Interest Cannot Oppose Will': Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Impleadment Of Tenant In Probate Case

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.

Denial Of Subsistence Allowance During Suspension Amounts To “Economic Excommunication”: Karnataka High Court

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.

Karnataka High Court Quashes State Law University's Circular Enhancing Student Registration Fee Citing Lack Of Statutory Backing

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.”

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Extend Deadline For Submission Of Online Applications Under State's Laptop & Braille Kit Scheme

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.”

Karnataka High Court Relaxes Video Conferencing Rules Allowing Wife To Depose On VC From US Residence In Cruelty Case Against Husband

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.

BHEL Management To Hold Kannada Rajyotsava Celebration At Bengaluru On Nov 1, Karnataka High Court Closes Plea By Employee Association

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?”

Appeal Against Order U/S 39(2) Arbitration Act Is Not Maintainable U/S 13 Commercial Courts Act: Karnataka High Court

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”.