Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 306 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 313Nominal Index: Prathap Simha v. State of Karnataka and Batch. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 306Shaik Nowshera AND M/s 1-Help Technology And Software Solution Pvt Ltd & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 307DR. SHIVANANDAPPA DODDAGOUDAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 308K.S MANJUNATH GOWDA AND K.Y.NANJE GOWDA &...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 306 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
Nominal Index:
Prathap Simha v. State of Karnataka and Batch. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
Shaik Nowshera AND M/s 1-Help Technology And Software Solution Pvt Ltd & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
DR. SHIVANANDAPPA DODDAGOUDAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
K.S MANJUNATH GOWDA AND K.Y.NANJE GOWDA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
Syeda Neelfur AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
Sailen Das AND State By Kodigehalli Police Station & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
M/s BEE JAY Engineers v. Commercial Tax Officer. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
M/s NCS Pearson INC. v. Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Prathap Simha v. State of Karnataka and Batch
Case No: WP 27595/2025 c/w WP 27692/2025, WP 27824/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 15) dismissed pleas challenging State Government's decision to nominate author and Booker prize winner Banu Mushtaq as the Chief Guest for the inauguration of the upcoming Dasara Festival in Mysuru.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi after hearing the arguments said: "We are not persuaded to accept that permitting person of different faith to the function organised by the state violates any legal or constitutional right of petitioners or in any manner opposed to values enshrined in the Constitution of India. Accordingly, petitions are dismissed".
Case Title: Shaik Nowshera AND M/s 1-Help Technology And Software Solution Pvt Ltd & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6013 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6015 OF 2025 & Others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
The Karnataka High Court recently held that once a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under Negotiable Instruments Act, the proceedings cannot be quashed on a mere technical plea that the company has not been properly described in the cause title, unless it is demonstrably shown that no notice under Section 138(b) of NI Act, was served on the company.
A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said,“Where notice has been duly issued and served on the company through its CEO, MD or authorised signatory, the mere inversion or irregularity in the description of accused cannot be a ground to terminate the prosecution.”
It added “Service of notice on the officer who signed the cheque in his or her official capacity constitutes valid notice on the company itself. Conversely, where the company has been duly served, such notice, by operation of Section 141, is deemed notice to the Directors and officers responsible for the conduct of its business.”
Case Title: DR. SHIVANANDAPPA DODDAGOUDAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106571 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
The Karnataka High Court has said that medical reimbursement cannot be denied on the ground that a hospital which was earlier recognised by the Government in the list of private hospitals permitted to provide treatment to employees, changed its name.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by Dr. Shivanandappa Doddagoudar an Associate Professor at Government First Grade College Ranebennur Taluka.
It said, “Medical reimbursement cannot be denied solely due to a change in the name of the hospital, even though it remains the same entity that was previously recognised.”
Case Title: K.S MANJUNATH GOWDA AND K.Y.NANJE GOWDA & Others
Case No: Election Petition 10 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday set aside the 2023 election of Congress Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) K Y Nanjegowda representing Malur constituency (Kolar district).
During the 2023 assembly election, Nanjegowda won by a margin of 248 votes against BJP candidate KS Manjunath Gowda.
Justice R Devdas, while allowing the petition filed by defeated candidate KS Manjunath Gowda said: “The elections petition is allowed in part directing recounting of votes and then to declare the results afresh. The election of Respondent no 1 to Malur Assembly constituency in Kolar District during the election held in May 2023, is hereby set aside.”
Karnataka High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Plea Seeking To Stall Release Of 'Jolly LLB 3' Film
Case Title: Syeda Neelfur AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 27215/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation filed seeking a direction to stop the release and exhibition of the film Jolly LLB 3 scheduled for release on September 19.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the petition filed by Syeda Neelufur and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner for unjustifiable consumption of judicial time.
The court has directed the cost to be deposited with the court registry, failing which, the matter is to be listed again on October 4 for coercive steps against the petitioner.
Case Title: Sailen Das AND State By Kodigehalli Police Station & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.26873 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that criminal proceedings for cheating cannot be initiated against parties bound by a valid and subsisting contract.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a petition filed by one Sailen Das, a Director in a private limited company.
The court said, “The admitted position remains that the parties are bound by a valid and subsisting contract and the controversy essentially pertains to the performance of obligations arising therefrom. Such disputes are, in their nature, civil and are amenable to adjudication before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.”
Case Title: M/s BEE JAY Engineers v. Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 106642 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
The Karnataka High Court has held that an officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner cannot, by himself, inspect the premises of the assessee without authorisation under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax.
The bench further stated that there is no requirement to provide a copy of the authorisation and details of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, but the delegate who inspects or confiscates any document or goods would be required to provide the details of the authorisation to the taxable person.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that it would, however, be required that the concerned Officer, who carries out the inspection in terms of Subsection (2) of Section 67 of the Act, at least inform the taxable person of the authorisation having been received from the Joint Commissioner.
Case Title: M/s NCS Pearson INC. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 7635 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
The Karnataka High Court has stated that a failure to mention the correct value in returns or apply the correct GST rate is not suppression under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST).
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that "...though the revenue alleged in the impugned SCN that the assessee failed to mention the value of services correctly in the GSTR-5A returns and apply the correct GST rate on the consideration received, the mere omission to mention the value of services correctly in the returns and/or apply the correct GST rate would not be tantamount to wilful suppression…"
The assessee/petitioner has a division “Pearson Vue” which is engaged in providing computer-based test administration solutions, and pursuant to its contract with GMAC, USA, the assessee conducts GMAT on behalf of GMAC for candidates in India.