Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: April 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 127 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 160

Nominal Index:

Sanath Kumar Shetty & Others AND Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 127

Sabeer & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 128

Mahendra Kumar Mitra AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 129

ROPEEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT LTD AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 130

Samiulla Khan & Others AND Sirajuddin Macci. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 131

M/S. MAHA RASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD Versus SRI. P.K.MOHAMMED and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 132

SRI JAGADGURU BASAVA JAYMRITYUNJAY SWAMIJI & others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 133

Mahalaxmi AND Karnataka Public Service Commission & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 134

S Basavaraj AND Bar Council of India & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 135

H T Umesh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 136

State of Karnataka AND B G Prakash Kumar & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 137

Amit Garg AND Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 138

The Union Of India and Anr. Versus Sri. Kothari Subbaraju. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 139

M/s Fortious Infradevelopers LLP V. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 140

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 141 to Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 146

THE MYSORE EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR AND Babu P & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 141

Divisional Controller AND Shyamala B. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 142

Dr A A Muralidharswamy And State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 143

J Ramesh AND M/s Lakshmi Precious Jewellery Private Ltd.. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 144

Dr S Chandrakala AND State of Karnataka & ANR . 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 145

P. Junjappa v. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 146

Sumitra AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 147

Rudramma & Others

State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 148

K V Shankara And Siddaramiah. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 149

K Ganesh Babu AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 150

Harshavardini Ranya Rao AND Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 151

Shiv Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 152

High Court Legal Services Authority AND Principal Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 153

Hemanth Datta @Hemantha AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 154

Prof Govindan Rangarajan & Others AND Dr D Sanna Durgappa & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 155

Newspace Research And Technologies Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 156

Puttanagowda AND Kubergouda. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 157

Dr Madhukar G Anagur AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 158

M MOSER DESIGN ASSOCIATES INDIA PVT LTD AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 159NEIL PATEL DIGITAL LLC Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR RAJARATHINAM. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 160

Judgments/Orders

Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL Questioning Fare Hike In Bengaluru Metro, Says Administration Has Power

Case Title: Sanath Kumar Shetty & Others AND Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Others

Case No: WP 9077/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 127

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (April 1) dismissed a public interest litigation questioning the fare hike in Bengaluru Metro also known as 'Namma Metro'.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by Sanath Kumar Shetty, an automobile engineer who works in a private company.

The bench on going through the averments in the petition and considering the submission said, “As far as present subject matter of fare increase is, the same is done under Section 33 of the Act. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid section that Metro administration is empowered to fix the fare from time to time and the task is done by a fare fixation committee.”

Karnataka HC Asks Authorities To Ensure Smooth Movement Of Traffic And Pedestrians During Ramzan, Other Festive Occasions

Case Title: Sabeer & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 8783/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 128

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation, Police Commissioner and all other authorities concerned to ensure the smooth movement of traffic on the road and on the footpath so as not to adversely affect the vehicular, pedestrian and public movement, during the ongoing festivities of Ramzan and other festive occasions.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind directed thus while refusing to entertain a public interest litigation by one Sabeer and others, who had pointed about encroachment in the public spaces in certain areas of the city of Bengaluru.

Karnataka HC Refuses To Entertain Plea To Implement 2020 Govt Circular Asking All Departments To Avoid Using 'Dalit' To Address SC Members

Case Title: Mahendra Kumar Mitra AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 200451/2025.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 129

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (April 2) refused to entertain a petition filed seeking to implement the government circular issued in the year 2020, asking all its departments and authorities to avoid during all official transactions the nomenclature "Dalit" for members belonging to the Scheduled Castes.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by one Mahendra Kumar Mitra.

The petitioner appearing in person had prayed for a direction to the Principal Secretary Social Welfare Department to implement the circular issued by the department dated May 20, 2020. Further, sought a direction that the other respondent authorities also to implement the said circular. By way of interim relief it had sought pending disposal of the petition, the court may be pleased to stay to use the unconstitutional term 'dalit' as synonymous to scheduled castes in the interest of justice and equity.

Karnataka High Court Bans Bike Taxi Aggregators

Case Title: ROPEEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT LTD AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 14627/2021Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 130

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday held that bike taxi aggregators like Rapido, Uber and others cannot operate in the state unless the State government issues relevant guidelines and rules under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court ordered that the State government has to in six weeks ensure that all bike taxi operations cease to operate.

A single judge, Justice B M Shyam Prasad passed the order while dismissing a batch of petitions filed by Uber India Systems Private Limits, Ani Technologies Private Limited, Ropeen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd and another. The state government has been given three months to frame the necessary rules and guidelines.

'Country Needs Uniform Civil Code' : Karnataka High Court Urges Union & State Govt To Make UCC

Case Title: Samiulla Khan & Others AND Sirajuddin Macci

Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.935 OF 2020 (PAR) C/W RFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.33 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 131

The Karnataka High Court has made a request to the Parliament and State Legislatures to make every endeavour to enact a statute on Uniform Civil Code, (UCC) to truly achieve the object of the principles enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.

A single judge, Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar said, “The enactment of legislation on Uniform Civil Code as enshrined under Article 44 of the Constitution of India will achieve the object and aspirations enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, bringing about a true secular democratic republic, unity, integrity of the nation, securing justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.”

Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Decided Without Summoning Entire Record To Verify Service Of Notice: Karnataka HC

Case Title: M/S. MAHA RASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD Versus SRI. P.K.MOHAMMED and Ors.

Case Number:MFA No. 11925 of 2012

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 132

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be decided without first summoning the entire arbitration record to determine whether the notice was actually served on the other party.

Karnataka HC Directs Inquiry Into Police Action Against Protestors Seeking Reservation For Panchamasali Community After Allegations Of 'Lathi Charge'

Case Title: SRI JAGADGURU BASAVA JAYMRITYUNJAY SWAMIJI & others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.107792 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 133

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to constitute a Commission of Inquiry headed by a retired Judge of the High Court, into the police action (lathi charge) taken on 10-12-2024 at Suvarna Soudha, Belagavi, against the petitioners and several others who are said to have held a peaceful protest demanding reservation for the Panchamasali Community.

Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Sri Jagadguru Basava Jaymrityunjay Swamiji and others. He said, “The respondents/State to constitute a Commission of Inquiry in terms of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 on the subject matter and the appointed Commission of Inquiry should be single member or a multi member headed by a retired Judge of this Court. The Commission of Inquiry so appointed shall submit its report within three months of such appointment.”

Karnataka HC Slams State's Reluctance To Arrange Local Exam Centre For Pregnant Govt Job Aspirant; Says Crores Are Spent On Elections

Case Title: Mahalaxmi AND Karnataka Public Service Commission & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.201012 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 134

Coming to the aid of a pregnant woman, the Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) to conduct the main examination for the woman at Kalaburagi rather than the allotted centres, owing to her advanced stage of pregnancy.

The designated centres for the main exam for the Group-A post are Bengaluru and Dharwad. However, due to her pregnancy, the petitioner prayed to allow her to take the exam at her residency city in Kalaburagi.

Finding justifiable grounds in the woman's petition, Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha was not impressed with KPSC's arguments that it could not conduct the exam at Kalaburgi for the convenience of a single candidate.

Karnataka High Court Quashes BCI's Resolution Suspending Senior Advocate S Basavaraj Upon Withdrawal Of Complaint

Case Title: S Basavaraj AND Bar Council of India & ANR

Case No: WP 24962/2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 135

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed a resolution passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI), placing Senior Advocate S Basavaraj under interim suspension. The resolution was earlier stayed by the High court by way of an interim order.

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Basavaraj and said, “It needs to be noticed that BCI has passed the impugned resolution on the revision petition and the R2 (Complainant-Surya Mukundraj) today wants to withdraw the revision petition filed before the BCI and before this court as well. Therefore, the foundation on which the BCI has passed the resolution has itself today tumbled down.”

It added, “In that light the BCI cannot now contend that it wants to continue the proceedings notwithstanding there being nothing before it as the revision petitioner himself has withdrawn the revision petition and is before this court. In that light nothing further survives for BCI to further consider.”

University Professors Don't Discharge Duties In Public Domain, Their Post Not 'Public Office' For Invoking Writ Of 'Quo Warranto': Karnataka HC

Case Title: H T Umesh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 2906 OF 2021

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 136

The Karnataka High Court has held that lecturers, assistant professors or associate professors bear jural relationship with the University and since they do not discharge any public function, their post cannot be characterized as 'public office' for invoking the writ of Quo Warranto.

Writ of Quo Warranto can be issued where the person holding public office does not meet the eligibility criteria or when the appointment was contrary to the statutory rules.

Karnataka HC Set Aside Suo-Motu Discharge Order By Trial Court Against BBMP Officials Accused Of Irregularities Causing Loss To State Exchequer

Case Title: State of Karnataka AND B G Prakash Kumar & Others

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.975/2024, and others

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 137

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an order passed by the trial court by which it discharged several engineers (present and former) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), and contractors in the cases registered against them about irregularities in the works conducted during 2005 and 2012.

Justice H P Sandesh allowed the petition filed by the state government and set aside the order passed in 115 petitions, discharging around 450 people.

The bench said “The order passed by the Trial Court in all the cases are set aside. The matters are remitted back to the Trial Court to consider the matter afresh in view of the observations made by this Court on merits. The Trial Court is directed to consider the sanction order given by the State to continue the proceedings against the accused where the proceedings have already been quashed by giving liberty to file sanction order and continue to proceed against them from the stage of taking cognizance.”

RERA Registry Has No Power To Decide Maintainability Of Complaint, Only Tribunal Members Can Adjudicate: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Amit Garg AND Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 34471 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 138

The Karnataka High Court has said that maintainability of a complaint cannot be decided by the Registry of Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, (KRERA) it can only be decided by the Authority and the members of RERA.

The court said thus while allowing a petition filed by one Amit Garg who had approached the court calling in question an order communicated by way of electronic mail on 23.09.2024 by the Karnataka RERA's Registry, rejecting his complaint against a developer.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “This power with the Registry is unavailable, as the complaint ought to be placed before the RERA Authority and the members of RERA will have to decide on the maintainability of the complaint. If the Registry of RERA is terminating the proceedings in the manner that it has done now, it would be an act without jurisdiction. Therefore, this a matter which is to be viewed seriously by the members of the RERA. The powers of adjudication even with regard to maintainability is not conferred upon the Registry by the statute. That being so, the electronic mail that is communicated, terminating the proceedings, is on the face of it illegal".

Awarded Amount Cannot Be Enhanced Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title:The Union Of India and Anr. Versus Sri. Kothari Subbaraju

Case Number: MFA No. 6525 Of 2016

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 139

The Karnataka High Court bench of Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar has held that the District Judge, while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), is not empowered to increase the amount awarded by the Arbitrator. The findings of the Arbitrator with respect to the awarded amount can only be set aside if they contravene any of the grounds specified under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act; however, the awarded amount cannot be either decreased or increased.

Value Of Land Under Works Contract Is Not Exigible To VAT: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Fortious Infradevelopers LLP V. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case Number: SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2022

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 140

The Karnataka High Court stated that the value of land under works contract is not exigible to VAT.

The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar was addressing the issue of whether levying tax on receipt for land cost i.e., immovable property, which does not constitute consideration for works contract under Composition Scheme of KVAT is sustainable.

Karnataka HC Quashes Caste Discrimination Case By National SC/ST Commission Against Educational Institution Over Complaint By Employee

Case Title: THE MYSORE EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR AND Babu P & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17808 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 141

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, against the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Mysore Education Society, which runs Mysore Education Society (MES) College at Malleswaram, Bengaluru, on a complaint filed by a computer technician working with it alleging harassment on the grounds that he belongs to a scheduled caste.

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowing the petition it said “The first respondent (P Babu) seeks leave of two years; it is granted, his appointment is saved, he is taken back, since the vacancy had already been filled and is transferred four kilometers away to another Institution of the same Society, in terms of the conditions of employment which had been signed by the first respondent, with eyes wide open. With the circumstances being thus, the Commission ought not to have entertained the complaint, which on the face of it, is a misuse of the provisions of the Act, projecting abuse and imaginary atrocity. A palpable service dispute is projected as an atrocity dispute.”

Karnataka High Court Upholds Compensation Granted To Passenger Who Was Injured Due To Rash Driving By Bus Driver On Road Bumps

Case Title: Divisional Controller AND Shyamala B

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.785 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 142

The Karnataka High Court recently upheld an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which granted compensation to a teacher who suffered injuries to her hand and elbow, because the driver of the bus drove in a rash and negligent manner on the road humps.

A single judge, Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha dismissed the appeal filed by the Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and upheld the tribunal order dated 29-10-2022, by which a compensation of Rs 6,60,100 was awarded to Shyamala B.

The court said, “The compensation that is granted under all heads is reasonable. The order of the Tribunal discloses discussion on each and every aspect of the case. This Court therefore is of the view that the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is highly justifiable. Thus, there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal.”

Identify And Act Immediately Against Clinics Run By Fake Doctors Hoodwinking Innocent People: Karnataka High Court Tells State Govt

Case Title: Dr A A Muralidharswamy And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 33364 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 143

The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to immediately act, identify and pull the curtains down on those clinics which are run by "quacks" in the state.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said “It is these quacks, who project themselves to be Doctors are endangering the life of innocent rural people, by opening clinics in remote areas and hoodwinking them. Such instances have grown exponentially, which has resulted in mushrooming of such clinics all over, opened by the persons projecting themselves to be Doctors. It is un-understandable as to how the State is in blissful ignorance towards proliferation of such clinics without initiating any action.Therefore, it is for the State to immediately act, identify such clinics and pull the curtains down of those clinics, which are run by quacks like the case at hand, all in accordance with law”.

S. 391 CrPC | Court's Power To Record Additional Evidence Must Be Exercised In Rare & Exceptional Cases: Karnataka HC Reiterates

Case Title: J Ramesh AND M/s Lakshmi Precious Jewellery Private Ltd.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.12045 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 144

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a court's power to record additional evidence under Section 391 Criminal Procedure Code, should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the said evidence in the trial, despite due diligence.

The high court said that though the concerned Court has the power to secure additional evidence under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C., but it had been observed by the Supreme Court and other Courts in various judgments, that this power is to be "exercised in rare and exceptional cases".

Karnataka HC Orders CBI Probe Into Ex-Zilla Panchayat President's Murder, Slams Police Agency Over Shoddy Investigation

Case Title: Dr S Chandrakala AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24360 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 145

The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a de-novo investigation into the murder of M. Srinivas, a former President of Zilla Panchayat, Kolar District.

Justice M Nagaprasanna was of the view that the local police conducted the investigation "recklessly". He noted that, considering the magnitude of the case and the way in which the investigation was conducted, the case ought to be transferred to the CBI for a fresh investigation.

“In cases of the nature of the subject crime which is an alleged daylight murder, the investigation cannot be recklessly done, as is done in the case at hand. If the glaring lacunae is considered, it does not inspire even a modicum of confidence in the conduct of investigation by the Investigating agency (local Police) or the CID. The very essence of justice is threatened when those entrusted with its pursuit, falter so gravely. A case of such magnitude cannot be allowed to perish under the weight of a shoddy investigation.”

Daily Wage Employee Continuously Serving For Over 10 Years In Sanctioned Post Is Entitled To Regularization, Procedural Irregularities Can't Be Grounds For Denial: Karnataka HC

Case Title: P. Junjappa v. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests & Ors

Case No. : WP 6238/2020

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 146

A Division bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar held that a daily wage employee continuously serving for over ten years in a sanctioned post is entitled to regularization, and procedural irregularities or delay cannot be sole grounds for denial.

Balajiga Community Can't Be Classified Differently For Educational & Employment Purposes, State's Dual Standards Not Justified: Karnataka HC

Case Title: V Sumitra AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15499 OF 2013

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 147

The Karnataka High Court has held that a particular community cannot be classified for educational purposes under a different group than the classification made for the very same community for employment purposes under a different group.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj said: "I am of the considered opinion that a particular class or category of persons cannot be said to be socially and educationally backward to classify them in Group-B for reservation under Article 15 (4) and consider the very same class to be more forward and adequately represented for the purpose of employment by classifying the same class in Group-D for purposes of Article 16(4). This dichotomy and the dual standards which have been used is not justified by the State in any manner".

Invoking Act Prohibiting Transfer Of SC/ST Land For Second Time To Restore Site Already Sold & Resumed Is Illegal: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Rudramma & Others State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29559 OF 2018

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 148

The Karnataka High Court has held if lands already restored in grantee's favour, is again sold, the grantee is then not entitled to invoke Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (PTCL) Act for the second time and seek resumption and restoration of the lands.

It further said if such a procedure–of selling granted lands in contravention of the terms of the grant, then securing its resumption and thereafter, once again selling the resumed land before seeking its resumption again–is allowed, it would amount to a "mockery of the law, making the entire procedure of resumption a mere parody”.

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Election Of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah From Varuna Constituency

Case Title: K V Shankara And Siddaramiah

Case No: EP 13/2023.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 149

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the election petition filed against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's victory from Varuna constituency in the 2023 assembly elections..

A single judge, Justice S Sunil Dut Yadav dismissed the petition filed by K M Shankara, a voter from the constituency who alleged that the Congress leader indulged in electoral malpractices.

The Congress party's manifesto provided five guarantees to the people of Karnataka: 'Gruha Jyothi' - 200 units of free electricity to all houses, 'Gruha Lakshmi' - ₹2,000 every month to each and every woman head of a family, 'Anna Bhagya' - 10 kilograms of food grain per month to every member of a below poverty line (BPL) family, 'Yuva Nidhi' - ₹3,000 per month for two years to unemployed graduates and ₹1,500 per month for two years to unemployed diploma holders and 'Uchita Prayana/Shakthi' - free travel to all women throughout the state in regular KSRTC/BMTC Buses.

S.379 BNSS | Court Must Apply Judicial Mind & Give Reasons Before Initiating Complaint For False Evidence, Forged Documents: Karnataka HC

Case Title: K Ganesh Babu AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 150

The Karnataka High Court has said that before initiating a complaint under Section 379 BNSS for offences affecting administration of justice–like giving false evidence or fabricating documents–a court must apply its judicial mind and come to a conclusion with reasons that it is necessary to hold a preliminary inquiry or initiate a complaint.

The petitioner had approached the high court questioning session court's January 23 order wherein the office was directed to register a separate petition stating that the defendant/petitioner has tendered false evidence. This happened after respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 379 read with Section 215 BNSS, stating that the petitioner/defendant "filed a false affidavit, which amounts to perjury".

BREAKING | Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Actress Ranya Rao, Co-Accused In Gold Smuggling Case

Case Title: Harshavardini Ranya Rao AND Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Tarun Konduru Raju AND Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Case No: Criminal Petition 5047/2025 c/w Criminal Petition 5432/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 151

The Karnataka High Court on Saturday (April 26) dismissed the bail petitions filed by Kannada Actress Harshavardhini Ranya Rao and co-accused Tarun Konduru Raju, who have been arrested in the Gold Smuggling Case.

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while dictating the order, said, "Petitions dismissed". A detailed copy of the order is awaited.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has seized gold bars worth ₹12.56 crore from Ranya at Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru on March 3. A subsequent search of her home had yielded gold jewellery worth ₹2.06 crore and Indian currency amounting to ₹2.67 crore.

Karnataka HC Closes PIL For Enforcing Supreme Court's Directions On 'Living Wills' Following Steps Of Compliance Taken By State Govt

Case Title: Shiv Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 22674/2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 152

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (April 24) disposed of a public interest litigation seeking enforcement of Supreme Court's direction regarding advance medical directives or "living wills", after the State government filed a memo enumerating steps taken and orders/circulars issued for compliance of such directives.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind disposed of the petition filed by Advocate Shiv Kumar.

It said “The counsel submitted that petitioner stands satisfied with the steps and measures taken as well as orders and circulars issued by the State Government towards compliance of directions issued by the Supreme Court. In the aforesaid view, nothing further survives in the present petition and the same stands disposed off. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) will also carry out compliance of SC directives for which it is obliged in law.”

'Unfortunate' Tendency Of Ex-Legislators To Misuse Names/Flags: Karnataka HC Issues Order To Halt Misuse Of National Symbols & Emblems

Case Title: High Court Legal Services Authority AND Principal Secretary & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.4635 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 153

Terming the "tendency" amongst former constitutional authorities, ex-MPs and legislators in misusing "Emblem, Flags, Names" by fixing it in their letter heads and vehicle number plates as "unfortunate", the Karnataka High Court issued a slew of directions to prevent misuse and unauthorised use of National Symbols and Emblems.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun in its order observed: “It is true and unfortunate that there is tendency amongst the constitutional authorities who are the former authorities no more in the office, the former Members of the Parliament or Ex-Legislators have been misusing the Emblem, Flags, Names, etc. by fixing them in their letter heads and the number plates of the vehicles. This conduct is both unfortunate and depreciable.The misuse, misprojection and misstatement of these Symbols, Emblems and Names have to be prevented resolutely. The state of affairs prevails in the society which needs to be immediately remedied by the law enforcing agencies.”

Non-Supply Of Grounds Of Arrest In Writing Enough To Challenge Arrests Effected Before SC's Order In Prabir Purkayastha's Case: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Hemanth Datta @Hemantha AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9302 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 154

The Karnataka High Court has held that non-service of grounds of arrest in writing with respect to any alleged offence even on a non-habitual offender shall be adequate grounds to contest the lawfulness of any arrest effected, even prior to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Prabir Purkayastha.

For context the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha's case postulated that an arrest in terms of Article 22(1) of the Constitution must be followed by communication of grounds of arrest, in writing, as soon as may be, to enable an effective challenge to the fetters imposed on his natural right to liberty.

Justice Hemant Chandangoudar clarified that “However, it is hereby clarified that non-service of grounds of arrest against any alleged offence, in writing, upon similarly situated arrestees as the petitioner herein, who is admittedly a non-habitual offender, shall be adequate grounds to contest the lawfulness of any arrest effected even prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) (D.D. 15.05.2024). At the risk of repetition, it may be observed that the ratio enunciated in Prabir Purkayastha (supra) has merely expounded the pre-existing constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which has been in effect since 26.01.1950. Any violation of the right to be afforded an opportunity to make an effective representation against the arrest or an order of remand in relation to any offence shall constitute a contravention of the constitutional guarantee under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and the statutory safeguard under Section 50 of Cr.P.C".

Karnataka HC Quashes SC/ST Act Case Against Infosys Co-Founder For Role In Alleged Discrimination, Wrongful Removal Of Ex-IISc Professor

Case Title: Prof Govindan Rangarajan & Others AND Dr D Sanna Durgappa & ANR

Case No: WP 2550/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 155

The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against Infosys co-founder S Krish Gopalakrishnan and 15 others, who are members of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) following allegations by a former professor D. Sanna Durgappa, of wrongful dismissal from service and caste-based discrimination.

Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowing the petition filed by the accused said “On perusal of the complaint, it is clear that the allegations made against the petitioners do not constitute offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.”

Karnataka HC Directs State To Operate Cyber Command Centres To Combat Cyber Crimes, Says It Would Usher New Beginnings To Tackle New Age Crime

Case Title: Newspace Research And Technologies Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.8403 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 156

The Karnataka High Court has asked the State Government to make operation cyber command centres, by appointing appropriate officers manning such centres in order to tackle the emergence and growth of cyber crime.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said “If a cyber command centre is established to combat cyber crimes and strengthen cyber security, it would usher a new beginning of tackling the new age crime with new age investigating centres. This is the paradigm shift that is imperative.”

It added “It is only then the State will leap forward to tackle the emergence and growth of cyber crime, failing which, the citizen who has been a victim of cyber crime or cyber frauds will never get justice. Therefore, the State shall endeavour to give life to the cyber command centres or constitute a separate wing to tackle cyber crime like the CCB, which could be a cyber crime investigation bureau.”

Section 219 CrPC Doesn't Mandate Common Trial Of Two Separate Cheque Dishonour Complaints Merely Because Accused Is Same: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Puttanagowda AND Kubergouda

Case No:CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102651 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 157

The Karnataka High Court has said that Section 219 of Criminal Procedure Code does not mandate that two cases of cheque bouncing, being prosecuted by two different complainants arising from separate causes of action, can be tried together only for the sole reason that the accused person is the same.

Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Puttanagouda who had challenged a trial court order which rejected his application for a single trial of the two cases registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against him. According to the petitioner, the alleged offences in the two cases were committed within a span of one year.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Ex-Chancellor Of Alliance University Over Alleged Misuse Of Domain Name

Case Title: Dr Madhukar G Anagur AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.11024 OF 2023.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 158

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered under provisions of the Information Technology Act, against Dr Madhukar G Angur, Ex-Chancellor of Alliance University, accusing him of misusing the nomenclature, seals, intellectual property of the University and making false claims that he is the Chancellor of the University.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and quashed the offence registered for offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 of the IPC and Sections 66 and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The court said “If the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the complaint and summary of the charge sheet are noticed, the complaint is registered to wreak vengeance against the petitioner in a seemingly civil dispute, rendering it a colour of crime.”

Karnataka High Court Directs Union Govt To Take Steps For Blocking 'Proton Mail' In India

Case Title: M MOSER DESIGN ASSOCIATES INDIA PVT LTD AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 2358/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 159

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the Union of India to initiate process to block Proton Mail in India.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M Moser Design Associated India Pvt Ltd, seeking a direction to the Union Government to take such steps as are necessary to ban the use of Proton Mail in India.

It said “Mandamus issued to respondents to initiate proceedings under section 69A of the IT Act read with Rule 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguard of blocking Access of Information by Public) to block proton mail.”

Karnataka High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunctions In Favour Of Neil Patel Digital LLC In Dispute Over Breach Of LLP Agreement

Case Title: NEIL PATEL DIGITAL LLC Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR RAJARATHINAM

Case Number: AP.IM 4/2025(KAHC010291822025)

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 160

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has passed ex-parte injunctions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in favour of Neil Patel Digital LLC (“NPD LLC”).

The disputes had arisen from breach of the covenants of a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement. The LLP Agreement contained various negative covenants restricting the Respondent No. 1 in respect of, among other things, transfer of funds beyond stipulated limits, appointment of key managerial personnel, induction of partners, etc.. Alleged violations of these covenants by the Respondent No. 1, including suspicious transactions, gave rise to disputes inter se the parties.