Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: August 25 - August 31, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 286 To 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 292Nominal Index: Case Title: Mantavva & ANR AND The Divisional Controller. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 286Malurappa AND Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 287Seetha Nayak & Others AND Laxmi Kom Nagesh Naik. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 288Subhan Khan AND Prabha Mallikarjun. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 289Sanjana V Tumkur AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 290Jagrutka Karnatak Jagrutha Bharata AND The Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 291S Venkateshappa AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 292Judgments/OrdersGovt Employee's Brother Eligible For Compassionate Appointment If Employee's Spouse Predeceases Him, Without Leaving Children: Karnataka HCCase Title: Mantavva & ANR AND The Divisional Controller.Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 101661 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 286The Karnataka High Court has said that if the spouse of an employee has predeceased the employee and there are no children, the mere marriage of the deceased employee cannot be a ground to reject an application for compassionate appointment to the brother of the deceased.Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by Mantava and Sanganna, mother and brother of deceased employee Veeresh Mantappa Lolasar, an employee working with K.K.R.T.C, Ballari Division.Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal Of BMTC Bus Driver For Securing Employment Based On Fake Educational DocumentsCase Title: Malurappa AND Bangalore Metropolitan Transport CorporationCase No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1222 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 287The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order which dismissed a plea by an employee of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) accused of securing an appointment on the basis of a false certificate regarding his educational qualifications.In doing so, the high court rejected the bus driver's reliance on a BMTC circular protecting employees from dismissal on grounds of suppression, after noting that the circular did not contemplate a case where an ineligible employee has secured appointment by furnishing a forged document to satisfy the eligibility condition.Upholding the single judge's order, a division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the petition filed by one Malurappa and said “We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Written Statement Can Only Be Amended By Defendant Who Files It, Not Those Who Have Adopted It: Karnataka HCCase Title: Seetha Nayak & Others AND Laxmi Kom Nagesh NaikCase No: WRIT PETITION NO.102555 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 288The Karnataka High Court has said that only the defendant who has filed a written statement, in a suit seeking partition and separate possession, can seek amendment of the written statement filed by him, other defendants who have adopted the written statement are not permitted to amend it.Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Seeta Nayak and others. He said “In my considered opinion, it would not be permissible for defendant No.4, who has not filed a written statement, to seek amendment of a written statement not filed by defendant No.4.”Allegations Of 'Bribing' Voters Prior To Being Nominated As A Candidate Cannot Be Termed 'Corrupt Practice' Under RP Act: Karnataka HCCase Title: Subhan Khan AND Prabha MallikarjunCase No: ELECTION PETITION NO.3 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 289The Karnataka High Court has said that any alleged corrupt act done by a candidate prior to being nominated for elections cannot be termed as a corrupt practice under the Representation of People Act.For context, Section 123 of the RP Act pertains to corrupt practices, which includes bribery.Bribery is explained as any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person with the object of inducing (a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election; (b) or an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election.Karnataka High Court Directs College To Pay ₹15 Lakh To Student Wrongfully Denied Admission To MBBS Course Despite Paying FeeCase Title: Sanjana V Tumkur AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO.6014 OF 2018Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 290The Karnataka High Court directed Sri Siddartha Academy of Higher Education a deemed to be University running Sri Siddhartha Medical College to pay Rs. 15 Lakh as compensation to a student for denying her admission to the MBBS course for academic year 2017-18, despite her paying fee for the first year within time.A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K Manmadha Rao held thus while disposing of a petition filed by a student Sanjana V Tumkur. “We notice that the instant case was one where ...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: August 25 - August 31, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

Tags