Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 23 - June 29, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 211 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 220Nominal Index: Abdul Sattar AND M Khalid & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 211Arumugam AND Ananda. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 212Basvaraj AND K M Altaf Hussain & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 213M/s Sona Synthetics & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 214Prabhakaran K AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 215P Vasudeva Kamath & ANR AND Jayashri R Kamath. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 216Basvaraj Bommai AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 217Vikas M Dev AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 218Arun Kumar Alva AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 219Madiga Dandora AND The State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 220Judgments/OrdersCounterclaim In A Suit For Permanent Injunction Can't Be Raised After Issues Are Framed By Trial Court: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Abdul Sattar AND M Khalid & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO.2867/2020Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 211The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that defendants in a suit filed seeking permanent injunction cannot raise a counterclaim by amending the written statements after framing of issues by the trial court.A single judge, Justice Vijaykumar A Patil held thus while allowing the petition filed by Abdul Sattar who had approached the court questioning a trial court order allowing the application filed by the defendants M Khalid and others under Section Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure.Premature Complaint Can't Be Ground For Drawer To Escape Prosecution For Cheque Dishonour Under NI Act: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Arumugam AND AnandaCase No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1021 OF 2017Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 212The Karnataka High Court has said that drawer of the cheque can't escape prosecution on the ground that a premature complaint for cheque dishonour was filed against him before expiry of statutory period of 15 days as per the mandate of Section 138(c) of Negotiable Instruments Act.Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar in his order said “Drawer of the cheque cannot be allowed to escape from prosecution merely on a technical count that a premature complaint was filed against him before expiry of the statutory period of 15 days as per the mandate of Section 138(c) of N.I. Act. Such a drawer of the cheque is liable to be prosecuted in a second successive complaint filed on the same facts by the holder of the cheque. The drawer of the cheque would not be absolved from penal consequences of dishonouring of cheque issued by him/her.”Liability To Compensate Can't Be Fastened On Owner If Vehicle Was Plying Beyond Permit Route For Relief Works: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Basvaraj AND K M Altaf Hussain & OthersCase No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101342 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101341 OF 2017 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101568 OF 2017 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101569 OF 2017.Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 213The Karnataka High Court recently came to the rescue of a bus owner who was asked by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to compensate the victims of an accident that occurred while the bus was plying beyond its permit route.Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar noted that the bus was carrying out relief works and hence, the owner cannot be asked to pay compensation by exonerating the Insurance company. It observed, “The offending vehicle was used as a relief vehicle. Therefore, there is no fundamental breach proved so as to exonerate the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, in this regard, has committed an error...mere deviation of rules in the circumstances as above discussed is not amounting to fundamental breach so as to exonerate the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the owner.”Karnataka HC Strikes Down Amendment Imposing Tax On 'Minimum Tariff' In Electricity Charges, Says It Amounts To Taxing Units Not Yet SoldCase Title: M/s Sona Synthetics & Others AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO.3935 OF 2008 (GM-KEB) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.1644 OF 2009.Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 214The Karnataka High Court has declared Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Electricity (Taxation on Consumption) Act, 1959, as amended by Act No.7 of 2003 and Act 40 No.5 of 2004, imposing tax on "minimum tariff" electricity charges, as unconstitutional.Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has also held that “Supply of electricity to the consumer to ensure availability of electricity for consumption, does not amount to consumption or sale, unless the electricity consumed by the consumer and the State has no legislative competence under Entry No.53, List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India to levy tax on minimum tariff. The State is competent to levy tax under Entry No.53, List II of Seventh Schedule only on actual consumption or sale of electricity.”RC Holder Can't Seek Quashing Of Offence On Ground That He Sold The Vehicle Before Accident: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Prabhakaran K AND...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 23 - June 29, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

Tags