Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: September 29 - October 05, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 323 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 329Nominal Index: Syed Parveez Mushraff AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 323DODDAGIRIYAPPACHARI AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 324Vishwanath Kadli AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 325The Principal Secretary To Government & ANR AND Shivanagouda Vasand & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 326Baburao AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 327Dr K Sudhakar AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 328L AND T INFRA INVESTMENT PARTNERS VERSUS BHORUKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED. Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 329Judgments/Orders'Act Will Remain As A Scar In Her Life': Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Facilitating Co-Accused Rape A WomanCase Title: Syed Parveez Mushraff AND State of Karnataka & ANRCase No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1493 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 323Quoting Mahatma Gandhi who had said, "The day a woman can walk freely on the road at night, that day we can say that India has achieved independence”, the Karnataka High Court rejected a man's bail plea who is accused of facilitating the co-accused to commit rape on 19-year-old girl.Justice S Rachaiah, rejected the appeal filed by appellant Syed Praveez Musharaff who along with co-accused has been booked under BNS sections 115(2)(Voluntarily causing hurt), 126(2)(wrongful restraint), 351(criminal intimidation), 64(rape), 3(5)(common intention) and provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, noting that the appellant also had the intention to commit rape upon the victim.PTCL Act Can Be Invoked For Second Time If Granted Lands Are Transferred After Being Restored In Favor Of Grantee: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: DODDAGIRIYAPPACHARI AND The Deputy Commissioner & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO.14207 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 324The Karnataka High Court has differed from the view of a co-ordinate single bench which had held that that if land already restored in grantee's favour is sold again, the grantee is then not entitled to invoke Karnataka SCST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (PTCL) Act for a second time seeking resumption and restoration of the lands.Justice R Devdas held PTCL Act does not prohibit filing of an application even if granted lands are transferred after being resumed and restored in favour of grantee or his legal heirs in an earlier round of litigation.For context, in April Justice N S Sanjay Gowda in the case of Smt. Rudramma and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others had held that Section 4 of the Act is attracted only when the granted lands have been transferred for the first time in contravention of the terms of the grant and that it does not govern transfer made after the lands have been resumed and restored to the grantee.S.21 Drugs & Cosmetics Act | Fresh Notification Need Not Be Issued Every Time An Inspector Is Transferred: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Vishwanath Kadli AND State of KarnatakaCase No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103433 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 325The Karnataka High Court has clarified that it would be unreasonable to issue a notification under Section 21 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act on every occasion when an Inspector is transferred, adding that such a narrow interpretation of the provision is not in furtherance of the object of the Act.Justice S Vishwajith Shetty in his order observed that the Section 21(1) of the Act provides that Central Government or State Government, may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint qualified persons to be Inspectors for such areas as may be assigned to them.Corruption Threatens Democracy & Undermines Rule Of Law, Courts Must Ensure Accountability: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: The Principal Secretary To Government & ANR AND Shivanagouda Vasand & ANRCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 100268 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 326The Karnataka High Court has said that courts or tribunals should not lightly interfere in the matter of misconduct arising out of charges of corruption.A division bench of Justice S.Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil, said “Corruption is a menace that not only threatens the very fundamental principles of democracy, but also undermines the rule of law and the institutions that serve as its guardian.”It added “In the face of corruption, the courts are not mere spectators but rather the last bastion of justice, duty-bound to uphold the rule of law and ensure that accountability prevails over impunity.”Karnataka HC Upholds Amendments To Civil Courts Act & High Court Act On Jurisdiction To Hear Appeals, Strikes Down Retrospective OperationCase Title: Baburao AND State of KarnatakaCase No: WRIT PETITION NO.201536 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar). 327The Karnataka High Court has upheld the amendments made to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 and the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 insofar as it relates to appeals from the Civil Judge (Senior Division) lying to the...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: September 29 - October 05, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

Tags