Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: October 20 - October 26, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 354 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 361Nominal Index: Shakuntala Desai AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 354Deputy Director AND Asadullah Khan. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 355Nara Suryanarayana Reddy AND Initiating Officer & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 356Gurnunath Vadde AND Deputy Commissioner & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 357ALTHAF HUSSAIN YANE ALTHAF MOOSA AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 358Prakash Chimanlal Sheth AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 359BABOON INVESTMENTS HOLDING Versus M/S. ATRIA BRINDVAN POWER PRIVATE LIMITED. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 360S. Gowri Shankar and another v. The Karnataka State Bar Council and others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 361Judgments/OrdersKarnataka High Court Directs Sensitisation Of Convicts On Penal Consequences Of Overstaying Parole LeaveCase Title: Shakuntala Desai AND State of KarnatakaCase No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200105 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 354The Karnataka High Court has directed prison administration to educate and sensitize convicts regarding the legal obligations attached to parole and the severe penal consequences that follow in case of non-compliance.For context Section 58 of the Karnataka Prisons (Amendment) Act, 2022, contemplates imprisonment which may extend up to five years, and fine, for any convict who, having been released on parole, fails to surrender within the time stipulated in the order granting such release.A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said “The underlying legislative intent is to ensure that the limited liberty granted to convicts under parole is not abused, and that the sanctity of judicial orders and prison discipline is maintained. It has come to the notice of this Court in several cases that convicts released on parole often remain unaware of the stringent consequences of failing to surrender within the prescribed time, and such ignorance frequently results in further criminal prosecution under Section 58 of the Act.”Properties Mortgaged To Bank For Advancement Of Loans Cannot Be Attached Under PMLA: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Deputy Director AND Asadullah KhanCase No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2020 C/W MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2020, MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2020 & MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2020.Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 355The Karnataka High Court has held that properties which are mortgaged to the Bank are not the proceeds of crime, and an attachment order cannot be passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, in respect of the properties mortgaged to the Bank for the advancement of loans.A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T held thus while dismissing the appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal under the Act, which allowed the appeals filed by the accused challenging the confirmation order of attachment regarding seven properties and quashed the confirmation order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.Initiating Officer Under Benami Property Act Must Call For Beneficial Owner's Reply In Notice: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Nara Suryanarayana Reddy AND Initiating Officer & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO.107184 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 356The Karnataka High Court recently directed that Initiating Officers appointed under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, to henceforth, in any notice issued under sub-Section (1) of Section 24 of the Act to a Benamidar and marked to the beneficial owner categorically state that the beneficial owner is also required to reply, submit explanation or submission within the time frame as that provided to the Benaminar in the said notice.Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the direction while allowing a petition filed by one Nara Suryanarayana Reddy who is the beneficial owner of a Benami property.Karnataka High Court Tells BSNL To Consider Plea For Installing Tower In Village Without Any Mobile ConnectivityCase Title: Gurnunath Vadde AND Deputy Commissioner & ANRCase No: WP 25174/2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 357The Karnataka High Court has directed the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited to consider a representation for installing mobile network towers in the Bhavani Bijalgao village, of Kamalanagar Taluk, Bidar District, as residents of the said locality are unable to avail of various services and benefits for want of connectivity.A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha while hearing the petition filed by Gurunath Vadde asked the counsel for the petitioner a pointed query about whether there is no Airtel or any other private service provider operational in the area apart from BSNL.Karnataka High Court Declines To Quash Case Against Man For Circulating WhatsApp Audio Clips Criticising State's Handling Of COVID-19Case Title: ALTHAF HUSSAIN YANE ALTHAF MOOSA AND State of Karnataka &...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: October 20 - October 26, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: October 20 - October 26, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers