Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: January 2025 [Citations: 01 - 36]

Citation 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 01 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 36

Nominal Index:

K Lokesh AND THE BANGALORE DISTRICT MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 1

M/s Vigneshwara Transport Company v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru North-West Commissionerate. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 2

Heritage Basavanagudi Residents Welfare Forum AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 3

Vanitha M AND The Bangalore Development Authority & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 4

Rakesh Shetty AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 5

Muthoot Finance Limited AND State Of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 6

Brindavan Hydropower Private Limited AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 7

KARNATAKA FEDERATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS & ANR v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 8

Organisation for Unaided Recognised Schools & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 9

Bowring Institute AND Sarwik S and Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 10

J DEEPA AND Superintendent of Police. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 11

Kudleepa AND Mahantesh & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 12

RAGINI DWIVEDI @ GINI @ RAGS AND State of Karnataka And Connected Matter. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 13

High Court Legal Service Authority AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 14

The Registrar (Evaluation) AND S V Renu & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 15

Prajwal Revanna AND State Of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 16

Amrutha M & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 17

MD Imran Reza AND NoBroker Technologies Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 18

Central Warehousing Corporation AND G C Bhat & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 19

ABC AND XYZ. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 20

Shekhar AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 21

The Income Tax Officer & ANR Preeti V. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 22

K S Vishwa Kiran And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 23

Shipoil Limited AND MT Standorf. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 24

B Ashok Kumar AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 25

The Registrar General AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 26

Shilpa Kiran & ANR And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 27

M/s Renram Fashions India Pvt Ltd AND The ESI Corporation. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 28

Vikas C V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 29

V Keshavamurthy AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 30

Hindustan Aeronautics Officers Guild AND Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 31

Dr Natesha D B AND Directorate of Enforcement. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 32

Sushil Kumar Churiwala AND Akshay Bansal. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 33

Prafula M Bhat & Others AND Saraswati Shahstri & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 34

ABC AND State Of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 35

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE v. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 36

Judgments/Orders

Children/Third Parties Cannot Appeal Against Maintenance Order Passed Under Parents & Senior Citizens Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: K Lokesh AND THE BANGALORE DISTRICT MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & Others

Case No: WRIT APPEAL No. 254 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 1

The Karnataka High Court has held that the right of appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, is only available to senior citizens and parents and no such right is extended to children or third parties.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while partly allowing an appeal filed by K Lokesh. The court said “The only reasonable interpretation of Section 16 of the Act is that the right of appeal is vested exclusively in senior citizens or parents, and not in any other individuals, including children or transferees.”

When Investigation Is Substantially Completed By Improper Officer, SCN Issued U/S 74 Of CGST Act Is Liable To Be Set Aside: Karnataka HC

Case Title: M/s Vigneshwara Transport Company v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru North-West Commissionerate

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.18305 OF 2023 (T-RES)

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 2

The Karnataka High Court held that when investigation is substantially completed by improper officer, show cause notice issued by proper officer u/s 74 of CGST Act is liable to be set aside.

The Bench of Justice M.I. Arun observed that “…..substantial part of the investigation including search and seizure of the materials has been done by respondent no.2 who is not the proper Officer and under the circumstances, the said investigation, inspection, search and seizure in respect of the assessee herein has to be considered ab initio void…..”

Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL Against Re-Modeling Of Bengaluru's Gandhi Bazaar, Says It's For Larger Public Convenience

Case Title: Heritage Basavanagudi Residents Welfare Forum AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 5330 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 3

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to stop the Gandhi Bazaar Market Street Redesign project which is at the final stage of completion

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by Heritage Basavanagudi Residents Welfare Forum and said “The Gandhi Bazaar Market Street Redesign project is for better convenience of the public, maintenance of traffic movement, to give better facility to the street vendors and to provide the access to the vehicles.”

Karnataka High Court Upholds BDA's Land Acquisition Notifications For Construction Of Peripheral Ring Road Between Hosur And Tumakur

Case Title: Vanitha M AND The Bangalore Development Authority & Others.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.61154 of 2014 (LA-BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.50948 OF 2016, 14510 OF 2018, 1201 OF 2020, 8235 OF 2021 & 26090 OF 2022.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 4

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the notifications issued by the Bangalore Development Authority to acquire land for construction of Peripheral Ring Road-II, between Hosur-Mysore Road and Tumakur Road.

Single judge Justice E S Indiresh upheld the Preliminary as well as the Final Notifications issued in 2005 and 2011 respectively, under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

It said, “I am of the view that, as the respondent-BDA has laid road in Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) for more than 80% of the project and as such, taking into consideration the difficulties arises in respect of the construction of metro station, service road to enable the nearby habitants to reach main roads as well as taking necessary precaution of the safety of the vehicles and public in general, I am of the view that, no interference be called for in respect of the quashing the impugned notifications issued by the respondent-authorities for the purpose of formation of Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II).”

University Need Not Insist On +2 Passing Certificate To Determine Eligibility For 3-Yrs LLB Course If Student Produces First Degree: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Rakesh Shetty AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.31737 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 5

The Karnataka High Court has said that the question of considering Higher Secondary (10+2) pass certificate for admission to LLB course would be irrelevant so long as the candidates were to have a First degree issued by any recognised University.

A single judge Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing the petition filed by one Rakesh Shetty and said “In respect of proviso to Rule 5, (Bar Council Rules) the question of considering equivalency of JOC (Job oriented Course) with +2 would not be relevant, since the petitioner holds a B.Com degree, which being a First Degree was sufficient for the University to consider for issuance of eligibility certificate."

Karnataka High Court Requests Law Commission To Frame Guidelines To Deal With Pledging Of Stolen Gold With Gold Finance Companies

Case Title: Muthoot Finance Limited AND State Of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 36201 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 6

The Karnataka High Court has requested the Law Commission, Karnataka to formulate necessary guidelines/rules in respect of stolen gold being pledged with gold finance companies, the implication of pledging such stolen gold and the procedure for dealing with it when criminal proceedings are initiated.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that there are innumerable matters coming up before this court where stolen gold is pledged with a gold finance company.

Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Centre's Green Energy Open Access Rules, Says It Lacks Legislative Competence

Case Title: Brindavan Hydropower Private Limited AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11235 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 22770 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 23729 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 24270 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 28604 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 28659 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 29091 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 1117 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 6100 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 15429 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 15626 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 15805 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 17475 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 19035 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 19665 OF 2024 (GM-KEB

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 7

The Karnataka High Court has struck down the Electricity (Promoting Renewable Energy Through Green Energy Open Access) Rules 2022 framed by the Central Government for generation, purchase and consumption of green energy i.e., electrical energy from renewable sources of energy.

A single judge, Justice N S Sanjay Gowda observed that the Centre lacks power under Electricity, 2003 Act to frame the Green Energy Open Access (GEOA) Rules since the statute specifically conferred such power on the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC).

Karnataka HC Declines Plea For Women Reservation In Governing Council Of Advocates' Association Bengaluru, Says Only SC Can Pass Such Order

Case Title: KARNATAKA FEDERATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS & ANR v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 123/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 8

The Karnataka High Court today (08 May) orally expressed support towards reservation of seats for women in the Governing Council of Advocates' Association Bengaluru.

Justice R Devdas however declined a plea moved by the women members of the Bar Association and Federation of Women Lawyers in this regard, stating that only the Supreme Court can pass such orders.

"All of us are one with you that reservation is to be given but it has to be in accordance with law...If you put across this request from the side of women advocates then appropriate decision would be taken. This court will not be able to pass any such order, approach the Supreme Court...extra ordinary powers available to SC not with us," the Judge orally observed during the hearing.

Karnataka HC Directs Private Schools To Submit Structural Stability Report, Fire Clearance Sanction; Govt Schools Also Told To Comply

Case Title: Organisation for Unaided Recognised Schools & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.23653 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 9

The Karnataka High Court has upheld a Circular issued by the Department of Education requiring private schools, amongst others, to obtain and furnish a structural stability certificate and sanction plan relating to the building where the school was being run, along with fire safety requirements/facilities for such schools.

The court passed the order after noting that the circular only required that the school building's structure be stable especially when young children cannot be easily trained in respect of any disaster or emergency issue which could arise.

[O.39 R.3 CPC] Court Must Give Reasons For Granting Ad-Interim Injunction Without Notice To Opposite Party: Karnataka HC Reiterates

Case Title: Bowring Institute AND Sarwik S and Others

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7641/2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 10

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that before granting an ad-interim temporary injunction without notice to the opposite party, the trial court must assign reasons on whether the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay.

Justice H P Sandesh, said, “The word used in Order 39 Rule 3 (Civil Procedure Code) is the court shall exercise the discretion and when the statue itself requires reasons to be recorded, the Court cannot ignore that requirement by saying that if reasons are recorded, it may amount to expressing an opinion in favour of the plaintiff before hearing the defendant.”

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Of Jayalalithaa's Legal Heirs Seeking Return Of Her Properties Confiscated In DA Case

Case Title: J DEEPA AND Superintendent of Police

Case No: CRL.A 1973/2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 11

The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal challenging a trial court filed by the legal heirs of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, seeking to release her property/assets seized by the authorities in the disproportionate assets case registered against her in 2004, in their favour.

A single judge, Justice V Srishananda, dismissed the appeal filed by J Deepak and J Deepa.

The trial court had vide its order dated July 12, 2023 dismissed the application filed under section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Respondent In Election Petition Cannot Be Made Petitioner Over Claims Of Collusion Between Election Petitioner & Successful Candidate: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Kudleepa AND Mahantesh & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.100030 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 12

The Karnataka High Court has held that a respondent in an election petition cannot seek for transposition as a petitioner claiming that there is a collusion between the Election petitioner and the successful candidate or any other ground.

A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Kudleepa Chittaragi who had questioned the order of the trial court rejecting his application made under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure.

It said “The petitioner in the present case being a respondent and not having independently challenged the election of respondent No.2 could not have filed an application for transposition under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.”

Sandalwood Drug Case: Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Kannada Actress Ragini Dwivedi, Co-Accused

Case Title: RAGINI DWIVEDI @ GINI @ RAGS AND State of Karnataka And Connected Matter

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26835 OF 2024 (GM-RES) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9497 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 13

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Kannada actor Ragini Dwivedi, who had been arrested by the police for allegedly consuming and supplying drugs at parties and events organized by her and others.

Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Ragini (accused no. 2) and co-accused Prashant Ranka (accused no. 4). The petitioners were charged for offences punishable under Sections 21, 21(C), 22(C), 27A, 27-B, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, read with Sections 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) and 201(Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of IPC.

Benefit Of Equal Pay & Holidays Are Granted To Daily Wage Employees Working Part-Time At HC Circuit Benches: Karnataka Govt Tells High Court

Case Title: High Court Legal Service Authority AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 52485 OF 2014

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 14

The Karnataka Government informed the High Court that the benefit of general holidays and Government holidays as notified by the Court in the calendar is granted to the part-time daily wage manual workers working in the Benches of High Court at Dharwad and Kalaburagi.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anajaria and Justice M I Arun were informed about this during a public interest litigation filed by the High Court Legal Service Committee in 2014.

Karnataka HC Asks Bangalore University To Consider Students' Grievance About Overlapping Of University Exams With Other Competitive Exams

Case Title: The Registrar (Evaluation) AND S V Renu & Others

Case No: WA 45/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 15

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed the Bangalore University to consider the grievance raised by students about the clashing of exams held by the University with examination of other competitive courses.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun said, “The grievance of students that University and other exams often clash, the University will consider the grievance in proper light.”

Can't Change Law Just Because It Is Prajwal Revanna: Karnataka HC Orally Says In His Plea For Production Of Electronic Evidence In Rape Case

Case Title: Prajwal Revanna AND State Of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P 206/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 16

"Just because it is Prajwal Revanna law cannot be changed", said the Karnataka High Court orally on Thursday (January 16) while hearing the former JD (S) leader's plea, who is booked in a rape and sexual assault case, for production of documents and Electronic Evidence collected by prosecution from his driver's phone.

The court said this after noting that he wanted the entire data from the device, adding that it can only allow inspection of images and not the data pertaining to the other women.

It thereafter allowed Revanna's request for inspection and disposed of the plea.

"State Should Never Stifle Rights Of Poor": Karnataka HC Sets Aside Govt Order Reducing Education Assistance To Children Of Construction Workers

Case Title: Amrutha M & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9924 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 17

The Karnataka High Court set aside a notification issued by the State Government in 2023, reducing the education assistance amount for children of registered construction workers for pursuing graduation and post-graduation courses.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed “The state should never stifle or smother the rights of the poor. There is no reason whatsoever found in any of the justification projected by the State to do so. The State government must remember that it should take all steps towards educating women, as it is said, educating a man, is educating an individual; educating a woman, is educating a generation.”

Karnataka HC Rejects PIL Claiming NoBroker Technologies Forces Employees To Surrender Their Digital Privacy, Snoops Their Personal Browsing

Case Title: MD Imran Reza AND NoBroker Technologies Solutions Pvt. Ltd

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29555 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 18

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed claiming that NoBroker Technologies Solutions Pvt. Ltd forces its employees to surrender their digital privacy under the threat of losing access to work tools.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun dismissed the petition filed by one MD Imran Reza stating, “This Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. Any individual violation of privacy rights may be a cause of action for initiating appropriate legal proceedings as may be permissible in law, in accordance with law.”

Gratuity Cannot Be Forfeited For Employee Who Was Dismissed For Allegedly Misappropriating Funds Without Proper Proceedings: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Central Warehousing Corporation AND G C Bhat & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.102635 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 19.

The Karnataka High Court has held that in case no proceedings have been initiated against a delinquent employee for recovery of the alleged losses caused to the public institution due to their misappropriation, the question of the employer retaining the gratuity amount of the dismissed employee and forfeiting the same, would not arise.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Central Warehousing Corporation, which had challenged the order of the Controlling Authority. The authority while allowing the application filed by G C Bhat had directed the corporation to pay him a gratuity amount of Rs.7,88,165 with 10% interest from 12.12.2013, till the date of actual payment.

Karnataka HC Declines Wife's Plea To Transfer Divorce Case, Says Safeguarding Women Is Admirable But Husband's Convenience Can't Be Overlooked

Case Title: ABC AND XYZ

Case No: CIVIL PETITION NO. 370 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 20

The Karnataka High Court has said that there should be a gender-neutral society which aims at preventing separation of duties according to sex or gender and the focus should be on equal treatment of men and women both in domestic affairs and workplaces.

The court disallowed a plea for transfer of a divorce petition filed by the wife and stated that the husband's convenience cannot be overlooked. Only because the transfer petition is moved by a woman, transfer of the case as sought cannot be effected, it said.

Duty Of Deed Writers To Look Into All Papers Before Scribing A Deed, Which Includes Investigating Title Over Property: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Shekhar AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9546 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 21

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a criminal case registered against a licensed deed writer accused of writing an agreement for the sale of a land based on a general power attorney (GPA) which was allegedly a forged one.

Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by one Shekar and said “Merely because he is a deed writer, the proceedings against him cannot be quashed, as the offence of forgery and using forged document to be genuine and criminal breach of trust by the petitioner are prima facie met. Therefore, these are matters where investigation would be required”.

Proceedings Initiated Against Income Tax Assessee After His Death Cannot Be Continued Against Legal Representative: Karnataka HC

Case Title: The Income Tax Officer & ANR Preeti V

Case No:WRIT APPEAL NO. 1407 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 22

The Karnataka High Court has said proceedings initiated against an Income Tax Assessee by issuing notice after his demise cannot be continued against his/her legal representative.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja said, “Had the proceedings been initiated against the Assessee during his lifetime, they could have continued against the legal representatives of the deceased Assessee.”

Karnataka HC Quashes SC/ST Act Case Against Bank Manager, Calls It Another Case Of Misuse Of Law Enacted To Protect Marginalised

Case Title: K S Vishwa Kiran And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3839 OF 2022

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 23

The Karnataka High Court quashed a case registered against a private bank manager under the provisions of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (SCST) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after noting that it was yet another case of misuse of the special enactment which was enforced to protect the interests of the marginalized.

Justice M G Uma passed the order while allowing the petition filed by K.S. Vishwa Kiran. The petitioner was charged under Sections 420, 354, 354B, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and Sections 3(2) (v) and 3 (2) (va) of the SCST Act.

Plea For Recovering Dues Against Vessel Under Admiralty Act, Which Is A Special Statute, Maintainable Before High Court: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Shipoil Limited AND MT Standorf

Case No: CIVIL PETITION NO. 23 OF 2020

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 24

The Karnataka High Court has said that a petition filed seeking a decree against a vessel (ship) would be maintainable before the High Court under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 and not before the Commercial Court.

Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Shipoil Limited, seeking to return the petition filed by M. T. Standorf. The respondent had filed the petition seeking the Court to pass a decree against the vessel by name M.T. STANDORF for recovery of a sum of EUR.506,512.66 equivalent to INR 4,05,21,732.80 (Rupees Four Crores Five Lakhs Twenty one Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Two and eighty paise only) towards outstanding principal amount of EUR.457,149.36 and the accrued interest thereon and other allied reliefs including sale of the vessel by public auction.

Consensual Sexual Relationship Not Licence For Man To Assault Woman: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Drop Case Against Circle Inspector

Case Title: B Ashok Kumar AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3594 OF 2022

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 25

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an attempt to murder case registered against a police officer who is accused to have assaulted a woman with whom he was in a consensual relationship for several years.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said “I deem it appropriate to hold that consensual acts between the accused and the victim for having sexual relationship, can never become a licence to the man to assault the lady. The case at hand projects gross misogynist brutality upon the complainant.”

Right To Health/Medical Care A Fundamental Right, Enforceable Through Corresponding Obligation On State To Create Facilities: Karnataka HC

Case Title: The Registrar General AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 797 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 26

The Karnataka High Court has directed State Department of Health and Family Welfare, to constitute a three member Committee headed by its Secretary to continuously oversee and implement the mechanism to ensure medical facility and infrastructure–including medical and para-medical personnel at all levels–City, District and Rural.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind issued the direction while disposing of a suo-motu public interest litigation initiated taking cognizance of a news report published in The New Indian Express newspaper, highlighting a shortfall of around 16,500 medical personnel in the State.

The court said, “When the right to health and right to medical-care is treated as fundamental right, it stands enforced only with corresponding Constitutional obligation on part of the State to create medical facilities. For effective enjoyment of this right, the creation of medical cadre, adequate medical personnel, setting up of infrastructure, availability of medicines in sufficient quantity and without interruption, as also establishment of Primary Health Centres in the rural area, are the concomitants. They become inseparable necessities for enjoyment of right to health and right to medicare.”

Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Defamation Case Against News 1 Kannada's Anchor & Head Of News

Case Title: Shilpa Kiran & ANR And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10818 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 27

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against a News Anchor and Head of News-1 Kannada TV channel based on the complaint filed by a police sub-inspector.

Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition filed by Shilpa Kiran and Suresha G S and quashed the proceedings pending against them under sections 290(Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for), 505 (1) (Statements conducing to public mischief), 34(common intention), 499(Defamation), 500 (Punishment for defamation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Objection Regarding Court's Jurisdiction Must Be Raised At Earliest Possible Opportunity, Not After Adverse Order Is Passed: Karnataka HC

Case Title: M/s Renram Fashions India Pvt Ltd AND The ESI Corporation.

Case No: REVIEW PETITION NO.598 OF 2024 IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3185 OF 2017

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 28

The Karnataka High Court has said that any objection with regard to jurisdiction of a court in adjudicating an appeal has to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity by a party and it cannot be raised after the passing of the order which has gone against it.

A single judge, Justice H P Sandesh dismissed a review petition filed by M/s Renram Fashions India Pvt Ltd, which had moved after the single judge had set aside an of the ESI court which had partly allowed the plea filed by the company and modified the order passed directing petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.26,34,569, towards damages for the delay in payment of contribution for the period from January 2009 to June 2013.

Unfortunate That Age-Old Menace Of Dowry Death Still Exists In Society: Karnataka HC Declines To Quash Case Against Husband, In-Laws

Case Title: Vikas C V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2730 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 29

The Karnataka High Court has held that merely because the deceased had scribed that no one is responsible in the death note, a court, while relying on the same, cannot quash the proceedings initiated against husband and in-laws for charges of cruelty and dowry death.

Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Vikas C V and others who are charged under Sections 498A (cruelty), 304B (dowry death) r/w Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Karnataka High Court Dismisses PIL To Permit Holding Of Bull/ Bullock Cart Race In Kolar District

Case Title: V Keshavamurthy AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 35617/2024.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 30

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner of Kolar District, to grant permission for conducting a bulls race/bullock cart race, in Dullapalli village of the District scheduled in January 2025.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun dismissed the petition filed by V Keshavamurthy and said “It is entirely for the authorities to consider the subject matter, the court will not intervene in any fashion.”

Company's Order Reversing Pay Hike Upsets Employee's Financial Planning: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside HAL Circular

Case Title: Hindustan Aeronautics Officers Guild AND Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14734 OF 2021

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 31

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a circular issued by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), whereby it sought to re-fix the pay of Officers, which came to be increased, in the year 2017.

A single judge, Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the petition filed by 'Hindustan Aeronautics Officers Guild' and set aside the Circular dated 24.07.2021, issued by the employer. It also clarified that the pay fixation (presently being paid) would continue to hold the field.

ED Can't Trample Upon Individual Liberty & Privacy, Search & Seizure Operations Must Adhere To Procedural Fairness Under PMLA: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Dr Natesha D B AND Directorate of Enforcement

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 32956 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 32

The Karnataka High Court has observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot give the elements of procedural fairness contained in the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) a go-by in the course of its administration.

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar made the observation while allowing the petition filed by former Commissioner of Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA), Dr Natesha D B, during whose tenure alleged illegal allotment of land sites was made to Chief Minister Siddaramiah's wife Paravathi.

Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Should Not Be Equated With Those Convicted Under Other Penal Statutes: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sushil Kumar Churiwala AND Akshay Bansal

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1043 OF 2022

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 33

The Karnataka High Court recently observed that an accused who has suffered an order of conviction in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pertaining to cheque dishonour, should not be equated with that of an accused who has been convicted for other penal statutes.

Justice V Srishananda held thus while setting aside the six-month imprisonment handed down to one Sushil Kumar Churiwala by the trial court along with payment of fine while "maintaining the order of conviction".

"From the directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association supra, it is clear that the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is in the nature of quasi civil and quasi criminal in nature. Therefore, the Courts while exercising its discretion at the time of passing the appropriate sentence in a given case, is entitled to use its discretionary power in awarding imprisonment or fine or with both. At any rate, an accused who has suffered an order of conviction in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, should not be equated with that of a accused who has been convicted for other penal statutes," the court said.

Daughter Born Before Partition Of Ancestral Property Prior To Amendment Of S.6 Of Hindu Succession Act Cannot Claim Right In Father's Share: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Prafula M Bhat & Others AND Saraswati Shahstri & Others.

Case No: RFA NO.100103 OF 2014

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 34

The Karnataka High Court has said that daughter who was already born at the time of a partition that took place before 20th December 2004 (Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act), between the father and his sons, cannot be elevated to the status of the daughter born after the partition and cannot claim the share in the property allotted to the father or challenge the alienation made by the father, after 2005 amendment.

A single judge, Justice Anant Ramanathe Hegde held thus while dismissing the appeal filed by Prafulla M Bhat and others. The appellants had challenged the trial court order which had dismissed their suit for partition and seeking equal rights in the ancestral property held by their deceased father Mahadev. Challenge was also raised to the gift deed executed by Mahadev in favour of his second wife.

Wife Cannot Be Charged With Extortion For Seeking, Being Granted Maintenance By A Competent Court: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ABC AND State Of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.3809 OF 2024 (GM – RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.28591 OF 2023.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 35

The Karnataka High Court has held that there cannot be an offence of extortion registered against the wife when she initiates proceedings for maintenance and the concerned Court grants maintenance amount to her.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by a wife seeking to quash the complaint registered by the husband under Sections 420, 406, 403, 109, 384 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench said “In the considered view of the Court, there cannot be an offence of extortion when the wife initiates proceedings for maintenance and the concerned Court grants maintenance. Those are legal proceedings, pursuant to which the husband is legally bound to pay, unless it is altered or modified by the superior Court.”

Double Payment For Same Claim Violates Public Policy U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE v. M/S ASHOKA BIOGREEN PVT. LTD.

Case Number: COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 427 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 36

The Karnataka High Court Bench of Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice K. V. Aravind held that the issue of double payment for the same claim would undoubtedly be in direct conflict with the Public Policy of India and would violate the Fundamental Policy of Indian Law, as well as the basic principles of morality and justice.

Additionally, the court held that it is well established in law that double payment for the settlement of a single claim is impermissible.