Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: September 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 293 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 324Nominal Index:C Naveen Kumar & Other AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 293Deepa Angadi AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 294G Satyanarayana Varma AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 295Hareesh AND A S Umesh & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 296K J Jaljakshi AND The Honourable Chairman. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 297Dadapeer Bhanuvalli AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 298Mrs Maheshwari M AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 299Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited AND Malathi B & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 300SRI HONNESHWARASWAMY DEVASTHANA JEERNODHARA SEVA SAMITHI TRUST (R) AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 301Chandrappa AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 302Sunil H Bohra & Others AND Assistant Commissioner & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 303State Bank of India AND M/s Swait Agencies & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 304Vikas Kumar S J AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 305Prathap Simha v. State of Karnataka and Batch. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 306Shaik Nowshera AND M/s 1-Help Technology And Software Solution Pvt Ltd & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 307DR. SHIVANANDAPPA DODDAGOUDAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 308K.S MANJUNATH GOWDA AND K.Y.NANJE GOWDA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 309Syeda Neelfur AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 310Sailen Das AND State By Kodigehalli Police Station & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 311M/s BEE JAY Engineers v. Commercial Tax Officer. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 312M/s NCS Pearson INC. v. Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 313X & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Agency & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 314TTK Prestige Limited AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 315SHARADA ACHAR AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 316PRAJWAL REVANNA AND STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 317X CORP AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 318Krishnamurthy AND The Director UIDAI & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 319ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 319Dror Shlomo Goldstein AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 321X CORP AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 322Syed Parveez Mushraff AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 323DODDAGIRIYAPPACHARI AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 324Judgements/OrdersCourt Can't Decide Station, Number Of Stops On Metro Line: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: C Naveen Kumar & Other AND Union of India & OthersCase No: WP 23534/2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 293The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 1) dismissed a plea by residents of Chikkajala Village seeking a direction to Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) to ensure that a metro station is constructed at the village on Phase 2B BlueLine Metro, which is to connect Krishnarajapuram with Kempegowda International Airport.A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi said, “The question whether a metro station is required to be constructed at a particular spot on the metro line is clearly a question that is not required to be examined by this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.”Convict Entitled To Seek Remission Even If Sentence Exceeds 20 Years, Unless Order Specifically Bars Release: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Deepa Angadi AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 107708 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 294The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no embargo under Rule 164(v) of the State Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021 against the grant of remission, and merely because a detenue is sentenced to 21 years imprisonment, it cannot be said that he is not entitled to remission.In doing so, the court held that even if the order is for a specified term, a detenue would be entitled to remission unless the sentence makes it clear that the detainee shall not be entitled to premature release or remission or parole.Grounds 'Abandoned' At The Time Of First Quashing Petition Can't Be Exhumed To Prop Up Subsequent Plea: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: G Satyanarayana Varma AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION No.17876 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 295The Karnataka High Court has said that a second quashing plea under Section 482 CrPC/ BNSS 528 is neither maintainable nor entertainable unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance and the grounds which were manifestly available at the time of first plea cannot be exhumed later to prop up a second petition.Justice M Nagaprasanna said: "The second petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS is neither maintainable nor entertainable, unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance. Grounds that were manifestly available at the time of first petition, cannot be exhumed later, to prop up a second petition...Law cannot bend to repeated challenges,...

Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: September 2025

Mustafa Plumber

Tags