Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: February 03 To February 09, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 38 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 51

Nominal Index:

Rahul H M AND The Registrar (Evaluation) & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 38

Newspace Research and Technologies Private Limited and Anirudh Putsala & others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 39

Rajkumar Agarwal AND Income Tax Department. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 40

Rooda Veershetty AND Union of India & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 41

Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar AND The Chief Personnel Manager & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 42

Sarojinin Bhanvi & Others AND Yallappa Kempanna Badiagawad. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 43

LT.GEN (Retd BNBM Prasad AND The Commissioner & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 44

Ullas Kotian Yane Ullas K V AND Government of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 45

Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 46

Udaya Kumar Shetty AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 47

Snehamayi Krishna AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 48

BS Yediyurappa v/s The Criminal Investigating Department CID. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 49

Bhaskar Naidu and Arvind Yadav. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 50

Imran H AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 51

Judgments/Orders

'Serious Issue': Karnataka HC Directs State Law University To Formulate Guidelines To Stop Malpractices In Examinations Using Technology

Case Title: Rahul H M AND The Registrar (Evaluation) & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 104890 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 38

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of the Karnataka State Law University to formulate necessary Rules in relation to safeguard the sanctity of examinations and avoid malpractises indulged by students, so as to make available a level playing field for all students.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj also directed that the rules issued shall be made applicable to all colleges coming within the jurisdiction or affiliated to the said University and be implemented in a time bound manner.

Ex-Parte Order Appointing Commissioner To Conduct Search/Seizure In IPR Infringement Cases Is To Preserve Evidence, Necessary: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Newspace Research and Technologies Private Limited and Anirudh Putsala & others

Case No: WP No.32999 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 39

The Karnataka High Court has said that in intellectual property rights cases, the ex-parte order of appointment of the Court Commissioner for search and seizure–an Anton Piller order, is to ensure that a surprise element remains intact in the absence of which the respondents can easily remove the infringing products when the commissioner visits the latter's premises.

Anton Piller orders are court orders giving the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning in order to prevent destruction of evidence specially in case of intellectual property right infringement.

Justice H T Narendra Prasad observed this while disposing of a petition filed by Newspace Research and Technologies Private Limited, who had challenged the order of the trial court refusing to appoint a court commissioner on the application made by it to seize the data from the respondents.

Merely Paying Penalty For Wilful Delay In Filing Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate Assessee From Being Prosecuted: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Rajkumar Agarwal AND Income Tax Department.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201214 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201213 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201215 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201216 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 40

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash prosecution initiated by the Income Tax Department against an assessee who had willfully failed to submit his income tax returns in time for the Assessment Years 2012- 13 to 2015-16 and thereby committed the alleged offence.

A single judge, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petitions filed by Rajkumar Agarwal. It said, “Delay in filing of the income tax returns would not only result in payment of penalty, but it also results in prosecution as provided under Chapter 22 of the Act. Therefore, merely for the reason that petitioner has paid the penalty levied by the Competent Authority for the delay in filing of the returns, the same does not exonerate the petitioner from being prosecuted.”

'Misconceived': Karnataka HC Rejects PIL Seeking Direction To Govt To Protect Life, Property And Religious Places Of Hindus In Bangladesh

Case Title: Rooda Veershetty AND Union of India & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 33725 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 41

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation filed seeking a direction to the Union and State Government, to protect the life, property and other religious places of Hindus and other Minority Community people, residing in Bangladesh.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun while dismissing a petition by Rodda Veershetty said, “The subject matter and the prayer are based on the news item dated 13.08.2024 in Kannada newspaper Prajavani titled "Communal unrest in Bangla".

Employees Can Be Transferred On Administrative Exigency But Not In Violation Of Statue Or Operative Guidelines: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar AND The Chief Personnel Manager & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.105244 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 42

The Karnataka High Court has said that administrative exigency can be a reason for a Corporation to exercise its right of transfer of an employee from one place to another, but it cannot be done in violation of the statute or operative guidelines of service.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar questioning the endorsement issued to him by which he was transferred from Vigilance Department of the North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation to the post of Depot Manager.

No Requirement To Prove Authenticity Of Will If Testator Admits To Its Execution In Pleadings Before Court: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sarojinin Bhanvi & Others AND Yallappa Kempanna Badiagawad

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102067 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 43

The Karnataka High Court has said that once a testator has admitted the execution of a Will in proceedings before the Court and pleadings are filed, there would be no requirement to further establish the authenticity of the Will in terms of Sections 67, 68 and 70 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Sarojini Bhanvi and another challenging an order of the trial court allowing the application made by Yallappa Kempanna Badiagawad, to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased Tayamma.

MUDA Treated Retd Defence Personnel With 'Scant' Respect: Karnataka High Court Directs Body To Execute Sale Deed For Allotted Land

Case Title: LT.GEN (Retd BNBM Prasad AND The Commissioner & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14296 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 44

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the State Consumer Commission and directed Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to allot a site by executing necessary conveyance and deliver possession to a retired defence personnel.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja allowed the petition filed by LT. GEN (Retd) BNBM Prasad and said “The State and its instrumentalities should learned to show deference to the Defense Personnel who guard our country unfazed by enormous difficulties.”

It added “The MUDA has treated with scant respect & regard a Defense Personnel of the kind who has put a long & spotless service of three decades in guarding the frontiers of the nation. The encomia earned by him at the hands of the Central Government & the State Government failed to impress the MUDA officials...A Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent-MUDA to execute & register a sale deed in favour of petitioner and put him in peaceable possession of the site in question or an alternative site of equal dimension & value, within eight weeks.”

Competent Court Can Only Mutate Legatee's Name In Records Once Will Has Been Proved: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Ullas Kotian Yane Ullas K V AND Government of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 45

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a sibling who is asserting exclusive title based on a Will in his favour cannot get his name mutated in the records based on the Will until it has been substantiated and proved.

A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Ullas Kotian Yane Ullas K V, who had challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and directing Tahsildar to restore the name of the original owner, namely, Kamalamma, mother of the petitioner in the records.

'Too Vague': Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL For Inquiry Against Legislators Over Alleged Disproportionate Assets

Case Title: Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: WP 1160/2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 46

Karnataka High Court on Thursday (February 6) dismissed a public interest litigation filed seeking a direction to Lokayukta to hold enquiry against the MLA, MPs and MLCs whose assets are disproportionate to their known sources of income, by considering the representation made by the petitioner in December 2023.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun dismissed the petition filed by Gurunath Vadde. It said “The petition and facts stated therein are too general and too vague to be acted upon in PIL jurisdiction.”

[S.216 IPC] Necessary To Establish Accused Had Knowledge About Conviction Of Offender To Prosecute Him For Offence Of Harbouring: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Udaya Kumar Shetty AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14164 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 47

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed an offence registered against a man charged with harbouring a murder accused in his house.

A single judge, Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition filed by Udaya Kumar Shetty and said: “Before alleging any offence punishable under Section 216 of IPC, it is necessary to establish that accused person had knowledge about conviction of the offender and that the petitioner had intentionally and willfully harboured him so as to attract Section 216 of IPC.”

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Transfer Probe In MUDA Case Allegedly Involving CM Siddaramaiah To CBI

Case Title: Snehamayi Krishna AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WP 27484/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 48

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (February 7) refused to transfer the investigation by the Lokayukta police into the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) "scam" which is stated to involve Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said, "The material on record does not indicate that investigation conducted by Lokayukta is partisan or lood sidedor shoddy for this court to refer the matter to CBI for further investigation or reinvestigation. Petition is dismissed."

Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To BS Yediyurappa In POCSO Case, Trial Court Directed To Decide On Cognizance Afresh

Case title: BS Yediyurappa v/s The Criminal Investigating Department CID

Case No: WP 15522/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 49

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (February 7) set aside the trial order taking cognizance of offences alleged against former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa in a case registered under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act

In doing so the court partly allowed his plea for quashing the POCSO Case; it however remitted the matter back to the trial court while saying that the the probe and final report remains intact. The court however allowed his plea seeking anticipatory bail.

Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said: "Petition is allowed in part. Order of taking cognizance stands obliterated. The crime and investigation and final report remains intact. Matter remitted back to the trial court. All contentions remain open".

Dispute Regarding Share Purchase Agreement Not Maintainable Before Commercial Court: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Bhaskar Naidu and Arvind Yadav

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6985 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 50

The Karnataka High Court has held that a dispute related to the recovery of money in regard to the share purchase agreement is not maintainable before the Commercial Court.

A single judge, Justice H T Narendra Prasad allowed the petition filed by Bhashakar Naidu challenging the order of the Commercial Court which had rejected its application filed under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, for returning the money recovery suit filed by Arvind Yadav.

Anticipatory Bail Applications Should Only Be Filed Directly Before HC In Exceptional Circumstances: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Imran H AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 362 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 51

The Karnataka High Court has said that unless there are exceptional circumstances to file an anticipatory bail application directly before the High Court, bypassing the Sessions Court, it will be prudent for the accused to approach the Sessions Court at the first instance seeking relief.

A single judge, Justice Mohammad Nawaz held thus while disposing of the petition filed by a school teacher, Imran H, who is charged with offences punishable under Section 69, 318(2) of BNS, 2023. It is alleged that the accused with a promise of marriage, committed sexual intercourse with the complainant and later cheated her etc. He directly approached the high court seeking anticipatory bail.