Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: February 24 To March 02, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 70 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 82

Nominal Index:

Devanand Patil & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 70

RASHTRIYA SURAKSHA JANANDOLAN SAMITHI MYSORE AND The Commissioner of Police, Mysore. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 71.

Kailasam P AND The Karnataka Bank Ltd & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 72

Chirag Sen & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 73

Anirudh Suresh AND Honourable High Court of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 74

M/s Padma Pharmaceuticals & ANR AND State Through Drug Inspector. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

Chandrashekhar AND The Divisional Controller. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 76

The Branch Manager AND Ramesh Davkatte & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 77

Hanumanth N Karkun AND Honourable Minister of Finance & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

Pavan Kumar M R AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 79

THE MANAGEMENT OF MAHINDRA AEROSTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED AND THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY/ DEPUTY SPECIAL OFFICER & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 80

Pavankumar AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 81

Dinesh Borkar & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 82

Judgments/Orders

Retail Shop Owner Not Vicariously Liable For Substandard Product Of Company: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Under Insecticides Act

Case Title: Devanand Patil & ANR AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200937 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 70

The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against two retail shop/showroom owners under the Insecticides Act, charged after the jurisdictional Agricultural Officer had seized substandard insecticides manufactured by a Company, from the shops of the two men.

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by Devanand Patil and another and said “Petitioners being the owners of the shop/showroom, in which products of the Company was stocked/exhibited for sale, cannot be held vicariously liable and be penalized for misbranding of the product in respect of which they were not involved in the manufacturing process.”

Karnataka High Court Permits Protest Rally In Mysore Football Ground, Asks Police To Relax Prohibitory Order In The Area

Case Title: RASHTRIYA SURAKSHA JANANDOLAN SAMITHI MYSORE AND The Commissioner of Police, Mysore

Case No: WP 5408/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 71.

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (February 24) permitted the Rashtriya Suraksha Janndolan Samithi, Mysore to hold a peaceful march/rally–'Mysore Chalo' inside the football ground in the city, to protest against the recent stone-pelting incident in front of Udayagiri Police Station.

In doing so the court asked the Mysore Police Commissioner to pass orders relaxing Section 144 CrPC order in the area so that the protest can be held. The court has clarified that the protest will be held for one or one hand hour around 3 pm today.

Courts Have No Power To Extend Prescribed Period Of Limitation On Grounds Of Equity And Justice: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Kailasam P AND The Karnataka Bank Ltd & Others

Case No: WP 11273 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 72

The Karnataka High Court has said that Law of Limitation may harshly affect a particular party; but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. Courts have no powers to extend prescribed periods of limitation on grounds of equity and justice.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Kailasam P challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, rejecting his application to condone delay in filing an appeal against the Sale of his property by the bank.

Karnataka High Court Declines To Quash Cheating Case Against Shuttler Lakshya Sen, Others Accused Of Fabricating Birth Certificates

Case Title: Chirag Sen & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26156 OF 2022 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 25699 OF 2022 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 26136 OF 2022

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 73

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a cheating case registered against Badminton players Lakshya Sen, Chirag Sen, their parents and coach U Vimal Kumar, wherein they are accused of fabricating their birth certificates, to enable them to take part in the badminton tournaments and thereby claim benefits illegally from the Government.

Justice M G Uma dismissed the petition saying, “The materials that are placed on record discloses that accused No.1 taking advantage of his position as coach in Badminton Academy colluded with accused No.4, who is also the employee of the Karnataka Badminton Association, accused No.5 being the mother of accused Nos.2 and 3 have fabricated the birth certificates and manipulated the date of birth of accused Nos.2 and 3 to enable them to take part in badminton tournament and claimed the benefit from the Government.”

Amended Necessary Rules Allowing Service Of Notices/Summons Through E-mail By All Courts In Karnataka: State Govt Tells High Court

Case Title: Anirudh Suresh AND Honourable High Court of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 12426/2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 74

The State Government on Tuesday informed the Karnataka High Court that it had amended the necessary rules allowing service of notices/summons through electronic mail (email) by all courts in Karnataka.

Justice R Devdas was informed that the draft rules forwarded by the High Court were approved and gazetted by the State Government on February 17. Under this, all courts including the High Court, district courts, and tribunals are empowered to order for issuance of notices/summons through electronic mail.

Drugs & Cosmetics Act | Only Sessions Court Can Try Offences Punishable Under Chapter IV On Manufacture, Sale And Distribution: Karnataka HC

Case Title: M/s Padma Pharmaceuticals & ANR AND State Through Drug Inspector.

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200077 OF 2018

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court has held that trial in a case registered for offences pertaining to manufacture, sale and distribution of drugs and cosmetics under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is triable only by a sessions court and the magistrate court is required to commit the case to the Sessions Judge for trial.

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty held thus while allowing a petition filed by Padma Pharmaceuticals and its partner and set aside the conviction order passed against them under Section 27(b)(ii) (sale, manufacture etc., of any drug which doesn't have a valid license is punishable with imprisonment between three to five years with fine not be less than Rs. 1 Lakh or three times the value of the drug whichever is more) of the Act.

'Sleep & Work-Life Balance Necessary': Karnataka HC Sets Aside Suspension Of Constable Found Sleeping On Duty After Regular Double Shifts

Case Title: Chandrashekhar AND The Divisional Controller.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106142 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 76

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of suspension imposed on a constable working with the Kalyan Karnataka Road Transport Corporation on the grounds that he was found sleeping on duty.

Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by Chandrashekhar, highlighted the need for proper sleep and work-life balance for employees. It said, “It is trite, if a person is asked to overwork than his capacity, the body sometimes makes the said person to sleep, as sleep and work life balance is what is necessary today.”

It added, “It may be a constable today, tomorrow it can be anybody. Depriving sleep to any human being, will lead to falling sleep anywhere. Therefore, sleep and leisure are considered an important facet of the balance that is to be struck between work and life.”

MACT Not Mentioning Nature Of Injuries & Relation To Functional Disability, Jumping To Conclusions: Karnataka HC Directs Training

Case Title: The Branch Manager AND Ramesh Davkatte & ANR

Case No: MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.200552 OF 2020

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 77

The Karnataka High Court has said that Motor Accident Claim Tribunals are expected to mention the nature of the injuries suffered by the accident victim and the manner in which it will translate into functional disability, considering the facts and circumstances, especially with reference to the avocation of the victim.

Justice C M Joshi said “In umpteen numbers of judgments of the Tribunals, this Court observes that the nature of the injuries and the manner how it would translate into functional disability are seldom discussed. The Tribunals are jumping to the conclusion on the basis of the disability stated by a medical officer.”

He added, “A non mentioning of the nature of the injuries suffered; or describing them simply as grievous or simple; would not reflect that the Tribunals had applied their mind to the nature of the injuries.”

Penalty Of Withholding 100% Pension Gratuity By Disciplinary Authority Is Not Understandable: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Hanumanth N Karkun AND Honourable Minister of Finance & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.101714 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of a 73-year-old, cancer patient and former employee of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, by setting aside an order of the authorities withholding 100 percent of gratuity and pension due to him.

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Hanumanth N Karkun and quashed the order passed by the authorities and directed the release of the entire pension that was withheld and the gratuity that was forfeited to its full, to be paid to the petitioner within 4 weeks.

It said, “The imposition of withholding of 100% of pension and 100% of gratuity, is un-understandable as to under which provision of law, the Disciplinary Authority could impose such penalty of withholding 100% of the pension that too, permanently, that goes with gratuity as well.”

Wild Life (Protection) Act | Offence Must Be Registered In Wild Life Offences Report Before Issuing Serach Warrant: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Pavan Kumar M R AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 730 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 79

The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against one person found in possession of certain prohibited articles under the Wild Life (Protection) Act on account of procedural irregularities in the investigation.

A single judge, Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Pavana Kumar M R who was charged under Sections 2(2), 2(31), 9, 39, 42, 44, 47, 48, 48A, and 49B read with Sections 50, 51, 55, and 58(C)(J) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

Police Cannot Issue Notice Of Appearance To Accused Via WhatsApp: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Pavankumar AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2249 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 80

Quashing a notice under Section 35 (3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, directing a 25-year-old man to appear before the Police which was served through WhatsApp, the Karnataka High Court reiterated that issuance and service of such notices via WhatsApp is impermissible in law.

For context, Section 35(3) BNS states the police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under sub-section (1) issue a notice directing the person–against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence–to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.

Justice S R Krishna Kumar while allowing a petition by one Pavankumar, who is a resident of Tamil Nadu, said “The notice dated 14.02.2025 issued by respondent No.1 Police to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in respect of the case in Crime No.193/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, pending on the file of 39th Addl. CMM (CJM) Court, Bengaluru City, is hereby quashed.”

Govt Can't Pass Interim Order Directing Payment Of Wages To Workmen Without Hearing Management, Workers Union: Karnataka HC

Case Title: THE MANAGEMENT OF MAHINDRA AEROSTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED AND THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY/ DEPUTY SPECIAL OFFICER & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16742 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 81

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the government cannot pass an interim order directing payment of wages in favour of workmen of a company without hearing the company management and the workers union.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held thus while allowing a petition filed by the Management of Mahindra Aerostructures Private Limited, challenging a June 11, 2024 order passed by Principal Secretary/Deputy Special Officer, Child Labour Cell To Department Of Labour, directing payment of Rs.6,000 per month as interim wages in favour of the workman of the petitioner/Management.

The court set aside the order and said “The application filed by the Union pending before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal seeking interim measure shall be considered by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.”

'Satire Protected Under Article 19' : Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Over College Skit Allegedly Insulting Ambedkar & Dalits

Case Title: Dinesh Borkar & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2845 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2064 OF 2023.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 82

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a case registered against students and faculty members of the Jain Centre of Management Studies (Deemed University) who were booked for staging a skit that allegedly referred to Dr B R Ambedkar and Dalits in a derogatory manner.

Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petitions filed by Dinesh Nilkant Borkar and others and quashed the prosecution initiated against them.

It said, “The skit/short play performed by the petitioner was in the nature of satire/entertainment, which is constitutionally protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression and the impugned FIR clearly does not meet or satisfy the basic ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.”