Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: March 17 To March 23, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 105 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 116

Nominal Index:

RAHUL SIVASANKAR AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 105

Karnataka Hire Purchase Association AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 106

Savitha Gowda AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 107

PADMA MALINI G. RAO & ANR AND RAVI KARUMBAIAH. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 108

Avinash AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 109

Bherya Primary Agriculture Credit Coopearative Society Ltd AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 110

KARNATAKA KARMIKARA VEDIKE AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 111

Saraswathi Prakash & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 112

S Laxmi & Other And THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 113

The PR. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 114

The State Of Karnataka v. Tractor And Farm Equipment Limited. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 115

G. Linganagouda v. General Manager, Karnataka Gramina Bank. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 116

Judgments/Orders

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist Rahul Sivasankar Over Tweet On Religious Minorities Fund Allocation

Case Title: RAHUL SIVASANKAR AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT & ANR

Case No: CRL.P 2457/2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 105

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (March 17) allowed TV journalist Rahul Shivshankar's plea seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him for his tweet about the State government's allocation of funds for welfare of religious minorities.

Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said that the petition has been allowed and the FIR has been quashed.

On February 13, the court had reserved its judgment in Sivasankar's plea after hearing the parties. Advocate Bipin Hegde appearing for Shivshankar had then submitted, “I have not given a false statement in the tweet, what is mentioned in the budget I have stated milords.”

"Taken Birth From Womb Of Social Justice": Karnataka HC Upholds Validity Of Micro Loan & Small Loan (Prevention Of Coercive Actions) Ordinance

Case Title: Karnataka Hire Purchase Association AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 6962 of 2025.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 106

The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed seeking to declare the Karnataka Micro Loan and Small Loan (Prevention of Coercive Actions) Ordinance, 2025 as unconstitutional, arbitrary and beyond the legislative competence of the state government.

Justice M Nagaprasanna upheld the ordinance saying “The Ordinance, conceived in response to the anguished cries of the vulnerable – farmers, women, workers, marginalized groups inter alia seeks to rescue them from usurious money lenders and micro finance entities who as public knowledge and legislative record bear testament, have wielded unconscionable recovery methods, often driving the debtors from buoyancy of hope, to the abyss of despair and death.”

Karnataka HC Reprieve To Teacher Booked For Beating 6th Grader With Stick, Says No Proof Punishment Exceeded Child's Capacity To Endure

Case Title: Savitha Gowda AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2917 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 107

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings launched against a Physical Education teacher accused of beating a 6th grade school student with a stick, over alleged disobedience.

While doing so Justice Hemant Chandangoudar cited Kerala High Court's decision in Rajan @ Raju v. Sub-Inspector of Police (Crl. MC. No. 237/2018), where it was held that parents are presumed to have given consent for their child to be subject to discipline and control of school authorities, including the imposition of a reasonable degree of force and punishment on a child old enough to understand the purpose of the act.

Giving Notice To Tenant To Vacate Lease Premises Not Defamation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Senior Advocate Practising At SC

Case Title: PADMA MALINI G. RAO & ANR AND RAVI KARUMBAIAH

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4241 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.4250 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 108

The Karnataka High Court has quashed defamation proceedings against a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court and his wife, over a complaint filed by their tenant after they sent a notice asking him to vacate their property.

Noting that defamation requires an intention to harm the reputation of a person, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that initiating legal proceedings against a party would not constitute defamation merely because the proceedings ended in favour of that party.

The Court stated “What would unmistakably emerge is, that dragging the complainant into litigation or the complainant dragging the petitioners into litigation on several grievances, grounds or allegations would constitute legal proceedings between the two, which would not and cannot be said to be defamatory, merely because the case has gone in favour of the complainant. It would have been altogether a different circumstance if it was a case of malicious prosecution. While defamation, has some hues of malicious prosecution, substantially it is not.”

Trial Courts Must Be Cautious While Granting Permission To IO For Invoking Charges On Organised Crime U/S 111 BNS Against Accused: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Avinash AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 893 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 109

The Karnataka High Court has said that trial courts are required to be more cautious while permitting the Investigation Officer to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.

For context Section 111 of BNS pertains to Organised crime (1) Any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offence, cyber-crimes trafficking of persons, drugs, weapons or illicit goods or services, human trafficking for prostitution or ransom, by any person or a group of persons acting in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, or by any other unlawful means to obtain direct or indirect material benefit including a financial benefit, shall constitute organised crime.

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said “Whenever such an application/requisition is filed by the Investigation Officer, the Courts are required to apply their mind and thereafter pass necessary orders. The application/requisition of the Investigation Officer seeking permission of the Court to invoke Section 111 of BNS, 2023, shall be accompanied with necessary documents/materials which would prima-facie show the necessity to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 and it is only after considering such material along with the application/requisition, the concerned Court can consider his request to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023.”

Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies Can Order Inquiry Into Functioning Of Society Pending Re-Audit: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Bherya Primary Agriculture Credit Coopearative Society Ltd AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6459 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 110

The Karnataka High Court has said that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies can order an inquiry into the functioning of a cooperative society, which cannot be interdicted by a pending re-audit under the provisions of the state Cooperative Societies Act.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Bherya Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society Ltd.

The society had approached the high court after the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a notice of inquiry under Section 64 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, on September 26, 2024, when a re-audit had already been ordered on October 25,2023.

Sowjanya Case: Karnataka High Court Permits Peaceful Protest At Freedom Park

Case Title: KARNATAKA KARMIKARA VEDIKE AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 7953/2025, WP 7957/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 111

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (March 19) permitted the holding of a peaceful protest in relation to the 'Justice for Sowjanya Movement' at Freedom Park, Bengaluru.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, while disposing of the petitions filed by Karnataka Karmikara Vedike (R) and Native Empowering and Equipping Team For Hope And Interaction (R) said that the protest should be peaceful, failing which the authorities can take appropriate action.

Apartment Complexes With Only Residential Flats To Be Registered Under Apartment Ownership Act, Not Co-Operative Societies Act: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Saraswathi Prakash & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3779 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 112

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that property consisting of only residential flats, is to be registered under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 and there cannot be any association registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, to form a society to manage and maintain the property.

Justice K S Hemalekha held thus while allowing a petition filed by Saraswathi Prakash and others who are apartment owners in an Apartment complex known as “Parkside Retirement Homes Brigade Orchards Apartment Complex.

The court said “It can be safely held that the lis stands covered, that the petitioners and the members of the association are entitled to be registered under the KAO Act and that there cannot be any association registered under the Act, 1959, to form a society to manage and maintain the property comprising of only residential flats. It is also relevant to state here that the KOFA Act, 1972 and the Rules 1975, are applicable, if the property has both commercial and residential units.”

[Prevention Of Corruption Act] Preliminary Inquiry Before Obtaining Approval From Competent Authority Violates Section 17A: Karnataka HC

Case Title: S Laxmi & Other And THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE.

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.11933 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 113

The Karnataka High Court has held that collection of materials by the Lokayukta police before registration of FIR under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, would amount to a violation of Section 17A of the Act.

Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while partly allowing a petition filed by S Laxmi and others who work with Pattana Panchayat, Jagalur, Davangere District, had approached the court seeking a declaration that the inquiry/investigation conducted pursuant to registration of a complaint on 20-04-2019 as null and void.

Fair Market Value Of Shares Determined By Statutory Methods Can't Be Rejected By Income Tax Department: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: The PR. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 114

The Karnataka High Court stated that fair market value of shares determined by statutory methods can't be rejected by the income tax department.

The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar was addressing a case where the revenue has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal where the Tribunal held that the valuation report on DCF Method produced during assessment proceedings was a valid report justifying valuation of shares.

Assessees Claim For ITC Cannot Be Denied For Being Disadvantageous To State Exchequer: Karnataka HC Clarifies Principles On Input Tax Credit Claims

Case Title: The State Of Karnataka v. Tractor And Farm Equipment Limited

Case Number: STRP NO.26 OF 2023

CItation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 115

The Karnataka High Court while laying down vital guidelines on Input Tax Credit stated that if the Assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings makes a claim for Input Tax Credit, the same cannot be disallowed only on the ground that the claim of the Assessee is disadvantageous to the State Exchequer.

The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and G. Basavaraja observed that ordinarily, the claim for Input Tax Credit has to be made in the Return or Revised Return only. A claim otherwise is an exception and bona fide of the same has to be demonstrated.

Leave Encashment Is A Constitutional Property Right; It Cannot Be Denied Without Specific Statutory Authority: Karnataka HC

Case Title: G. Linganagouda v. General Manager, Karnataka Gramina Bank

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.100339 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 116

Karnataka High Court: A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna declared that an employee dismissed from service is entitled to leave encashment, as it constitutes a property right under Article 300A of the Constitution. The court held that the Karnataka Gramina Bank refusing to pay leave encashment to a dismissed employee was illegal. It emphasized that once earned, terminal benefits including leave encashment become the employee's property. Thus, they cannot be withheld arbitrarily. Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the bank to encash the petitioner's privilege leave.