Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 09
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 200 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
Nominal Index:
Karavali Bus Owners Association & Others AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
Taha Husain AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 201.
A V Poojappa AND Dr S K Vagadevi. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
M/S SAPTHAGIRI SHELTERS AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
Manjunath V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Karavali Bus Owners Association & Others AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9159 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 200.
The Karnataka High Court directed the Union Ministry of Surface Transport, to undertake a review of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and insert appropriate clarificatory definitions, to address the evolving complexities of vehicular classifications and toll collection.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The legislative framework especially the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calls for a re-examination, qua the description of vehicles. The Union Ministry of Surface Transport, would do well to undertake a review and insert appropriate clarificatory definitions to address the evolving complexities of vehicular classifications and toll collections.”
The direction was issued after the court noted that while the Motor Vehicles Act defines classes of vehicles for regulatory purposes, toll classification is governed solely by the National Highways Act, the Fee Rules and the Concessionaire agreement.
Case Title: Taha Husain AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 12290/2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 201.
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday quashed proceedings initiated against a man accused of wrongfully holding a cat named Daisy belonging to the complainant, in his house.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Taha Husain who was charged for offences punishable under Sections 504(Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506(Punishment for criminal intimidation) and 509(Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the IPC on the complaint made by one Nikitha Anjana Iyer.
The petitioner had moved the high court seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.13477/2022, pending before the IV ACJ and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru.
Case Title: A V Poojappa AND Dr S K Vagadevi
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.13 OF 2020
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
The Karnataka High Court has laid down guidelines for trial and sessions courts to keep in mind while fixing fine amounts on a convict in cheque dishonour cases, under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: M/S SAPTHAGIRI SHELTERS AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 23086/2022 with connected matters.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
The Karnataka High Court has quashed and set aside the amendments brought into the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 in 2021 and 2023, allowing the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to collect fees and penalties at the time of sanctioning building plans.
Justice R Devdas partly allowed petitions filed by residents and builders challenging the amendments brought in by the State and the subsequent demand made by the BBMP.
“The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), is hereby quashed and set aside. The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024), is hereby quashed and set aside,” the Court ordered.
Case Title: Manjunath V & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.33819 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
In another matter involving a feline, the Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of cruelty by his wife.
Earlier in its December 2024 interim order the court while staying the probe, had observed that the complaint was a narration of marriage and living together but the crux of the allegation is foundationed upon the squabble regarding the pet cat; it had then said that the allegation i that the husband takes care of the cat more than the wife. The wife after receiving notice moved a plea to vacate the stay and also filed her objections; the matter was thereafter heard.
After hearing the parties, Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order on going through the entire complaint noted that a particular paragraph in the complaint is dedicated to the pet cat in the house “which always used to cause hurt to the wife”.
