Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 29
Quotation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 221 to Quotation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 225.
Nominal Index:
Sriramulu AND U Ravi Rao & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
Rachappa Satish Kumar & ANR AND M/s Eaglesight Media Personal Restricted & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 222.
B S Gupta AND The Commissioner & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
Devibai AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
Ranjith Balkrishnan AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Sriramulu AND U Ravi Rao & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3281 OF 2025
Quotation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
The Karnataka Excessive Court docket has stated {that a} caretaker of the property continues in possession of the property solely on behalf of the house owners and can’t be held to have acquired any curiosity within the property and is underneath an obligation to handover possession to the defendants on demand.
Justice C M Poonacha held thus whereas dismissing an attraction filed by one Sriramulu who had challenged the order of the trial courtroom rejecting his utility searching for a brief injunction in opposition to the defendants from interfering in his possession and likewise restrain them from alienating the go well with property.
The bench stated “The Trial Court docket having appreciated the related factual matrix and having rejected the applying filed for injunction by the plaintiff, the appellant has failed in demonstrating that the stated order is in any method faulty and liable to be interfered with by this Court docket within the current attraction.”
Case Title: Rachappa Satish Kumar & ANR AND M/s Eaglesight Media Personal Restricted & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13365 OF 2025
Quotation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 222.
The Karnataka Excessive Court docket has stated that orders of non permanent injunctions may be granted solely in opposition to those that are made defendants within the go well with and restraining orders in opposition to third events who will not be made events to the go well with can’t be granted.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus whereas permitting a petition filed by journalist Rachappa Sathish Kumar and M/s Btv Kannada Personal Restricted who had challenged an ex-parte non permanent injunction order handed by the Metropolis Civil and Periods Court docket whereby it directed blocking of Btv Kannada’s social media web page in April this 12 months by all social media platforms.
Case Title: B S Gupta AND The Commissioner & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 46688 OF 2017
Quotation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
The Karnataka Excessive Court docket has put aside an commercial tax demand discover issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to an academic establishment for displaying non-commercial signage and boards by itself property.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus whereas permitting the petition filed by BS Gupta, Secretary of Gupta Training Belief, who had challenged the legality/validity of the order issued by BBMP, underneath Part 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Company Act, 1976.
The courtroom stated “This Court docket is of the view that energy to levy commercial tax underneath Part 134 of the Act have to be strictly confined to shows that fall inside the statutory definition of commercial underneath the above stated part, which necessitates a industrial or promotional character. The signage in query or hoardings being a non-commercial institutional identifier doesn’t meet this threshold.”
Case Title: Devibai AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200940 OF 2025
Quotation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
The Karnataka Excessive courtroom has stated that in absence of any violation of bail circumstances, the order of Periods Court docket granting bail to an accused can’t be sought to be cancelled earlier than the Excessive Court docket by submitting an utility underneath Part 483(3) of BNSS, 2023.
A Single decide, Justice V Srishananda held thus whereas dismissing the petition filed by the mom of a rape sufferer, difficult grant of bail to the accused charged underneath provisions of Safety of Youngsters from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). It was her case that grant of bail for such a severe offence had resulted in miscarriage of justice.
The courtroom stated “Although concurrent powers vested on this Court docket together with the Particular Court docket or the Periods Court docket to grant or cancel the bail, the applying searching for cancellation of bail shall not be construed as whether it is an attraction over the order of grant of bail. Even in BNSS, 2023, no such provision is carved out by the legislature in order to vest the ability of both revision or attraction over the discretionary order of grant of bail.”
Karnataka High Court Quashes Man’s Sexual Assault Complaint Against Malayalam Film Director Ranjith
Case Title: Ranjith Balkrishnan AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 32231/2024
Quotation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
The Karnataka Excessive Court docket on Friday quashed the legal case filed by a person in opposition to Malayalam movie director Ranjith Balkrishnan alleging sexual harassment.
A single decide bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petition and quashed the case registered for offences underneath Part 377 (unnatural intercourse) of the Indian Penal Code and Part 66E of the Info Know-how Act, 2000.
The complainant, claiming to be an aspiring actor, alleged that he was referred to as into the lodge room in Bangalore by Ranjith and was subjected to sexual harassment.
