Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: September 08
<
div>Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 299 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Nominal Index:
Mrs Maheshwari M AND State of Karnataka & &Others 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited AND Malathi B & & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
SRI HONNESHWARASWAMY DEVASTHANA JEERNODHARA SEVA SAMITHI COUNT ON (R) AND State of Karnataka & &Others 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
Chandrappa AND State of Karnataka & & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
Sunil H Bohra & & Others AND Assistant Commissioner &Others 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
State Bank ofIndia AND M/s Swait Agencies & &Others 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
Vikas Kumar S J AND State ofKarnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar &) 305
Judgments/Orders
Case Title M AND Mrs Maheshwari ofState &Karnataka: WPHC NO. 81 OF 2025 Others
Case No: 2025 LiveLaw (
Citation No) 299Kar has actually enforced an expense of
The Karnataka High Court 2 lakh on a 72-year-old female for submitting a habeas corpus application with a hidden agenda to retaliate versus the cops, after being disappointed with the probe performed by the cops on a problem provided by her.
A department bench of Rs and Justice Anu Sivaraman K while disregarding the application submitted by Justice Rajesh Rai M statedMaheshwari
< a href=”“We are of the view that in order to curb frivolous and malicious invocation of habeas corpus to protect the judicial process, it is necessary to impose punitive costs on such litigants. In that view of the matter, we dismiss this petition by imposing costs of Rs.2,00,000 on the petitioner who has approached this Court with unclean hands by suppression of facts.”: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/karnataka-high-court-withholding-retiral-benefits-and-disciplinary-proceedings-against-employee-303318″>Pensionary Benefits Can’t Be Withheld Indefinitely On Account Of Possible Disciplinary Proceedings In Future: Karnataka High Court
Case Title AND Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited B & & ANRMalathi: WRIT ALLURE NO. 1577 OF 2024.
Case No: 2025 LiveLaw (
Citation No) 300Kar has actually stated that pensionary and retiral advantages of a previous worker can not be held back forever therefore a feasible corrective procedures on a future day.
A department bench of
The Karnataka High Court and Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru C M Justice held therefore while disregarding allure by Joshi versus solitary court’s order guiding the firm to pay all retired life advantages– death-cum-retirement gratuity, privilege for leave encashment advantage and various other pensionary advantages together with rate of interest from the day of retired life to one Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited B. Malathi the bench stated.
“We are not persuaded to accept that the pensionary and retiral benefits of respondent No.1 could be withheld indefinitely on account of a possible disciplinary proceedings at a future date,“-Will Withdraw Notice Banning Eating Of Non: Veg Food Around Sri Honneshwara Deity Temple: SRI HONNESHWARASWAMY DEVASTHANA JEERNODHARA SEVA SAMITHI COUNT ON (R) AND State Tells Karnataka High Court
Case Title of State & &Karnataka: WP 25313/2025Others
Case No: 2025 LiveLaw (
Citation No) 301Kar federal government notified the
The Karnataka on High Court that it Wednesday a notification released by the worried administrative cops specifying not to compromise pets and take in non-vegetarian food around the districts of “will withdraw notice” holy place situated in Sri Honneshwara Deity in Shivanagere Village area.
Tumakuru state federal government stated that it would certainly provide a fresh notification within a week,The
“limiting it only to sacrifice of animals” B M Justice as necessary disposed of a Shyam Prasad application submitted by the (R)Honneshwaraswamy Devasthana Jeernodhara Seva Samithi Trust had actually tested the notification released to it by the cops dated 13, 2024 specifying that no person ought to compromise or take in meat for a location around 200 meters from the holy place.
Case Title AND Chandrappa of State & & ANRKarnataka: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2025
Case No: 2025 LiveLaw (
Citation No) 302Kar lately observed that the act of sexual offense on a small woman by a family man is inexcusable and needs to be checked out purely, not just in order to bring back the self-confidence psychological of kids and ladies, yet additionally to send out a solid signal to culture at big.
The Karnataka High Court held, It’“It is noticed here that, the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and she is so susceptible to persons like appellant, for the purpose of exploitation. Hence, it is high time to send a strong signal to the society at large to be more vigilant on women and children belonging to weaker sections of the society.”
Case Title H Sunil & & Bohra AND Others &Assistant Commissioner: WRIT REQUEST Others
Case No.13448 OF 2021No: 2025 LiveLaw (
Citation No) 303 Kar has actually suggested to the
The Karnataka High Court to take another look at Union Government 9 of the(* )andSection of Maintenance andWelfare, 2007, which suggests a ceiling of (* )10,000 which can be gotten to be paid as upkeep to seniors by theParents
Senior Citizens Act M Rs stated Tribunal additionally said, Justice S. 14 SARFAESI Nagaprasanna|“This Court deems it fit to recommend, with earnestness that the Union revisit Section 9 and revise the ceiling in tune with the cost of living index, so that the Act may not be reduced to a hollow promise, but remain a living guarantee of dignity in old age, as the Nation’s wealth is not measured by its material progress, but by the welfare of the child and the care of the elderly-old.”
It: “The Court laments of neglected elders and resonates as a clarion call to the legislature that the aged must not be abandoned to indignity, that maintenance must match reality and the twilight of life must not be shadowed by want, but illuminated by care.”
Case Title & &State Bank: WRIT REQUEST NO. 105775 OF 2025India: 2025 LiveLaw (Swait Agencies) 304Others
Case No has actually stated that when the building is stated to be a safeguarded building (safeguarded possession), it would certainly undergo
Citation No and Kar of
The Karnataka High Court and Securitisation of Reconstruction (SARFAESI) and can not be made based on civil liberties of any kind of 3rd parties.
Financial Assets court stated that anybody having any kind of rate of interest in the safe rate of interest can not perturb that case prior to the magistrate working out powers under Enforcement 14, yet he needs to make use treatment under Security Interest Act 17 by submitting allure prior to theThe
Section IAF Section: Debts Recovery Tribunal S J AND Karnataka High Court Quashes Attempt To Murder Case Against of Officer Involved In Road Rage Incident
Case Title & & ANRVikas Kumar: CRIMINAL REQUEST NO. 12352 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL REQUEST NO. 6267 OF 2025.State: 2025 LiveLaw (Karnataka) 305
Case No lately suppressed an effort to murder instance signed up versus an
Citation No, that was associated with a roadway craze battle with a phone call centre worker inKar
The Karnataka High Court the video clip of the battle in between the implicated Indian Air Force Officer and one Bengaluru S J had actually gone viral on social media sites. Notably based upon the problem submitted by Shiladitya Bose better half Vikas Kumar, that is an armada leader and was driving the automobile when the occurrence happened the Initially cops, detained Bose’s under areas 115( 2 ), 116( H), 117( 1 ), 118( 1 ), 126( 2 ), 3( 5 ), 324, 351, 352 OF BNS 2023.
Madhumita, acting upon cross problem submitted by Byappanahalli and on experiencing the CCTv video the cops had actually signed up the instance versus the Kumar policeman under
However 109 (effort to murder), 115( 2) (willingly creating pain), 304 (snagging for burglary), 324 (criminal activity of mischievousness), 352 (deliberate disrespect with an intent to prompt violation of tranquility. Kumar after the occurrence Air Force had actually uploaded a video clip on social media sites declaring he was attacked and vocally abused by a male in a roadway craze occurrence in Sections, apparently declaring that the bicycle rider attacked him for not talking Soon.Bose
