Nominal Index [Citations 1 - 10]: K Lokesh AND THE BANGALORE DISTRICT MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 1 M/s Vigneshwara Transport Company v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru North-West Commissionerate. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 2 Heritage Basavanagudi...
Nominal Index [Citations 1 - 10]:
K Lokesh AND THE BANGALORE DISTRICT MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
M/s Vigneshwara Transport Company v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru North-West Commissionerate. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
Heritage Basavanagudi Residents Welfare Forum AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
Vanitha M AND The Bangalore Development Authority & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
Rakesh Shetty AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
Muthoot Finance Limited AND State Of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
Brindavan Hydropower Private Limited AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
KARNATAKA FEDERATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS & ANR v. State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
Organisation for Unaided Recognised Schools & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
Bowring Institute AND Sarwik S and Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: K Lokesh AND THE BANGALORE DISTRICT MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No. 254 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
The Karnataka High Court has held that the right of appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, is only available to senior citizens and parents and no such right is extended to children or third parties.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while partly allowing an appeal filed by K Lokesh. The court said “The only reasonable interpretation of Section 16 of the Act is that the right of appeal is vested exclusively in senior citizens or parents, and not in any other individuals, including children or transferees.”
Case Title: M/s Vigneshwara Transport Company v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru North-West Commissionerate
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.18305 OF 2023 (T-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
The Karnataka High Court held that when investigation is substantially completed by improper officer, show cause notice issued by proper officer u/s 74 of CGST Act is liable to be set aside.
The Bench of Justice M.I. Arun observed that “…..substantial part of the investigation including search and seizure of the materials has been done by respondent no.2 who is not the proper Officer and under the circumstances, the said investigation, inspection, search and seizure in respect of the assessee herein has to be considered ab initio void…..”
Case Title: Heritage Basavanagudi Residents Welfare Forum AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 5330 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to stop the Gandhi Bazaar Market Street Redesign project which is at the final stage of completion
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by Heritage Basavanagudi Residents Welfare Forum and said “The Gandhi Bazaar Market Street Redesign project is for better convenience of the public, maintenance of traffic movement, to give better facility to the street vendors and to provide the access to the vehicles.”
Case Title: Vanitha M AND The Bangalore Development Authority & Others.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.61154 of 2014 (LA-BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NOS.50948 OF 2016, 14510 OF 2018, 1201 OF 2020, 8235 OF 2021 & 26090 OF 2022.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the notifications issued by the Bangalore Development Authority to acquire land for construction of Peripheral Ring Road-II, between Hosur-Mysore Road and Tumakur Road.
Single judge Justice E S Indiresh upheld the Preliminary as well as the Final Notifications issued in 2005 and 2011 respectively, under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
It said, “I am of the view that, as the respondent-BDA has laid road in Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II) for more than 80% of the project and as such, taking into consideration the difficulties arises in respect of the construction of metro station, service road to enable the nearby habitants to reach main roads as well as taking necessary precaution of the safety of the vehicles and public in general, I am of the view that, no interference be called for in respect of the quashing the impugned notifications issued by the respondent-authorities for the purpose of formation of Peripheral Ring Road (Part-II).”
Case Title: Rakesh Shetty AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.31737 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
The Karnataka High Court has said that the question of considering Higher Secondary (10+2) pass certificate for admission to LLB course would be irrelevant so long as the candidates were to have a First degree issued by any recognised University.
A single judge Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing the petition filed by one Rakesh Shetty and said “In respect of proviso to Rule 5, (Bar Council Rules) the question of considering equivalency of JOC (Job oriented Course) with +2 would not be relevant, since the petitioner holds a B.Com degree, which being a First Degree was sufficient for the University to consider for issuance of eligibility certificate."
Case Title: Muthoot Finance Limited AND State Of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 36201 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
The Karnataka High Court has requested the Law Commission, Karnataka to formulate necessary guidelines/rules in respect of stolen gold being pledged with gold finance companies, the implication of pledging such stolen gold and the procedure for dealing with it when criminal proceedings are initiated.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that there are innumerable matters coming up before this court where stolen gold is pledged with a gold finance company.
Case Title: Brindavan Hydropower Private Limited AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11235 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 22770 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 23729 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 24270 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 28604 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 28659 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 29091 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 1117 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 6100 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 15429 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 15626 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 15805 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 17475 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 19035 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) WRIT PETITION NO. 19665 OF 2024 (GM-KEB
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
The Karnataka High Court has struck down the Electricity (Promoting Renewable Energy Through Green Energy Open Access) Rules 2022 framed by the Central Government for generation, purchase and consumption of green energy i.e., electrical energy from renewable sources of energy.
A single judge, Justice N S Sanjay Gowda observed that the Centre lacks power under Electricity, 2003 Act to frame the Green Energy Open Access (GEOA) Rules since the statute specifically conferred such power on the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC).
Case Title: KARNATAKA FEDERATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS & ANR v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 123/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
The Karnataka High Court today (08 May) orally expressed support towards reservation of seats for women in the Governing Council of Advocates' Association Bengaluru.
Justice R Devdas however declined a plea moved by the women members of the Bar Association and Federation of Women Lawyers in this regard, stating that only the Supreme Court can pass such orders.
"All of us are one with you that reservation is to be given but it has to be in accordance with law...If you put across this request from the side of women advocates then appropriate decision would be taken. This court will not be able to pass any such order, approach the Supreme Court...extra ordinary powers available to SC not with us," the Judge orally observed during the hearing.
Case Title: Organisation for Unaided Recognised Schools & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.23653 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a Circular issued by the Department of Education requiring private schools, amongst others, to obtain and furnish a structural stability certificate and sanction plan relating to the building where the school was being run, along with fire safety requirements/facilities for such schools.
The court passed the order after noting that the circular only required that the school building's structure be stable especially when young children cannot be easily trained in respect of any disaster or emergency issue which could arise.
Case Title: Bowring Institute AND Sarwik S and Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7641/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that before granting an ad-interim temporary injunction without notice to the opposite party, the trial court must assign reasons on whether the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay.
Justice H P Sandesh, said, “The word used in Order 39 Rule 3 (Civil Procedure Code) is the court shall exercise the discretion and when the statue itself requires reasons to be recorded, the Court cannot ignore that requirement by saying that if reasons are recorded, it may amount to expressing an opinion in favour of the plaintiff before hearing the defendant.”