Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 426 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 433Nominal Index:CHARAN H V AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 426ABC AND THE CHAIRPERSON HOSPITAL BASED AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 427M/S SREE GURURAJA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S CIMEC ENTERPRISES ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 428M A Hameed AND...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 426 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 433
Nominal Index:
CHARAN H V AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 426
ABC AND THE CHAIRPERSON HOSPITAL BASED AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 427
M/S SREE GURURAJA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S CIMEC ENTERPRISES ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 428
M A Hameed AND Karnataka State Bar Council. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 429
H P Rohini AND Joint Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 430
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 431
M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 432
M/s Pramur Homes and Shelters v. The Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 433
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: CHARAN H V AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2056 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 426
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to an accused charged under provisions of the Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, after the police failed to produce him before the court for extension of his remand.
The accused was arrested on September 15, for commission of offences under sections 69, 89, 351(2) of BNSS-2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. On the next day he was remanded to judicial custody till 30.09.2025. However, on 30.09.2025, the trial court passed an order that the accused was not produced from judicial custody and to await final report list on 10.10.2025.
The petitioner argued that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jigar Alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2023) 6 SCC 484 wherein the court has observed that no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused in the custody of the Police unless the accused produced before him in-person. Since, the investigating Officer has not complied with the mandatory provisions of 187(4) of BNSS 2023, he should be granted bail.
Karnataka High Court Permits Doctor To Donate One Of Her Kidney's As Altruistic Donor Without Compensation
Case Title: ABC AND THE CHAIRPERSON HOSPITAL BASED AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29161 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 427
The Karnataka High Court has permitted a doctor to donate one of her kidneys to a deserving person as an “altruistic donor” without seeking any compensation of any nature.
The 58-year-old doctor had approached the court after her application to the Chairperson of the Hospital Based Authorization Committee, seeking permission for the donation, was rejected. The doctor submitted that she is not making any choice as regards who the donee has to be. The donee could be identified by the hospital concerned, and so long as all the tests and matches are made, the donor has no objection to donating one of her kidneys without compensation.
Judicial Officers May Err Sometimes, But Shouldn't Pass Inconsistent Orders: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/S SREE GURURAJA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S CIMEC ENTERPRISES ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 36643 OF 2018.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 428
While setting aside an order passed by the trial court staying proceedings in a suit filed for recovery of money, the Karnataka High Court held that while a judicial officer may err and pass illegal orders, he should not pass inconsistent orders which would undermine the faith of the general public in the institution.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said, “The courts while rendering judgments or passing interim orders should maintain consistency. Judicial discipline and propriety largely depends on such consistency and the purpose and object behind the same is to prevent discrimination and arbitrariness. Otherwise, there is scope of being accused of being partial, unfair and discriminatory.”
It added “A judicial officer may have a different view on a point for consideration, but on the same point in the same proceeding if an order is already passed earlier, he is bound to maintain consistency.”
Case Title: M A Hameed AND Karnataka State Bar Council
Case No: WP 1949/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 429
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday held that a member of the Karnataka State Bar Council who has surrendered his sanath/registration and after having received financial benefit as per the Advocate Welfare Fund Act, wishes to withdraw the surrender and seeks re-registration, then it would be duty of the KSBC to permit it.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “Non permitting the same would infringe the Fundamental Right of a citizen to practise his profession, in this case profession of law under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.”
The court held thus while allowing a petition filed by one M A Hameed who was a practising advocate who had practised for more than 25 years having registered himself with Karnataka State Bar Council. However, during Covid-19 pandemic, he had made an application for surrender of his sanath and requested for making a payment of the monies as provided under the Karnataka State Advocate Welfare Fund Act.
Case Title: H P Rohini AND Joint Secretary & Others
Case No: WPHC 47/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 430
The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed the petition filed by the mother of arrested Kannada actress Harshavardhini Ranya Rao, seeking to declare that her detention under COFEPOSA, as illegal and void-ab initio.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the petition. The court had on December 1, reserved its judgment on the petition after hearing the parties.
The detention order was passed while the accused was in judicial custody after being arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on allegations of smuggling gold and booked for offences u/s 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b), 135 (1)(a)(i)(a) 135(1)(a)(i)(b), 135(1)(b)(i)(a), 135(1)(b)(i)(b) of the Customs Act. On April 26, the court had rejected her bail plea.
Case Title: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 22377 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 431
The Karnataka High Court held that bona fide errors in GSTR-3B returns are rectifiable and cannot be a ground to initiate proceedings under Section 73 of the KGST /CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) Act.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar directed the department to accept the revised returns, noting that the Supreme Court has also directed the CBIC to re-examine the provisions/timelines fixed for correcting the bona fide errors.
Case Title: M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.6126 OF 2024 (T-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 432
The Karnataka High Court held that for the purpose of determining the place of supply under Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act, the factor is the location where the movement of goods terminates for delivery to the recipient and not the place where the goods are handed over to the common carrier.
Section 10(1)(a) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017, provides that the place of supply for goods that are moved, whether by the supplier, recipient, or another party, is the location where the movement of goods concludes for delivery to the recipient.
Justice S. R. Krishna Kumar stated that the assessee had not handed over the goods to the common carrier for the purpose of delivery to the ultimate destination; the liability to pay IGST under Section 10(1)(a) would arise only upon the movement of the goods terminating for delivery to the recipient at various places outside Karnataka. Undisputedly, the supply of goods is inter-State supply and not intra-State supply so as to attract CGST or KGST.
Case Title: M/s Pramur Homes and Shelters v. The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 33081 OF 2025 (T-RES)
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 433
The Karnataka High Court held that issuing a consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act.
The bench opined that a composite notice for multiple financial years enables the Department to blur the statutory distinction between Section 73 (non-fraud, etc.,- 3 year limitation) and Section 74 (fraud etc., - 5 year limitation). If certain years fall under Section 73, but the entire block is treated under Section 74, the authority artificially extends limitation and bypasses mandatory statutory constraints and if such a course is permitted it clearly tantamounts to a colorable exercise of power which is impermissible in law.