Karnataka High Court Annual Digest 2025: Part 1 [Citations 1 - 225]

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 1 To 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 225When Investigation Is Substantially Completed By Improper Officer, SCN Issued U/S 74 Of CGST Act Is Liable To Be Set Aside: Karnataka HCCase Title: M/s Vigneshwara Transport Company v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru North-West CommissionerateCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO.18305 OF 2023 (T-RES)Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 1The 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…..”Children/Third Parties Cannot Appeal Against Maintenance Order Passed Under Parents & Senior Citizens Act: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: K Lokesh AND THE BANGALORE DISTRICT MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & OthersCase No: WRIT APPEAL No. 254 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 2The 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.”Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL Against Re-Modeling Of Bengaluru's Gandhi Bazaar, Says It's For Larger Public ConvenienceCase Title: Heritage Basavanagudi Residents Welfare Forum AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 5330 OF 2023Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 3The 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 completionA 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.”Karnataka High Court Upholds BDA's Land Acquisition Notifications For Construction Of Peripheral Ring Road Between Hosur And TumakurCase 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) 4The 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).”University Need Not Insist On +2 Passing Certificate To Determine Eligibility For 3-Yrs LLB Course If Student Produces First Degree: Karnataka HCCase Title: Rakesh Shetty AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO.31737 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 5The 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...

Karnataka High Court Annual Digest 2025: Part 1 [Citations 1 - 225]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags