Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: January 1 To January 12, 2025

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 Children/Third Parties Cannot Appeal Against Maintenance Order Passed Under Parents & Senior Citizens Act: Karnataka High Court 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.” When Investigation Is Substantially Completed By Improper Officer, SCN Issued U/S 74 Of CGST Act Is Liable To Be Set Aside: Karnataka HC 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…..” Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL Against Re-Modeling Of Bengaluru's Gandhi Bazaar, Says It's For Larger Public Convenience 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.” Karnataka High Court Upholds BDA's Land Acquisition Notifications For Construction Of Peripheral Ring Road Between Hosur And Tumakur 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...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: January 1 To January 12, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

Tags