Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: December 15 - December 21, 2025

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 Karnataka State Bar Council. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 429H P Rohini AND Joint Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 430Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 431M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 432M/s Pramur Homes and Shelters v. The Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 433Judgments/OrdersKarnataka High Court Grants Bail To Accused After Police Fail To Produce Him Before Magistrate For Extension Of RemandCase Title: CHARAN H V AND State of Karnataka & ANRCase No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2056 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 426The 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 CompensationCase Title: ABC AND THE CHAIRPERSON HOSPITAL BASED AUTHORIZATION COMMITTEE & ANRCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29161 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 427The 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 CourtCase Title: M/S SREE GURURAJA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S CIMEC ENTERPRISES ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 36643 OF 2018.Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 428While 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.”State Bar Council Must Re-register Lawyer Who Withdraws Surrender Of Sanath, Allow Right To Practice Profession: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: M A Hameed AND Karnataka State Bar CouncilCase No: WP 1949/2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 429The 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...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: December 15 - December 21, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

Tags