Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 133 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 140Nominal Index: SRI JAGADGURU BASAVA JAYMRITYUNJAY SWAMIJI & others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 133Mahalaxmi AND Karnataka Public Service Commission & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 134S Basavaraj AND Bar Council of India & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 135H T Umesh & Others AND State of Karnataka...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 133 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
Nominal Index:
SRI JAGADGURU BASAVA JAYMRITYUNJAY SWAMIJI & others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
Mahalaxmi AND Karnataka Public Service Commission & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
S Basavaraj AND Bar Council of India & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
H T Umesh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
State of Karnataka AND B G Prakash Kumar & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
Amit Garg AND Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
The Union Of India and Anr. Versus Sri. Kothari Subbaraju. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
M/s Fortious Infradevelopers LLP V. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
Judgements/Orders
Case Title: SRI JAGADGURU BASAVA JAYMRITYUNJAY SWAMIJI & others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.107792 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to constitute a Commission of Inquiry headed by a retired Judge of the High Court, into the police action (lathi charge) taken on 10-12-2024 at Suvarna Soudha, Belagavi, against the petitioners and several others who are said to have held a peaceful protest demanding reservation for the Panchamasali Community.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Sri Jagadguru Basava Jaymrityunjay Swamiji and others. He said, “The respondents/State to constitute a Commission of Inquiry in terms of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 on the subject matter and the appointed Commission of Inquiry should be single member or a multi member headed by a retired Judge of this Court. The Commission of Inquiry so appointed shall submit its report within three months of such appointment.”
Case Title: Mahalaxmi AND Karnataka Public Service Commission & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.201012 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
Coming to the aid of a pregnant woman, the Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) to conduct the main examination for the woman at Kalaburagi rather than the allotted centres, owing to her advanced stage of pregnancy.
The designated centres for the main exam for the Group-A post are Bengaluru and Dharwad. However, due to her pregnancy, the petitioner prayed to allow her to take the exam at her residency city in Kalaburagi.
Finding justifiable grounds in the woman's petition, Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha was not impressed with KPSC's arguments that it could not conduct the exam at Kalaburgi for the convenience of a single candidate.
Case Title: S Basavaraj AND Bar Council of India & ANR
Case No: WP 24962/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday quashed a resolution passed by the Bar Council of India (BCI), placing Senior Advocate S Basavaraj under interim suspension. The resolution was earlier stayed by the High court by way of an interim order.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Basavaraj and said, “It needs to be noticed that BCI has passed the impugned resolution on the revision petition and the R2 (Complainant-Surya Mukundraj) today wants to withdraw the revision petition filed before the BCI and before this court as well. Therefore, the foundation on which the BCI has passed the resolution has itself today tumbled down.”
It added, “In that light the BCI cannot now contend that it wants to continue the proceedings notwithstanding there being nothing before it as the revision petitioner himself has withdrawn the revision petition and is before this court. In that light nothing further survives for BCI to further consider.”
Case Title: H T Umesh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 2906 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
The Karnataka High Court has held that lecturers, assistant professors or associate professors bear jural relationship with the University and since they do not discharge any public function, their post cannot be characterized as 'public office' for invoking the writ of Quo Warranto.
Writ of Quo Warranto can be issued where the person holding public office does not meet the eligibility criteria or when the appointment was contrary to the statutory rules.
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND B G Prakash Kumar & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.975/2024, and others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an order passed by the trial court by which it discharged several engineers (present and former) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), and contractors in the cases registered against them about irregularities in the works conducted during 2005 and 2012.
Justice H P Sandesh allowed the petition filed by the state government and set aside the order passed in 115 petitions, discharging around 450 people.
The bench said “The order passed by the Trial Court in all the cases are set aside. The matters are remitted back to the Trial Court to consider the matter afresh in view of the observations made by this Court on merits. The Trial Court is directed to consider the sanction order given by the State to continue the proceedings against the accused where the proceedings have already been quashed by giving liberty to file sanction order and continue to proceed against them from the stage of taking cognizance.”
Case Title: Amit Garg AND Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 34471 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
The Karnataka High Court has said that maintainability of a complaint cannot be decided by the Registry of Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, (KRERA) it can only be decided by the Authority and the members of RERA.
The court said thus while allowing a petition filed by one Amit Garg who had approached the court calling in question an order communicated by way of electronic mail on 23.09.2024 by the Karnataka RERA's Registry, rejecting his complaint against a developer.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “This power with the Registry is unavailable, as the complaint ought to be placed before the RERA Authority and the members of RERA will have to decide on the maintainability of the complaint. If the Registry of RERA is terminating the proceedings in the manner that it has done now, it would be an act without jurisdiction. Therefore, this a matter which is to be viewed seriously by the members of the RERA. The powers of adjudication even with regard to maintainability is not conferred upon the Registry by the statute. That being so, the electronic mail that is communicated, terminating the proceedings, is on the face of it illegal".
Awarded Amount Cannot Be Enhanced Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title:The Union Of India and Anr. Versus Sri. Kothari Subbaraju
Case Number: MFA No. 6525 Of 2016
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
The Karnataka High Court bench of Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar has held that the District Judge, while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), is not empowered to increase the amount awarded by the Arbitrator. The findings of the Arbitrator with respect to the awarded amount can only be set aside if they contravene any of the grounds specified under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act; however, the awarded amount cannot be either decreased or increased.
Value Of Land Under Works Contract Is Not Exigible To VAT: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Fortious Infradevelopers LLP V. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Case Number: SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
The Karnataka High Court stated that the value of land under works contract is not exigible to VAT.
The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar was addressing the issue of whether levying tax on receipt for land cost i.e., immovable property, which does not constitute consideration for works contract under Composition Scheme of KVAT is sustainable.