Latest Karnataka Hc updates from LegalRepublic.in.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal exclusion of comparables from a transfer pricing set, including a company whose merger produced super profits that would skew the mean. It found no substantial question of law on the remaining questions after the Supreme Court remand in SAP Labs.
A division bench set aside the 2023 notification creating an additional committee under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, holding that a Tahsildar affidavit filed nearly three years later cannot show the State formed the required opinion, and told the State to frame criteria for choosing its chairmen.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities had no power under Sections 61 and 62 of the 1995 Act to order the Mandya Urban Development Authority to hand a reserved site to a man who had only registered and never applied against a notification, while fixing the reservation for persons with disabilities at 2 per cen
A division bench led by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru upheld the Tribunal decision to drop eight companies, including Infosys, Wipro and Tata Elxsi, from the transfer pricing benchmark for Logica Private Ltd for assessment year 2007-08, and backed a 15 per cent related-party filter, holding that size and brand change margins and that none of the Revenue questio
Justice T.M. Nadaf at the Dharwad Bench quashed the Town Municipal Council auction notification of 6 October 2026 so far as 11 petitioners shops are concerned, holding that a municipality cannot sidestep the Public Premises Act by auctioning premises still occupied by its old licensees. The shopkeepers must clear their rent within two weeks or lose the order
A Division Bench of Justice D. K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan held that the Special Land Acquisition Officer did weigh the Devanahalli alternative, that his Section 5A report binds nobody, and that a Section 6 declaration needs neither recited reasons nor a separate prior order. The Naganathapura landowners lose the 2025 quashing.
Justices Anu Sivaraman and T. P. Vivekananda set aside both the Deputy Commissioner arbitral award that raised compensation for Ramashettihalli land to the Edenahalli rate and the District Court order that quashed it, holding that neither could stand and that Section 37 does not let the court fix the value itself.
Justices D.K. Singh and T.M. Nadaf set aside the DRT and DRAT orders and the Recovery Officer's attachment, holding a personal guarantee creates no proprietary security over unlisted assets and no security at all over jointly held shares.
A hotel ledger, a set of recoveries and a father who admitted he never saw the knives. The Karnataka High Court finds no error in an acquittal in a murder case built on circumstances.
A Division Bench of Justices R Devdas and K Manmadha Rao quashed six Tribunal orders and directed the Transport Commissioner to issue appointment orders within two months.
Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan distinguish disciplinary dismissal from cessation of entitlement for want of a prescribed qualification, and make the institute pay for appointing an ineligible teacher.
Justice H.P. Sandesh quashes the summons in a software-copying complaint because the company was never arraigned, and lays down six propositions on what a Magistrate must do when a 'B' report is filed.
The contract said the employer would not be liable for overheads and profits whatever the cause of delay. Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha hold an arbitrator may interpret that clause but cannot neutralise it.
Land acquired for an Air Force station in 1943, a decree for specific performance in 2008, and a sale deed executed by a court commissioner in 2015. The Karnataka High Court restores the revenue authorities' orders.
The same two judges, on the same day, upheld one detention under the same Act and quashed this one. The difference is what the State did with the ordinary law before reaching for the extraordinary.
A writ court cannot sit as an appellate authority over a detaining officer's satisfaction. It can only ask whether the relevant material was considered — and the Karnataka High Court finds that it was.
Thirty-nine years after the first notification, the Karnataka High Court has set aside a Single Judge's order quashing the acquisition of about an acre and a half next to a DRDO artificial intelligence laboratory in Bengaluru.
A permanent employee's explanation was noticed and rejected, the notice for a departmental enquiry was issued but never acted on, and his own admission was treated as proof. The High Court orders reinstatement pending a proper proceeding.
A Tribunal had allowed dependants who joined on one post to seek appointment on a higher one. The Karnataka High Court quashes those orders, on a rule the Supreme Court settled for exactly this situation.
The criminal court found the trap witnesses contradicted each other and acquitted him. The department, working from the same complaint and the same evidence, compulsorily retired him and docked a quarter of his pension for life.
The State cleared an IT park, took forty per cent of the acquisition cost from the company, notified the land, then accepted the landowners' objections and dropped it. Twenty-two years later the Division Bench has priced the delay.
Refusing to interdict proceedings over Rs 927 crore collected from 1,351 homebuyers, the Court holds a complex web of transactions cannot be examined microscopically at the threshold.
The Revenue cannot use Section 263 to reopen a refund processed under Section 143(1), the Court holds, because the intimation that allowed it is not an order at all.
Using the power to modify recognised in Gayatri Balaswamy, a Division Bench ties the higher rate to the period the claimants were actually repaying their loans.
