Karnataka High Court
Flat Owners Can't Restrict Common Facility Access When Sale Deed Allows Sharing: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court on 9 July held that flat owners cannot claim exclusive rights over common amenities where the registered sale deed permits residents of different phases of a housing project to share such facilities. A Division Bench of Justices Jayant Banerji and Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed the appeal filed by the owners of a flat in the “Arya Hamsa” project and upheld the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Appellate Tribunal orders allowing residents of the neighbouring...
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Order In Commercial Disparagement Suit, Says It Was 'Bereft Of Reasons'
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a commercial court's order refusing to reject a plaint in a commercial disparagement suit, observing that the order was "bereft of reasons."Justice Lalitha Kanneganti was hearing a writ petition filed by PARE Innovations Private Limited challenging an order of the Bengaluru Commercial Court dated April 15, 2026.Vox Building Products Private Limited and Vox Interior and Exterior Solutions Private Limited had filed the underlying suit seeking a permanent...
Foreign Seat Of Arbitration Alone Doesn't Oust Indian Courts' Jurisdiction To Grant Interim Relief: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that merely choosing a foreign seat of arbitration does not, by itself, prevent Indian courts from granting interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It observed that excluding the jurisdiction of Indian courts requires an express agreement between the parties.Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed, "Therefore, mere existence of an arbitration clause providing place of arbitration outside India itself cannot be construed as ''an...
IOCL Can't Retain Security Deposit For Alleged VAT Loss Without Contractual Basis: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court on 8 July held that a contractee cannot retain a contractor's security deposit indefinitely to recover an alleged VAT-related loss unless it proves a contractual breach, actual loss suffered, and its right under the contract to recover the amount. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha allowed the appeal filed by BSR Infratech India, set aside the Commercial Court's judgment upholding Indian Oil Corporation's deduction, and...
Karnataka High Court Rules Secret Commission Claims Need Evidence, Upholds ₹53.48 Lakh Disallowance
The Karnataka High Court on 9 July held that a taxpayer cannot claim deduction for alleged secret commission payments as business promotion expenditure without proving the claim through adequate evidence, and upheld the disallowance of Rs. 53.48 lakh claimed as a business deduction. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K.M. Manmadha Rao dismissed Rampur Arvind's (taxpayer) appeal and upheld the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the...
Karnataka High Court Quashes Temporary Injunction Against Areca Nut Dehusking Machine Maker In Patent Suit
The Karnataka High court has set aside an ex parte ad interim injunction that had barred Priya Industries from making or selling an areca nut dehusking machine allegedly infringing a patent held by V-Tech Engineers.The court found that the Commercial Court had granted the injunction without analysing either the patent claims or whether Priya Industries' machine actually infringed them."We find that the impugned order is not sustainable, as it does not clearly set out the reasons for arriving at...
GST Cannot Be Deducted From Compensation For Compulsory Land Acquisition: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed the deduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) from compensation awarded for compulsory acquisition of land, holding that such acquisition is not a "supply of goods or services" under the GST law."An immovable property cannot at any stretch of imagination is construed as goods. Therefore, there is neither supply of goods nor services, but an expropriation of the property of a citizen using statutory power. The petitioner has neither sold any goods nor...
Supreme Court Alone Can Decide Replacement Of Arbitrator It Appointed: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that once the Supreme Court appoints an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, any issue arising later that affects the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, including the arbitrator's recusal, withdrawal or substitution, can be decided only by the Supreme Court.A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, "The appointment of the Arbitrator was not by the institutional mechanism of SIAC or from any consensual...
Karnataka High Court Clears Release Of 'BOSS' Movie, Rejects Darshan's Plea Over Renukaswamy Murder Case Similarities
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by actor Darshan Srinivas (Darshan Thoogudeepa) and his wife Vijayalakshmi challenging the refusal to temporarily restrain the release of the Kannada film BOSS. The court held that the existence of certain similarities between the film and the pending trial relating to the alleged murder of Renukaswamy, in which the actor is facing trial as an accused, was by itself not sufficient to justify an interim injunction. Justice Pradeep...
Karnataka High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Cancelling JDA Over Mutual Breach By Developer And Landowners
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an arbitral award cancelling a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) between Fortuna Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd. and a group of landowners for a residential apartment project in Bengaluru. It held that the arbitral tribunal was justified in refusing specific performance after finding that both sides had failed to fulfil their contractual obligations. A bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha observed that the tribunal had not decided...
PMLA Prosecution After Conviction In Predicate Offence Does Not Attract Double Jeopardy: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) after conviction in the predicate offence does not amount to double jeopardy. It observed that money laundering is a distinct statutory offence and prosecution under the PMLA is not a second trial for the same offence.A bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held, "The prosecution under the PMLA is neither the second trial for the same offence nor constitutional transgression. It is a...