Justice K.R. Shriram’s extensive career boasts of versatility and commitment to the cause of justice. He started his legal career from Maharashtra; his work was not just limited to one state. Similarly, as an advocate, Justice Shriram practised in every major legal forum.
When elevated to the position of a Judge and then a Chief Justice, Justice Shriram continued to display his legal acumen and wisdom through his many judgments. Therefore, as Justice K.R. Shriram prepares to bid adieu to Rajasthan High Court, which led for 2 months, it is only appropriate to delve into his life, career and decisions.
Early Life and Career as an Advocate1
Justice K.R Shriram was born in Mumbai on 28-09-1963 and completed B. Com in Financial Accountancy and Management and LL.B. From Mumbai University, following which he pursued LL.M. (Maritime Law) from King’s College, London. He passed LL.M. in merit.
He enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa on 3-7-1986 and joined the Chambers of S. Venkiteswaran, Senior Advocate. In 1997, Justice Shriram set up his own Chamber and dealt in commercial matters with specialization is Shipping and International Trade Law; Writ matters arising out of Ports Acts, Customs Act, Motor Vehicles Act, Marine Insurance (including re-insurance and P&I); Company Law Matters etc.
Did you Know? Chief Justice Shriram was an authority in maritime law, and that during his tenure as a lawyer, he had saved the entire shipping industry single-handedly by his erudite arguments that led to the Supreme Court ruling on demurrage in Kochi Port Trust case2.
Justice K.R. Shriram has done litigation and non-litigation work and has appeared in Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court of India, other High Courts of India, and in the National and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Securities Appellate Tribunal, Company Law Board, and various arbitrations. He has also conducted trials in Civil Suits; statutory inquiries under Merchant Shipping Act; engineering construction arbitration; and consumer redressal disputes.
Did you Know? Justice K.R. Shriram served as a member of the Core Committee-I (Admiralty matters) for consideration of draft of Unification of Original and Appellate Side Rules of Bombay High Court.
Judicial Career3
Elevated as Additional Judge of the Bombay High court on 21-6-2013. Confirmed as Permanent Judge of the Bombay High Court on 2-3-2016. He was subsequently elevated as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court on 21-9-2024 and assumed the office on 27-9-2024.
He was then transferred from Madras High Court to Rajasthan High Court as its Chief Justice and assumed office on 21-7-20254.
Philanthropy
Justice K.R. Shriram has been actively involved in social causes, helping families where there is a bereavement. For many years he served as the Vice-Chairman of Dharmishta Mithran, an NGO, that runs centres for performing obsequies and ‘Shraadd’ for the departed. He loves playing golf and is well travelled across the country and internationally5.
Notable Judgments
Tax Authorities must judiciously approach application for condonation of delay in uploading of audit report by charitable trusts: Rajasthan HC
While considering a petition filed by Khandelwal Vaishya Samaj Charitable Trust, aggrived with the dismissal of their application for condonation of delay uploading/e-filing of Form 10B by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), the Division Bench of K.R. Shriram and Maneesh Sharma, JJ., in Khandelwal Vaishya Samaj Charitable Trust v. CIT, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 4660, opined that the application for condonation of delay should have been accepted. “Courts have repeatedly held that such approach in the cases of present type should be equitious, balancing and judicious. Even though technically and strictly and liberally speaking, respondent might be justified in rejecting application but the assessee, a public charitable trust, with so many years of charitable activities, which otherwise satisfies the condition for availing such exemption should not be denied the same merely due on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned”.
In MRB Nurses Empowerment Assn. v. State of T.N., 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 5801, filed by MRB Nurses Empowerment Association (‘Nurses Association’) seeking issuance of a writ directing the Department of Health and Family Welfare and other respondents to extend maternity benefits including 270 days of paid maternity leave in accordance with the provisions of Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (‘the 1961 Act’) to all staff nurses working under the National Rural Health Mission Scheme in the State of Tamil Nadu with immediate effect, the division bench of K.R. Shriram, CJ. and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J. held that by virtue of Section 27, the provisions of the 1961 Act will prevail over contractual conditions denying or offering less favourable maternity benefits. Thus, the Court directed that all pending and new applications for maternity benefits from NRHM nurses employed on a contractual basis were to be considered and disposed of in accordance with Section 5 of the 1961 Act.
Madras High Court rules on criteria to determine whether a transaction involves transfer of right to use goods
The Division Bench of K.R Shriram, CJ and Mohammed Shaffiq, J., in Anandcine Service (P) Ltd. v. CST, (2025) 140 GSTR 253, reiterated that, there shall be a deemed sale where there is transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose-whether or not for a specified period, for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration. From the documents and particularly from the clauses reproduced above, it is quite clear that there has been a transfer of the right to use equipments for valuable consideration. Even in clause (29A) of article 366 of the Constitution of India, the only requirement is there should be transfer of the rights to use the goods for valuable consideration.
In SaNOtize Research & Development Corpn. v. Lupin Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 6596, while addressing a case relating to confidentiality agreement breach, the Division Bench of Arif S. Doctor and K. R. Shriram, JJ., denied interim relief to a Canadian pharmaceutical company. The Bench held that the appellant was unable to establish its case for interim relief and the case deserved to go to the trial for proper evidentiary analysis.
In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tata Steel Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1148, which was an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) preferred by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favor of Tata Steel Ltd., a Division Bench comprising of K.R. Shriram and Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ. upheld the impugned order while reiterating that the contribution made towards the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (‘CAF’) would be revenue expenditure and not capital in nature.
In Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tata Capital Ltd, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1039, which was an appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (‘the Act’) impugned an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (ITAT), wherein the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bombay [CIT(A)], to allow the appeal of the assessee and deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 94,00,00,000/- claimed by the assessee was upheld by the ITAT, the division bench comprising K.R. Shriram and Neela Gokhale, JJ. while dismissing the appeal, held that the Assessing Officer should have given cogent reasons if he wished to record dissatisfaction regarding the claim of the assessee.
In Vodafone Idea Limited v Central Processing Centre, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2464, division bench of K R Shriram and Neela Gokhale, JJ., held that the assessment order dated 31-08-2023 passed by FAO two years after the DRP directions, is time barred and cannot be sustained and the petitioner is entitled to receive the refund together with interest, in accordance with law.
In Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1710, wherein the issue was regarding transgression of Additional District Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act; the Division Bench of A.S. Doctor and K.R. Shriram, JJ., observed that the jurisdiction of the Designated Authority under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is purely ministerial and limited only to assisting secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets and nothing more. “Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act does not contemplate much less empower the DA to even consider much less adjudicate upon any objections raised by Borrower or anybody else”.
Notice to a dead person under S. 148 of Income Tax Act cannot be issued: Bombay HC
In Raniben Khimji Patel v. Asst. Commr. Of Income Tax, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 342, the Division Bench of K.R. Shriram and N.J. Jamdar, JJ., reiterated that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a dead person cannot be issued. In the present matter, the petitioner was the legal heir of K, who died on or about 2-3-2021. The death of the assessee K was communicated to the respondent. Yet, the respondent had issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30-6-2021 for A.Y. 2103-15 stating that there were reasons to believe that K’s income chargeable to tax for A.Y. 2014-15 had escaped assessment.
In an appeal filed by Chanda Kochchar (appellant) challenging the impugned order and seeking reinstatement of her Employee Stock Options (“ESOPs”) under the Employee Stock Option Scheme (“ESOS”) and clawback of bonuses and revocation of retirement benefits, including vested and unvested ESOPs, a division bench of K R Shriram and Rajesh S Patil, JJ., in Chanda Kochchar v ICICI Bank Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1039 refused to interfere with the impugned order as the prayers sought in the appeals were a matter of trial.
1. https://nagapattinam.dcourts.gov.in/Judges/honble-mr-justice-k-r-shriram-chief-justice/
2. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/madras-high-court-bids-adieu-to-chief-justice-kr-shriram/article69828224.ece
3. https://hcmadras.tn.gov.in/former_cj.php
4. https://rajasthan.nalsa.gov.in/patron-in-chief/
5. https://nagapattinam.dcourts.gov.in/Judges/honble-mr-justice-k-r-shriram-chief-justice/
