Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge: Justice Alok Aradhe

Justice Alok Aradhe, who was appointed as Supreme Court Judge in August 2025, began his legal journey in the late 1980s and gained expansive wisdom as a counsel, as a trainer of newly appointed judicial officers and a Judge.

Early Life and Career as an Advocate¹

Justice Alok Aradhe was born on 13-04-1964 at Raipur, Chhattisgarh. He earned a degree in Bachelor of Science (B. Sc.) and LLB and got enrolled as an advocate on 12-07-1988.

Justice Aradhe was designated as Senior Advocate in April 2007 and majorly practiced in Civil, Constitutional, Arbitration and Company Matters in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.

He also had the privilege of serving as a Visiting Faculty in Judicial Officers Training and Research Institute to address Judicial officers on various issues.

Career as a Judge ²

Justice Alok Aradhe was appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 29-12-2009 and was made Permanent Judge on 15-02-2011.

He was transferred to the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and took oath of office on 20-09-2016. Justice Aradhe also performed the duties of Acting Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court from 11-05-2018 to 10-08-2018. Justice Alok Aradhe was nominated as Chairman of Jammu and Kashmir State Judicial Academy on 07-06-2017 and on 04-09-2018, he was also nominated as Executive Chairman of Jammu and Kashmir State Legal Services Authority.

Upon being transferred to Karnataka High Court, Justice Aradhe took oath as Judge on 17-11-2018. He further assumed charge as the Acting Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court from 03-07-2022 to 14-10-2022. During his tenure as Judge of Karnataka High Court, Justice Aradhe also served as the President of Bangalore Mediation Centre, Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and President of Karnataka Judicial Academy.³

Another feather on his cap was attained when he was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium for the prestigious position of Chief Justice of Telangana High Court. The Supreme Court Collegium Resolution dated 05-07-2023⁴ recommending Justice Aradhe as the highest authority in Telangana High Court stated:

“Justice Alok Aradhe is now a senior puisne Judge in his parent High Court. He has been functioning, on transfer since November 2018 as a Judge of the Karnataka High Court and has acquired experience of more than 13 years in dispensing justice in two large High Courts.

Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Justice Alok Aradhe is fit and suitable in all respects to be appointed as Chief Justice of the High Court for the State of Telangana.”

The afore-stated recommendation being accepted by the Law Ministry, consequently the President of India on 19-07-2023, appointed Justice Alok Aradhe as Chief Justice of Telangana High Court; and on 23-07-2023, Justice Aradhe took oath of office the High Court’s 6th Chief Justice.⁵

Thereafter, Justice Alok Aradhe was transferred as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court.

On 25-8-2025, the Supreme Court Collegium led by CJI B.R. Gavai in its meeting, recommended elevation of Justice Aradhe as Judge of Supreme Court. His appointment was swiftly confirmed by the President on 27-8-2025 and he took oath of office on 29-8-2025.

Notable Decisions by Justice Alok Aradhe⁶

Armed Forces Tribunal has power to substitute finding of Court Martial & pass sentence afresh: SC

While considering the instant appeal challenging the judgment and order of Armed Forces Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby the appellant’s conviction in respect of charge for alleged possession of ammunition was substituted and instead held him guilty of an act prejudicial to good order and discipline; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe*, JJ., the Court found the Tribunal under Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (2007 Act), which contains a non-obstante clause, has power to substitute the finding of Court Martial, a finding of guilty of any other offence for which offender could have been lawfully found guilty by Court Martial and may pass a sentence afresh. Read more

[S.K. Jain v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2201]

Sex education for children must be in school curriculum from younger age; not from class IX onwards: Supreme Court

In the present case, a 15-year-old juvenile accused under Sections 376 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was denied bail by the High Court. Subsequently, vide order 10-9-2025, the present Court, released the juvenile and directed the Uttar Pradesh government to submit details on sex education in higher secondary schools. The Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ., opined that sex education should be provided to the children from a younger age and not from class IX onwards. The authorities concerned should apply their mind and take corrective measures, so that children are informed of the changes that happen after puberty and the care and cautions to be taken in relation thereto. Thus, the Court opened the said aspect for the authorities concerned to take necessary steps and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. Read more

[X v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2200]

Tender condition requiring sports kit supply experience within State of Chhattisgarh for past 3 yrs violates Arts. 14 & 19: SC

While considering this appeal against dismissal of challenge against certain tender conditions contained in 3 tender notices which were issued for supply of Sports Kits to the students at Government Primary School, Government Upper Primary Schools and Government High and Higher Secondary Schools in the State of Chhattisgarh; the Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe*, JJ., quashed the impugned tender notices holding that the impugned tender condition of past supply of sports kit within Chhattisgarh, had the effect of excluding bidders who have no experience of supply of sports goods to the State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh in past 3 years. The State by linking the eligibility criteria with past local supplies, thus created an artificial barrier, against the suppliers who had no past dealing with the State of Chhattisgarh, thereby curtailing the fundamental rights of the bidders, who have been ineligible to participate in the tenders. Read more

[Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2119]

Supreme Court deprecates State Inaction; Orders immediate restoration of suspended Rajasthan Pradhan

In a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought extraordinary relief, a direction to the High Court to list and expeditiously dispose of a contempt petition filed by him. The contempt arose from the failure of the authorities to comply with an interim stay order dated 19-03-2024, passed by the Single Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court. A Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. found it distressing that the petitioner had not yet received the benefit of the judicial directions issued in his favour. Accordingly, the Court directed all authorities to implement the High Court’s interim order dated 19-03-2024 without any further delay. The immediate effect of this direction was the restoration of the petitioner to the position of elected Pradhan. Read more

[Himanshu v State of Rajasthan⁷]

Bombay High Court dismisses Jagruk Nagrik Sanghatana’s PIL alleging health hazards from telecommunication (mobile) towers

While dismissing a PIL seeking removal of illegally erected telecommunication (mobile) towers with multiple antennas at the Petitioners’ premises and other densely populated areas, alleging health hazards from electromagnetic radiation; the Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ., and Sandeep V. Marne*, J., noted that the issues raised in the PIL were squarely covered by several judgments of various High Courts, including of Bombay High Court, which had repeatedly repelled apprehensions about health hazards due to electromagnetic radiations from mobile phone towers. The Court pointed out that the Petitioners did not place any independent conclusive material to prove the health hazards and, further taking note of the new regulatory framework under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, declined to order removal of the telecommunication towers. Read more

[Jagruk Nagrik Sanghatana v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3006]

‘Defeats the ends of justice’; Bombay HC sets aside ITAT’s order treating income from same source differently for different assessment years

In the present case, an appeal was filed by the assessee challenging the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) which stated that the interest paid by the assessee to the bank for the funds borrowed, could not be set off against interest received by it, by lending part of the said borrowed funds to its sister concerns. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ. and Sandeep V. Marne*, J., held that the ITAT could not be permitted to treat the income earned for the Assessment Year 1992-93 as “other sources” while treating the similar income in the succeeding Assessment Year 1993-94 under the head “business”. The Court opined that the order for Assessment Year 1992-93 needed to be brought in tune with its orders passed for subsequent years, which had attained finality, else it would defeat the ends of justice. Thus, the Court set aside the order of ITAT. Read more

[Modi Business Centre Pvt. Ltd v. CIT, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2968]

Capital gains tax applies to vintage car sale when no evidence of personal use is adduced: Bombay High Court

The present appeal was filed by the Assessee challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (‘ITAT’) decision treating profit from the sale of a vintage car as taxable capital gains rather than exempt as a “personal effect”. The Assessee argued that the car was his personal asset and should not attract capital gains tax. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ*., and Sandeep V. Marne, J., held that for an article to qualify as a “personal effect”, there must be evidence of personal use. Since, the Assessee failed to adduce any evidence with regard to the vintage car being put to personal use, therefore, the Court upheld ITAT’s order and rule that pride of possession did not constitute personal use under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘1961 Act’). Read more

[Narendra I. Bhuva v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2936]

Bombay High Court dismisses PIL in Kolhapuri Chappal GI violation case against PRADA; Upholds proper statutory remedies

The present Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) was filed by the petitioner and five other advocates against the global fashion giant, PRADA. The petitioners sought judicial intervention to restrain PRADA from commercializing and using ‘toe ring sandals’ alleged to be deceptively similar to Geographical Indication (‘GI’) tagged product ‘Kolhapuri Chappal’ without securing authorisation from the registered proprietor or authorised users. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, C.J. and Sandeep V. Marne*, J., dismissed the PIL, holding that such statutory and proprietary rights under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (the ‘G.I. Act’) must be enforced through appropriate remedy by filing Civil Suit by the registered proprietors themselves, and not through a PIL. The Court emphasised that questions involving an infringement action in registered GI could not be brought by way of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Read more

[Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire v. PRADA Group, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2681]

Advocates are not Bar Council employees, hence outside the ambit of POSH Act: Bombay High Court

The UNS Women Legal Association filed the instant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking formation of permanent internal grievance committee of women advocates in all State Bar Council offices and all Bar Associations of Maharashtra. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, C.J. and Sandeep V. Marne, J., while disposing of the PIL, observed that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (‘POSH Act’) does not apply to advocates as the POSH Act requires an employer-employee relationship, which does not exist between advocates and the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (‘BCMG’). Read more

[UNS Women Legal Association v. Bar Council of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2647]

Bombay High Court directs State Advisory Board to consider grievances of differently abled persons for accessibility at bus stops/terminals

The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, C.J*., and M.S. Karnik, J., directed the State Advisory Board on Disability to consider the prayers made in relation to implementing Accessibility Guidelines for Bus Stops and Bus Terminals, 2021 and the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment, 2016 and to take action for redressal of the grievances of the differently abled persons. Read more

[High Court of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1194]

‘Power of inspection a necessary concomitant to maintain the standards of education’; Bombay HC upholds BCI’s power to inspect law colleges

In the present case, the petitioner challenged the validity of Rules 2(iv)(a), 2(xii)(B) and the Proviso appended thereto, Rules 14, 16(2), 18(2), 19(ii), 19(iii) and 26(a) of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (‘the 2008 Rules’) on the ground that the same were void and ultra vires the power conferred under Section 49(1)(d) read with Section 7(1)(i) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (‘the 1961 Act’) and therefore, should be struck down. Further, the petitioner challenged the validity of the impugned notices dated 28-8-2018 and 19-9-2018 issued by BCI, on the ground that the same was ex-facie arbitrary and illegal and was dehors Sections 7(h), 7(i), and 49(d) of the 1961 Act and was violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe*, C.J., and M.S. Karnik, J., opined that the challenge made to the 2008 Rules as being ultra vires, the parent Act was without any basis, as under Section 49(1)(d) of the 1961 Act, BCI had the general rule making power and had power to frame rules to discharge its functions under the 1961 Act, one of them being to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education. The Court held that Rules 2(iv)(a), 2(xii)(B) and the Proviso appended thereto Rules 14, 16(2), 18(2), 19(ii), 19(iii), and 26(a) of the 2008 Rules were intra vires Section 49(1)(d) read with Section 7(1)(i) of the 1961 Act. Further, the impugned notices dated 2-8-2018 and 19-9-2018 issued by BCI could not be termed as arbitrary or in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Read more

[Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University Law School v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 874]

Whether High Court, in exercise of judicial review power, can direct Speaker to decide disqualification petitions within a fixed timeframe? Telangana HC to decide

In the present case, intra court appeals were filed against Single Judge’s common order dated 09-09-2024 passed in Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana, Writ Petition No. 9472 of 2024, wherein the Secretary, Telangana Legislative Assembly, was directed to place the disqualification petitions before the Speaker, Telangana Legislative Assembly, for fixing a schedule of hearing these petitions. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ., and J Sreenivas Rao, J., granted liberty to appellant to approach this Court in case any precipitative action was taken against appellant on or before 24-10-2024. A batch of writ petitions were filed challenging the inaction of the Speaker of Telangana Legislative Assembly in adjudicating the petitions dated 18-03-2024, 01-07-2024, 02-07-2024 and 08-07-2024 seeking disqualification of Danam Nagender, Venkat Rao Tellam, and Kadiyam Srihari, Members of Legislative Assembly. Read more

[Telangana Legislative Assembly v. Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 2064]

‘Depriving journalists working in small newspapers at district, constituency levels of accreditation is arbitrary’; Telangana HC quashes Schedule E of Telangana Media Accreditation Rules, 2016

Petitioners, were journalists, employed by various small newspapers, which were published from various places in the State of Telangana, assailed the validity of Schedule-E of G.O.Ms.No.239 (Gen. Administration (I&PR) Department) dated 15-07-2016, insofar as it categorizes small newspapers in the State of Telangana into A, B, C, and D categories for the purposes of issue of accreditation cards. Schedule-E was challenged on the ground that it was violative of Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe*, C.J., and J. Sreenivas Rao, J., opined that the Telangana Media Accreditation Rules, 2016 (‘2016 Rules’) nowhere prescribed that the journalists working in small newspapers should be divided into four categories, i.e., A, B, C, and D and thus, in the absence of any provision in the policy itself, the action of respondents in depriving the journalists working at district level and constituency level of the benefit of accreditation could not be said to be justified. The Court, therefore, quashed Schedule E of the 2016 Rules. Read more

[Thatikonda Krishna v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 1788]

Telangana HC dismisses plea of former CM K. Chandrashekar Rao challenging appointment of Commission to inquire into irregularities of power procurement from DISCOMS during his tenure

Petitioner assailed the validity of G.O.Ms.No.9, Energy (Power.II) Department, dated 14-03-2024 issued by the State Government by which a Commission was appointed to conduct an inquiry into the correctness and propriety of the decision taken by the erstwhile Government of Telangana on procurement of power from the Distribution Companies (‘DISCOMS’) of the State of Chhattisgarh and to inquire into correctness and the propriety of the decision taken by the erstwhile State Government of Telangana to establish Bhadradri Thermal Power Station (‘BTPS’) at Manuguru and Yadadri Thermal Power Station (‘YTPS’) at Damaracherla. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ., and Anil Kumar Jukanti, J., opined that the allegation of bias against Respondent 3 was solely based on the statement made in the press conference and no other material had been produced to show that the proceeding before Respondent 3 was vitiated on account of personal bias. The Court further opined that the allegation of bias could not be inferred but had to be established and thus, held that petitioner failed to prove the plea of bias against Respondent 3. Read more

[Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 1480]

Telangana HC upholds validity of S.38(2) of RPA which provides for preferential treatment to candidates of political party over other independent candidates

In a case wherein petitioner assailed the validity of Section 38(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (‘RPA’), and Rule 5.7.1 of the Handbook for Candidate (‘Handbook’) issued by the Election Commission of India, the Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, C.J., and N.V. Shravan Kumar, J., dismissed the petition and held that the contention that Section 38(2) of RPA treated the equals as unequals could not be accepted and neither Section 38(2) of RPA nor Rule 5.7.1 of the Handbook could be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Read more

[Pareekshith Reddy Pesarikayala v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 92]

Whether power u/s 8 of PMLA conferred on Adjudicating Authority can be exercised only by member having experience in law: Telangana HC clarifies

Appellant had challenged an order dated 13-03-2023 wherein a Single Judge Bench of this Court (‘the Single Judge’) had quashed provisional order of attachment and show cause notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority formed under provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’). The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ.*, and Anil Kumar Jukanti, J., set aside the order passed by the Single Judge and held that under Section 8 of PMLA power could be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority comprising only from member in field of law could not be accepted as it would leave Sections 6(5) and 6(7) of PMLA ineffective. Read more

[Enforcement Directorate v. Karvy India Realty Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine TS 18]

‘Advocates practicing in other states ineligible for post of District Judge’; Telangana HC upholds Rule 5(1)(a) of Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, 2023

A batch of writ petitions were filed by practicing advocates and Additional Public Prosecutors seeking quashment of order which rejected their applications seeking recruitment to the post of District Judge in the State of Telangana. Petitioners also sought a declaration to struck down Rule 5(1)(a) of Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, 2023 (‘the Rules 2023’) as arbitrary and discriminatory and a consequential direction to respondents to permit petitioners to appear in written examination of District Judge. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ.*, and T. Vinod Kumar, J., dismissed the writ petitions and held that the advocates practicing in other states were ineligible for the post of District Judge in Telangana. Read more

[Bodugula Brahmaiah v. State of Telangana, 2023 SCC OnLine TS 4105]

‘Grant of Contract to construct flats for homeless without Inviting Tenders not Arbitrary’: Telangana HC

In a public interest litigation (‘PIL’) assailing the award of contract for construction of flats to homeless persons by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (‘GHMC’) to DEC Infrastructure Projects India Pvt. Ltd. (‘DEC’), the Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, CJ.* and T. Vinod Kumar, J. dismissed the PIL and held that the grant of construction project to the DEC was fair, just and reasonable. Read more

[Gonewar Chandu v. State of Telangana⁸]

Insulting husband over dark complexion and levelling false allegations to cover up the same, constitutes cruelty: Karnataka HC

While deciding the instant appeal wherein a husband had challenged the dismissal of his petition seeking dissolution of his marriage on the ground that he was allegedly being humiliated by his wife due to being dark-skinned; the Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and Anant Ramanath Hegde*, JJ., set aside the impugned judgment of the Family Court dismissing the husband’s petition and held that the evidence presented by the husband sufficiently established the wife used to insult him on the premise that he is dark-complexioned; and for the same reason she moved away from the company of the husband without any cause, and to cover up this aspect, had levelled false allegations of illicit relationships against the husband. The Court was of the view that these facts certainly constituted cruelty. Read more

[K. Murthy v. V. Kalaivani, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 48]

Principle of comity of courts is salutary in nature and cannot override the consideration of best interest and welfare of the child: Karnataka High Court

While deciding the instant petition seeking transference of physical custody of the minor son to the petitioner (‘father’) and the child’s repatriation to his habitual place of residence- Germany, the Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and Vijaykumar A. Patil, JJ., pointed out that the principle of comity of courts is salutary in nature, yet it cannot override the consideration of best interest and welfare of the child. The principle must yield to paramount consideration i.e., interest and welfare of the child, which must be examined in the facts of each case. The Court further held that the remedy of writ of habeas corpus cannot be used for enforcement of an ex-parte order passed by the German Court, which was not in existence at the time when the son left Germany. Read more..

[Sankar Viswanathan v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 9]

Contents of Azan/Adhan does not infringe fundamental rights of other faith; Karnataka High Court directs State to ensure loudspeaker only in permissible decibel in the morning

A Division Bench of Alok Aradhe CJ., and S. Viswajith Shetty, J., held that azan or the contents of azan does not violate fundamental rights of petitioner of any person from a different faith. The use of loudspeakers, however, must be ensured to be within permissible limits from 10pm to 6 am in accordance with law. Read more..

[Chandrashekar R v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1482]

Whether Head cooks and cooks employed under Mid-Day Meal Scheme covered under Minimum Wages Act, 1948? Karnataka High Court analyses

In a case filed by a social activist seeking direction to the State to provide minimum wages to the women workers employed under the mid-day meal scheme and to provide other benefits like Maternity Leave and other Leaves including medical benefits and insurance benefits, a Division Bench of Alok Aradhe ACJ and S. Vishwajith Shetty J. held that no writ of mandamus can be issued to the respondent-State to provide minimum wages to the Head Cooks and Cooks employed under the scheme as the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 apply to the jobs which have been mentioned in the Schedule appended to it which is not the case in light of the present facts. It also made clear that other benefits sought have already been extended by the State. Read more..

[Nowhera Shaik v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1479]

Able-bodied person having the ability to earn is not entitled to seek permanent alimony from wife; Karnataka High Court dismisses appeal

The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and J.M. Khazi, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by a husband seeking permanent alimony from his divorced wife as she is employed as an Assistant Manager in a Co-operative Society. The Court held that the husband, being an able-bodied person, has the ability to earn and the salary of the wife must go in taking care of the son born out of wedlock and thus, is not entitled to seek permanent alimony from his divorced wife. Read more..

[T Sadananda Pai v. Sujatha S Pai, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1194]

Whether GST exemption can be claimed for leasing out residential premises as hostel to students and working professionals? Karnataka High Court answers

A petition was filed raising the question, whether the service provided by the petitioner i.e., leasing of residential premises as hostel to students and working professionals is covered under Entry 13 of Notification No. 9/2017 namely ‘service by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence’ issued under Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and M.I. Arun, JJ., addressing the issue of whether GST exemption can be claimed for leasing of residential premises as a hostel to students and working professionals held that the benefit of exemption notification cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground that the lessee is not using the premises. Similarly, the finding recorded by AAAR Karnataka that the hostel accommodation is more akin to ‘sociable accommodation’ is unintelligible and is not relevant for the purposes of determining the eligibility of the petitioner to claim the benefit under the exemption notification. Read more..

[Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish v. Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 88]

[MV Act] Karnataka High Court | Evidence is examined on the touchstone of ‘preponderance of probabilities’, Standard of proof of accident beyond reasonable doubt to not apply

Two appeals were filed one by the claimant’s seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, and the other by the Karnataka State Transport Corporation under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 09-08-2017 passed by the Tribunal wherein the claimants were awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,15,27,982/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum to be paid by the KSRTC. A Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and Nataraj Rangaswamy, JJ., disposed of the appeal after modifying the compensation. Read more..

[Gowri S. Patil v. Divisional Controller, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 447]

Karnataka High Court | Deductions falling under S. 10-B of Income Tax Act cannot be computed without setting off brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation

A Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and H.T. Narendra Prasad, JJ. set aside the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the assessee. The present appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) wherein an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was challenged. held that the decision of the Tribunal in the said matter was incorrect. Therefore, the above-mentioned question was answered in favour of the assessee. Read more..

[Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mind Tree Consulting Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1328]

Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismisses PIL seeking quashing of decision of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Board charging money for special Aarti by devotees

A PIL was filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order, dated 11.03.2008 as well as 31.05.2008 by which, in the 43rd Board Meeting of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Board (for short ‘the Shrine Board’), the decision has been taken to charge a sum of Rs. 16,000 for Aarti for one adult and on certain auspicious occasions which have been mentioned therein, a sum of Rs. 21,000/- is sought to be charged for performing Shradha Vishesh Pooja Darshan, as well as a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for participating in the Attaka Aarti performed at the temple of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi, respectively. A division bench of Alok Aradhe and Sanjeev Kumar, JJ., dismissed the PIL as the writ petition does not disclose any element of public interest or does it even raise an issue where the public in general is involved.

The Court noted “Darshan is open to every visitor who visits the temple of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi. Only provision for payment has been made at the time of Arti in Sanctum Sanctorum only to the extent of 30 percent in respect of Attaka Arti. The Shrine Board in its 43rd Board Meeting noticed that there were many people who wanted to attend the Arti and noticed that in several instances, they even tried to influence the staff of the Shrine Board in an undue manner to ensure their entry in the Sanctum Sanctorum at the time of entry. Therefore, it was decided that the hurdle price marginally in routine for A, B, C and D categories be prescribed. The aforesaid decision, in our considered opinion, is a well-informed decision and in the larger public interest for the benefit of the pilgrims, taken by the Shrine Board with which we do not find any ground to interfere. Therefore, there is no element of public interest involved in the writ petition.”

[Sumit Nayyar v Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 969]

Jammu and Kashmir High Court| Application seeking condonation of delay and main proceeding cannot be clubbed together along with adduced evidence under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC

A petition was filed under Section 13 of the J&K Hindu Marriage seeking dissolution of marriage following which the respondent filed an application for transferring the proceeding to the Court of the Principal District Judge which was allowed and the parties had been directed to be present at the said Court on a said date. Later, the respondent had applied for extension of time in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree belatedly which was allowed by the trial court. Alok Aradhe, J., held that the trial court should have first decided the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and subsequently proceeded to deciding the application by recording the evidence separately.

The Court held that severe injustice had been done to the petitioner by clubbing both the proceedings and recording the evidence. The petitioner should have been allowed to lead evidence in the main proceeding, which was initiated by the respondent and hence, suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. Read more..

[Harjeet Singh v. Taranjeet Kour, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 746]

Mahdya Pradesh High Court | No prior notice required for withdrawal of powers if criminal charge is registered and arrest has been made against a Panchayat Karmi

An appeal was filed to examine that if a criminal case is registered against a Panchayat Karmi and he has been arrested in the said offence, whether he is still required to be served a show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing before withdrawing the powers of Secretary. A Full Bench of A M Khanwilkar, CJ., S K Gangele and Alok Aradhe, JJ., held that no prior notice or opportunity of hearing before suspension of the Gram Panchayat Secretary or for that matter withdrawal (de-notified) of such charge given to the Panchayat Karmi, is required to be given by the competent Authority to the concerned employee much less who is facing serious criminal case.

[Chandrapal Yadav v State of MP, 2016 SCC OnLine MP 1144]

Madhya Pradesh High Court | New Excise Policy is a valid policy not being in contravention with Rule 8(1) of M.P. Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996

A petition was filed seeking clarification on Whether in the language of Rule 8(1)(a) of the M.P. Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 and Rule 9 of the M.P. Country Spirit Rules the Government has power to renew the licence or it has to invite applications for each and every shop, every year and Whether 2010-2011 Liquor Policy which relates to renewal is a valid policy and whether such policy is likely to create monopoly in favour of all such persons who are ready and willing to give 20% extra on the existing basic licence fee and licence fee and such persons are providing 80% of the revenue. A full bench of S R Alam, CJ., Arun Mishra and Alok Aradhe, JJ., held that under Rule 8(1)(a) of the M.P. Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 and Rule 9 of the M.P. Country Spirit Rules, 1995, it is open to the State Government to renew the licence of existing licensee on such condition, which it may prescribe or invite applications for grant of licence, or deal with grant of licence in such other manner as it may determine. The Court further held that the new liquor policy which provides for renewal of existing licence with further condition that renewal will take place only when the said renewal will generate more than 80% of the estimated revenue for the year 2010-2011 at the district level is a valid policy and does not create any monopoly.

The Court noted that The entire policy is aimed at generation of more revenue in lieu of parting with the privilege to deal in the business of liquor. The new policy cannot be said to be arbitrary and irrational. The new policy also does not contravene either the provisions of the Constitution or any statutory provisions, since, elimination and exclusion from business is held to be inherent in liquor business. Therefore, the policy cannot be assailed on the grounds that it is discriminatory.

[Chingalal Yadav v State of MP, 2010 SCC OnLine MP 110]