Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226 - 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 273Nominal IndexRadha & Ors. v. BBM Ispat Limited & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226The Office Of Insurance v. M V Naramsimha Prasad, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 227Micah Mark & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 228V v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 229Directorate of Enforcement v....
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226 - 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
Nominal Index
Radha & Ors. v. BBM Ispat Limited & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
The Office Of Insurance v. M V Naramsimha Prasad, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
Micah Mark & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
V v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
Directorate of Enforcement v. Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
G.T Dinesh Kumar v. ED, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited v. The Official Liquidator of M/s BPL Engineering Limited (In Liquidation) & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 232
M. Ajay Kumar & Anr. v. State by Hosakote Police & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
The State of Karnataka & Another vs. Sri Rangaswamy A.R., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
N. Anil Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
X v. Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
V.S. Kanakaraj & Anr. vs. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
Babu Rao v. State of Karnataka & Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 238
Mrs. Rekha Gupta (71 years, USA resident) v. NIL, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 239
Chethana v. Pradeep Achar & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 240
Shivaprasad Bhat & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 241
Century Club vs. S. Umapathy & Anr.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 242
Sangeetha Agrawal & Anr. vs. M/S Esteem Gardenia Apartment Owners Association, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 243
Manjunatha H.C. vs. Buden Sab & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 244
P v. State of Karnataka & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 245
Velu @ Velmayil Somu & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 246
Munirathna v. State by Nandini Layout Police Station & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 247
Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 248
K.H. Muniyappa & Anr. v. State by Robertsonpet Police Station & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 249
The Advocates Bar Association Kanakapura v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 250
Kumari Shamshad Begum & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 251
Shivaprasad Bhat & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 252
Sri Girish Mattenavar v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 253
Tummala Manoj Kumar v. State Of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 254
MR. DARSHAN SRINIVAS & ANR v. SIRI PRODUCTIONS & ORS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 255
M v. B, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
Girish Patil & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
Vincent Correa v. Viyola Prathvi Correa , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 258
P v. State of Karnataka & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 259
TJ V. State Of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 260
Bharathi Education Society Trust v. State of Karnataka & Panchayat Development Officer, Grama Panchayat, Bharathinagara., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
Divisional Manager, Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. V. Sri Satish S/o Basavaraj Kurubar, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
Gadilinga S/o Dodda Basappa v. State of Karnataka & Sharabhayya B., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
Y. Venkateshwara Prasad & Ors. v. The State Commissioner for Persons with Disability & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
Suresh Babu J.N. & Ors. v. Jaganmohan & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
K v. M., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
Sanket & Anr. v. Regional Manager, Karnataka Grameen Bank & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 267
Sri. Jawahar Gopal & Anr v. Vishal Baliga D, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 268
Pavitra Ramanujam v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 269
Devanura Mahadeva & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 270
M/s Sujal Pharma v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 271
The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 272
Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s AMR Housing Development Corporation & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Radha & Ors. v. BBM Ispat Limited & Ors.
Case No: MFA No. 200447 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
Allowing an appeal filed by the dependents of a deceased sole proprietor, Karnataka High Court has recently held that a proprietor who personally undertakes a hazardous work cannot be denied compensation by reasoning that he is a business owner who wouldn't fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226]
The Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, while setting aside the Raichur Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's order, noted that the principal employer and the insurer is jointly and severally liable to pay Rs 7,07,760/-as compensation [ for loss of dependency, estate and funeral expenses] to the dependents along with 12 per cent interest.
“…. In India, a substantial proportion of commercial and industrial activity is carried on through sole proprietary concerns. Unlike large corporate organisations... the proprietor of a small proprietary concern often constitutes the principal technician, mechanic, operator, supervisor, manager and administrator rolled into one. He secures the contract, arranges the resources, supervises the work and very often personally executes the work itself”, Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted in his supplementary opinion in the judgment authored by Justice C. Sumalatha.
Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Allowing Policyholder To Engage Lawyer Before Insurance Ombudsman
Case Title: The Office Of Insurance v. M V Naramsimha Prasad
Case No: WA 1534/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (July 1) dismissed an appeal filed by the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman challenging a single-judge's order that permitted a complainant to engage an advocate during the adjudicatory stage of proceedings before the Ombudsman. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 227]
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha upheld the single-judge's ruling, which stated that the Ombudsman discharges a quasi-judicial function and cannot deny legal representation once the matter moves beyond mediation.
“…Learned counsel for respondent accepts notice. Petition is finally heard. For the reasons mentioned above appeal is dismissed. Condonation of delay is allowed”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Micah Mark & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Connected Matters
Case Nos: Criminal Petition No. 8401/2026 & Criminal Petition No. 8417/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (June 1) refused to quash a UAPA case lodged against the functionaries and alleged associates of a missionary group 'The Timothy Initiative'-including its India Head- accused of using over 1000 international debit cards to channel around Rs. 100 crores funds to Naxal regions. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 228]
The ED has alleged that The Timothy Initiative disbursed Rs 92.55 crore to 'Left Wing Extremism-affected' regions.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted in the order that since the case concerns national security, investigation is warranted instead of summary quashing, the court held.
“National security is the invisible architecture upon which the sovereignty, stability and constitutional order of a nation rest. One of the gravest threats to National security in the present times is, the clandestine funding of extremism. …Funding becomes the oxygen that enables extremist movements to survive and proliferate. The danger of extremist financing lies not merely in the money transferred, but in the consequences it unleashes. Left unchecked, such funding can transform ideological extremism into organized violence, threatening National unity and public safety…”, the Court observed.
Case Title: V v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 10716 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a cruelty case lodged by a woman against her sister-in-law who resides in Luxembourg, for allegedly 'filling the ears' of her in-laws by repeatedly calling them. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 229]
The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna noted that complaint about sister-in-law torturing the complainant through such phone calls cannot be accepted in the absence of specific allegations, since instigation, that too by way of telephonic conversation, would not meet the ingredients of Section 498A IPC
The primary allegation against the petitioner was that she would call and instigate the in-laws against the complainant- wife.
“..All that the petitioner is alleged of in the complaint is that, she was filling in the ear of mother in-law and father-in-law by repeatedly calling over the telephone, from Luxemburg. Except this, there is no other allegation against the petitioner… Instigation that too, by way of telephonic conversation would not mean that it would become an ingredient of Section 498A of the IPC”, the court said.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda
Case No: CRL.P No.13915 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
The Karnataka High Court has last week dismissed a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to Aishwarya Gowda, accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 for an alleged ₹15 crores Gold Investment Scam. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 230]
The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty noted that the proviso to Section 45 PMLA, which prescribes special treatment for Bail to women and others in money laundering cases, is not automatic. However, any such denial of special treatment, must be reasoned.
“…the respondent[Aishwarya Gowda] has been granted bail in all the cases registered against her for predicate offences and further proceedings in some of the cases registered against her for predicate offences has been stayed by this Court. The respondent who is a married women was in custody for nearly two months and the Trial Judge has observed that it is not the case of the prosecution that they require the presence of the respondent for investigation in the present case”, the High Court said.
Case Title: G.T Dinesh Kumar v. ED
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7565 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
The Karnataka High Court on July 1 [Wednesday] granted bail to G.T. Dinesh Kumar, the former Commissioner of the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA), who was arrested in connection with a money laundering case linked to the alleged MUDA land allotment scam. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 231]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted in the order there were five 'changed circumstances' warranting a fresh consideration of Kumar's bail plea, subsequent to the rejection of Kumar's bail application by a coordinate bench twice.
The circumstances, according to the court, were subsequent filing of chargesheet in the predicate offence, grant of bail in the said predicate offence, filing of a supplementary prosecution complaint against three accused without their arrest and the trial remaining at the pre cognisance stage.
“…The changed circumstances contended are quoted hereinabove. Those should merit acceptance for the reason that… These five circumstances are undoubtedly changed circumstances to the order passed by the coordinate Bench on 20-01-2026, as every circumstance has happened subsequent to the rejection of bail application by the coordinate Bench”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited v. The Official Liquidator of M/s BPL Engineering Limited (In Liquidation) & Ors.
Case No: Company Application No. 49/2025, Company Application No. 86/2025, Company Application No. 89/2025 in Company Petition No. 160/2005
Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 232
The Karnataka High Court has recently remarked that law which is 'meant for common man' must be drafted in 'the simplest possible way', while suggesting that the legislature should bring back the practise of using illustrations in the statute to reduce conflicts about its interpretation and ensuing litigation. [2026 Livelaw (Kar) 232]
The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde emphasised that the drafting of statutes, if it follows the practise of incorporating illustrations, would reduce potential litigation. The single judge bench was presiding over a matter of a dispute between a company and the Telangana commercial tax department over the assets of BPL Engineering Pvt Ltd.
“…The importance of illustrations found in several enactments, such as the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in capturing the true import of a provision is well known. However, perhaps unknowingly or unintentionally, such a worthy practice has been forgotten. It is high time it should be revived,”, the court observed.
The court went on to cite the conflicting opinions of various High Courts regarding the prospective/ retrospective and retroactive operation of statutes and its subsequent amendments. For example, Chapter IV A [registration of security interests with the Central Registry (CERSAI)] of the SARFAESI Act has also given rise to divergent opinions about its application, the court further stated.
Case Title: M. Ajay Kumar & Anr. v. State by Hosakote Police & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to two persons accused of defiling the portrait of Dr. B R Ambedkar with cow dung at Hosakote, noting that the appellants have been in judicial custody since April 28, 2026. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 233]
While granting bail, Justice S. Rachaiah noted that an eye witness had seen and identified the two appellants and a third accused throwing cow dung at Ambedkar's portrait, as seen from the case diary and chargsheet. However, the court also took into account the duration of the appellants' period of judicial custody, while granting bail.
“…As per the said statement, it would indicate that the appellants and accused No.3 have defaced the portrait of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar by throwing cow dung and he is stated to have identified those persons. However, he did not disclose immediately as he was going to Bangalor. Further, the statement of complainant indicates that these persons defaced the portrait of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar with cow dung. …Be that as it may, the appellants are in judicial custody since 28.04.2026. Having considered the gravity and nature of offence, it is appropriate to grant bail to the appellants by imposing suitable bail conditions that will take care of apprehension of the prosecution…”, the court said.
Promotion On Day Of Superannuation, Employee Entitled To All Promotional Benefits: Karnataka HC
Case Name : The State of Karnataka & Another vs. Sri Rangaswamy A.R.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.34058 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice Venkatesh Naik T held that a government employee who validly assumes charge of a promoted post on the date of superannuation is entitled to all consequential promotional and pensionary benefits from that date, even if the charge was assumed after noon.
The respondent was appointed as a School Headmaster. Later he was promoted to the cadre of Professor, C.T.E. on 31.05.2023 (equivalent to Reader/DDPI). He handed over charge and reported for duty in the promoted post on same day i.e. 31.05.2023 at 5.20 p.m. On the same day, he was relieved from service due to his retirement on superannuation. On 14.08.2023, he submitted a representation to the State requesting promotional benefits from the date of his promotion. However, the State rejected his request.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an Application before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which allowed the application and directed the State to grant all consequential benefits in the promoted cadre. Challenging the Tribunal's order, the State Government filed the writ petition.
Case Title: N. Anil Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 19727 of 2026 (GM-R/C)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
The Karnataka High Court has recently directed the Chamundeshwari Temple authorities to permit a hereditary priest suffering from vitiligo to perform his duties, emphasising that stigmatisation based on a non-contagious medical condition amounts to discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 235]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj underscored that no scientific reasons or religious scriptures prevents a person with vitiligo from discharging the duties as the priest.
“…Both the medical authorities as well as the Agama Pandits have categorically opined that vitiligo neither constitutes a disqualification nor operates as a prohibition for the performance of pujas. The medical certificate issued by the competent authority clearly records that the condition suffered by the petitioner is not contagious. The Agama Pandits, upon examination of the relevant religious texts, have further opined that there is no scriptural interdiction preventing a person suffering from vitiligo from discharging the duties of a Sannidhi Paricharaka...In the considered opinion of this Court, therefore, the respondents cannot rely upon the petitioner's medical condition as a ground to deprive him of the hereditary rights and privileges attached to the post or to prevent him from performing the pujas and other religious duties attached thereto”, the court held.
'Can't Get Rights After Avoiding Duty': Karnataka High Court Denies Visitation To Father Who Gave Up Rights In Divorce Settlement
Case Title: X v. Y
Case No: Writ Petition No. 13050 of 2026 (GM-FC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
The Karnataka High Court has held that a father who voluntarily gave up his visitation rights in a mediated settlement during divorce proceedings cannot later seek visitation rights, especially when he was not willing to bear the financial and emotional responsibility for his child. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 236]
The single judge bench of Justice P Sree Sudha noted that since the father has avoided the 'duty' he owed to his child, he can't seek visitation rights, and accordingly set aside the Family Court's order which allowed him visitation rights.
“…Both the parties settled the matter before Mediation and father of the child voluntarily and cautiously given up his rights for visitation and, is not permitted to again commence litigation after one year. When he is not ready to take-up the responsibility of the child financially and emotionally, he can't interfere in the life of the child for visitation again. When he avoids duty, he can't get rights...”, the Court noted in the order in clear terms.
Case Title: V.S. Kanakaraj & Anr. vs. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 11168 of 2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 237
The Karnataka High Court has pulled up the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for creating an "unwanted nuisance" and exposing citizens to "unwanted litigation" after it mistakenly allotted and sold the same site to two different parties. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 237]
The Court directed the BDA to pay ₹1 lakh to the original allottees and recover the amount from the salary of the officer responsible for the lapse, in accordance with law.
Justice R. Nataraj was hearing a petition filed by purchasers who had acquired Site No. 3504/C through a public auction conducted by the BDA in 2003. The Court noted that the very same property was subsequently renumbered as Site No. 2293 and allotted and conveyed by the BDA to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
During the hearing, the BDA submitted that it had realised its mistake and had instituted O.S. No. 8253/2025 seeking cancellation of the subsequent allotment and sale deeds executed in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It also informed the Court that an alternate site had been allotted to Respondent No. 6, who had purchased the property from Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Case Title: Babu Rao v. State of Karnataka & Narayanamma v. State of Karnataka
Case No: W.A. No. 200260/2025 & W.P. No. 17588/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 238
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2023 and the Karnataka High Court (Amendment) Act, 2023 that transferred jurisdiction over regular first appeals arising from decrees passed by Senior Civil Judges' courts from the High Court to District Courts. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 238]
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that litigants do not possess a vested right to have their appeals heard by a particular forum and that the legislature is competent to alter the forum of appeal.
At the same time, the Court read down the retrospective operation of the amendments to protect judgments and orders already passed by the High Court in such appeals.
“…The view that the legislative amendments introduced by impugned legislations are applicable to the pending proceedings is established for two reasons. First, the forum of appeal is a matter of procedural law, and thus, unless the legislative intent appears otherwise, the said provisions would be presumed to apply retrospectively and govern the pending proceedings. Second, that Section 4 of the Civil Courts Amendment Act expressly provides that the amendments shall come into force retrospectively from 28.08.2007”, the court laid down in unequivocal terms by upholding the effect of amendments.
Case Title: Mrs. Rekha Gupta (71 years, USA resident) v. NIL
Case No.: WP 12610/2026 (GM-CPC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 239
The Karnataka High Court has relaxed the Video Conferencing Rules to permit a 71-year-old widow to record evidence from her residence in the United States of America in a probate proceeding, without seeking the services of Embassy. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 239].
The single judge of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, exercising the power conferred under Rule 18 of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts [Notification HCC No.18/2020] allowed the petitioner to record her evidence [Examination-in-chief] without availing the services of the Indian Embassy.
Significantly, Rule 18 vests powers on the High Court, if the operation of any rule is causing undue hardship, to dispense with or relax the requirements of such rule by an order.
“...The petitioner is permitted to record her evidence without availing the services of the Indian Embassy, and the rigour of Rule 5.1 read with Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules, 2020 is relaxed to this extent, subject to the safeguards set out in para 9 above”, the court held while directing the trial court to decide the probate petition within three months.
Without the relaxation accorded to the petitioner by the court, Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules makes it mandatory for foreign residents to route the proceedings through the Indian Embassy. Along with it, Rule 5.1 of the 2020 Rules requires a co-ordinator at a remote point be it Indian Consulate, the relevant Indian Embassy or the relevant High Commission of India.
Case Title: Chethana v. Pradeep Achar & Ors.
Case No: MFA No. 1405/2021 (MV-I)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 240
The Karnataka High Court has awarded Rs.20 lakhs towards caretaker expenses for the next 50 years to a 34-year-old woman who suffered severe head injuries in a motorcycle accident, rendering her permanently disabled. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 240]
Opining that extreme cognitive deficit and her inability to go back to her avocation would amount to 100 per cent loss of earning capacity, the Division Bench of Justices Jayant Banerji and Tara Vitasta Ganju enhanced the compensation for permanent disability awarded by the MACT Tribunal five-fold.
Therefore, the total compensation in the appeal was increased to Rs 55 Lakhs from Rs 11 lakhs awarded by the Tribunal. Moreover, the court also said that Rs 1 lakh awarded by the MACT Tribunal for caretaker and future medical expenses was 'wholly inadequate'.
“…Since the appellant/claimant is unable to take care of her day-to day activities or be able to live her life in a normal way, she would require an attendant for the rest of her life at least for 50 years. Given her age at the time of the accident and she would require an attendant for the rest of her life, this Court deems it apposite to award 'Caretaker expenses' for a period of 50 years, which we find it just and proper to award at Rs.20,00,000/”, the court observed in the order about caretaker expenses alone, separating it from the medical expenses.
No Scope For Internal Inquiry Or Image Management In POCSO Cases: Karnataka High Court Upholds FIR Against School Staff For Suppressing Abuse
Case Title: Shivaprasad Bhat & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: CRL.P No.9422 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 241
The Karnataka High Court last week dismissed a petition filed by three officials of a private school seeking quashing an FIR registered against them under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, holding that allegations of failure to report a sexual assault, and coercing the minor victim to alter his complaint disclose a prima facie case under Section 21 of the Act. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 241]
The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna laid down in unequivocal terms that the school choosing to remain silent in the matters of child sexual abuse is 'not institutional prudence' but 'statutory delinquency'.
“…Silence in such circumstances is not institutional prudence; it is statutory delinquency. Delay is not administrative convenience; it is a betrayal of the confidence reposed in the institution by every parent who entrusts a child to its care. Any attempt to suppress, modify or camouflage the allegations, instead of reporting them forthwith to the jurisdictional authorities, only emboldens the perpetrator, deepens the trauma of the victim and frustrates the very object for which the POCSO Act was enacted..”, the court held.
Case Title: Century Club vs. S. Umapathy & Anr.
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 1351 of 2025 (GM- RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 242
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the Century Club, a prestigious members-only club situated in the centre of Bengaluru, is a 'Public Authority' under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 242]
The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T has dismissed the appeal filed by the Century Club, upholding the orders of a Single Judge and the Karnataka Information Commission in favour of transparent functioning of the club.
The court primarily reasoned that the Maharaja of Mysuru had earlier financed the institution of the club in the 7.5 acres of public land adjacent to Cubbon Park in 1913.
“…Admittedly, the Century Club is situated on the land measuring 7.5 acre and it was granted by the then Maharaja of Mysuru on 27.10.1913, free of cost, and therefore, it is a non-Government organisation substantially financed by the funds provided by the appropriate Government. The land on which the Century Club is situated belongs to the public and therefore, the Century Club cannot enrich themselves at the cost of the public money. Moreover, the Century Club is not paying any rent or lease or any royalty to the Government and the entire land of 7.5 acre is granted free of cost, which would amount to substantial finance by the Government and the property belongs to the State Government”, the court said.
Case Title: Sangeetha Agrawal & Anr. vs. M/S Esteem Gardenia Apartment Owners Association
Case No.: RFA No. 1826 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 243
Holding that apartment owners have the right to safe common areas, and children possess the right to recreation, the Karnataka High Court has allowed an appeal filed by a couple against their apartment owners' association. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 243]
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar allowed the appeal from a suit preferred by the couple who are residents of an Apartment Complex in Sahakaranagar, Bengaluru, saying that decorating common stairways with pots create public nuisance and children cannot be deprived of their right to play in common playgrounds.
On the children's right to play in the common playground provided inside the apartment area, the court said:
“…Playing games by children is a fundamental right of children and prohibiting the children from playing takes away their overall health. Hence, it is hereby directed that the defendant/association reconsider its decision, which was taken earlier in this regard…. shall take a decision as to which games are to be allowed and which are not allowed in the play area. However, by stopping one or two games, the children should not be deprived of playing games in the play area. The defendant shall specify the games to be played in the play area after taking confidence of the members of the association”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Manjunatha H.C. vs. Buden Sab & Ors.
Case No.: MFA No. 2959 of 2019 (MV-I)
Case Title: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 244
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a driver cannot be held negligent for a sudden tyre burst, thereby, exonerating the driver and fastening liability solely on the owner of the vehicle. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 244]
“…The manner of accident shows it is a tyre burst which is not in the hands of the driver and he cannot held to be negligent for the sudden burst of the tyre. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts properly and fastened the liability on the driver. The said observation of the Tribunal is not on proper appreciation of facts and is liable to be set aside..”, the court added.
The single judge bench of Justice P Sree Sudha was hearing an appeal filed by the driver of a tractor trailer, who approached the High Court against the Tribunal's order that made him jointly liable to pay the compensation amounting to Rs11.2 lakhs to the family of the deceased.
Case Title: P v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7053 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 245
The Karnataka High Court recently lamented that a child victim of sexual assault was 'held captive' by the legal system for over a decade, while the trial court indulged in a 'culture of repeated adjournments'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 245]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while disposing of a writ petition in a 2014 POCSO case, directed the Special Court to conclude the proceedings within eight weeks, terming the delay 'deeply disquieting' and 'continued injustice'.
“…The case at hand is not one involving an ordinary offence. It concerns the alleged rape of a child, barely 6 years of age. Every adjournment granted without compelling justification has not merely postponed a hearing; it has prolonged the trauma of a child who entered the criminal justice system as a victim and has remained captive to it for over ten years.Justice delayed, in cases of this nature, does not remain a mere procedural lapse - it assumes the character of a continuing injustice”, the Court observed.
Case Title: Velu @ Velmayil Somu & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: WP 18978/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 246
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to accept a settlement amount of ₹2 lakh offered by the accused in a case concerning the drowning of a two-and-a-half-year-old child at a construction site, observing that the life of a child “radiant with unfulfilled promise and infinite possibilities” could not be reduced to a monetary figure that failed to reflect the enormity of the loss. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 246]
Justice M. Nagaprasanna subsequently quashed the criminal proceedings only after the accused enhanced the compensation package and agreed to provide sustained financial support to the bereaved family.
While allowing the writ petition filed by the accused persons, the Court observed,
“…The Courts do not merely adjudicate disputes; at times they become silent custodians of equity where law intersects with human suffering. The judicial process cannot restore a life that has been irretrievably lost, nor can any monetary recompense assuage the anguish of parents. Yet, where parties seek closure and the law permits such settlement, the Court bears the solemn obligation of ensuring that justice is not reduced to a mere commercial bargain, but assumes the character of meaningful restitution.”
Case Title: Munirathna v. State by Nandini Layout Police Station & Anr.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5045 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)247
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against BJP MLA from Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Munirathna, holding that the allegations of forcing a person to wear the shawl of a particular party during elections do not constitute an offence under Section 171C of IPC [threatening or interfering with voters] since the proceedings were vitiated for want of a complaint by the competent authority under Section 195 of the CrPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar)247]
It was alleged by the complainant, who is a Congress worker, that the petitioner MLA had abducted him during the time of elections in 2024, forced him to wear the shawl of BJP, and took photographs of it to blackmail him further.
The MLA was charged for offences under Sections 506 (criminal intimidation), 149 (unlawful assembly), 363 (kidnapping), and 171C (undue influence at elections) of the IPC, registered at Nandini Lay out Police Station and the proceedings were pending before ACMM Court, Bengaluru.
Case Title: Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: CRL.P 7712/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 248
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (July 15) ordered the State to pay Rs 5 Lakhs as compensation for 'illegal arrest' of the owner of a Kodagu Homestay, where a US National was allegedly raped. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 248]
The court however refused to quash the FIR in its entirety at this stage, holding that it was imperative that the investigation should continue.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed,
“...On Summation of preceding analysis, there is no warrant of interference at the stage of crime. In result, the prayer with regards to the quashing of crime is sans acceptance. Arrest of petitioner is declared illegal. Petitioner becomes entitled to compensation for such illegal arrest. The criminal petition is partly allowed. The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs 5 Lakhs. State shall pay the aforesaid compensation within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The challenge to the FIR in CR no.34 fails as it is imperative that investigation should continue…”
Case Title: K.H. Muniyappa & Anr. v. State by Robertsonpet Police Station & Anr.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4935 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 249
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed the criminal proceedings pending against Karnataka Cabinet Minister K.H. Muniyappa, who holds the Food and Civil Supplies portfolio, in connection with an alleged assault incident dating back to 2013, holding that the complainant could not selectively accept a 'mutual' settlement and then file a protest petition against the 'B' Report filed by the police in the Minister's case.
A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna was hearing a petition filed by the Minister and a former Zilla Panchayat Member for quashing the offences against them, punishable under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) r/w Section 34 of the IPC, and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
In an event connected to the 2013 Legislative Assembly Elections, there was reportedly a clash between the petitioner and the complainant, both prominent Congress leaders at the time, since the complainant V Shankar was granted the Kolar Gold Fields Constituency to contest, depriving the daughter of the Minister a seat.
Case Title: The Advocates Bar Association Kanakapura v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 21360/2026
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 250
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday [July 16] orally questioned the maintainability of a writ petition filed by the Advocates Bar Association of Kanakapura seeking to restrain the State government and local authorities from allotting sites in front of the newly constructed court complex at Kanakapura. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 250]
The court orally observed that if such a petition is entertained, it would lead to a situation where all layouts in front of court complexes across the State would have to be removed.
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observations while hearing a writ petition filed by the Kanakapura Bar Association, which sought direction to the respondents to consider their representations dated May 27 and to refrain from allotting any sites in front of the court complex building situated at Kanakapura in Bengaluru.
“…How does it affect the court premises? If its [layout in front of court complex] construction is started and converted for commercial purpose, how does that impact you? what about government land, they should not form layout there…. It's not necessary.. Then we should remove all the layouts in front of all the court complexes?”, the court orally enquired.
The plea was eventually withdrawn by the Association.
Case Title: Kumari Shamshad Begum & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: CRL.P 9571/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 251
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (July 16) refused to quash an FIR registered against a father-daughter duo accused of orchestrating a ₹5.3-crore fake government jobs racket, observing that the allegations disclosed a “classic potboiler” in which naïve and gullible job aspirants were duped with forged appointment orders and false promises of employment in government departments.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 251]
Dismissing the criminal petition filed by Kumari Shamshad Begum and her father M.A. Mansoor Ahmed, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the Court would not extend its “protective hands” to persons accused of hoodwinking unsuspecting candidates by issuing fake appointment orders.
“...The facts as narrated hereinabove represent the facts obtaining in a classic potboiler. This Court would not extend its protective hands to these petitioners who have hoodwinked naïve, gullible people with fake appointment orders to departments of governments... It is a case of fake in uno, fake in omnibus. Petition is dismissed,” the Court held.
The FIR, registered by the CCB City Police, Bengaluru, alleges that the petitioners cheated job aspirants of ₹5.30 crore by promising appointments in various government departments, including the Railways, Income Tax Department, Irrigation, Health and Social Welfare departments.
Case Title: Shivaprasad Bhat & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: CRL.P No.9422 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 252
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a husband's challenge to an interim maintenance order directing him to pay ₹20,000 per month to his wife and child, observing that a person who can maintain a Mercedes Benz car cannot claim that such an amount is excessive. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 252]
A Division Bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice T.M. Nadaf rejected the husband's contention that the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court was unreasonable.
“...For a person who could maintain Mercedes Benz Car, to pay Rs.20,000/- per month cannot be termed as excessive and since the matter is pending consideration, we without expressing anything on the interim maintenance granted, as respondent wife is not in appeal seeking enhancement of the same, dismiss the Writ Petition, confirming the order, directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- every month to the respondent-wife and child without fail,” the Court observed.
Case Title: Sri Girish Mattenavar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: CRL.P No. 7620/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 253
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR registered against social activist Girish Mattenavar, accused of making objectionable social media posts concerning the administration of Shree Kshetra Dharmasthala temple, after he filed an affidavit assuring that he would not post such material and undertook to maintain harmony. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 253]
The temple town recently made headlines, after a sanitation worker claimed that he was coerced to bury hundreds of bodies of women and children between 1995 and 2014.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna disposed of Mattenavar's plea seeking quashing of a 2026 FIR for offences under Section 353(2) [criminalising circulation of false information to promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will amongst communities] of the BNS, currently pending before the Magistrate Court of Belthangady.
Case Title: Tummala Manoj Kumar V. State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7318 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 254
The Karnataka High Court has recently granted bail to a software professional accused of abetting his wife's suicide, observing that allegations of dowry demand become 'difficult to be believed" when the marriage is a love marriage. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 254]
The single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, while allowing the bail petition of accused, noted that the accused and the deceased wife were staying alone in a rented house at Bengaluru, as per the chargesheet. The police investigation also concluded that none of the other family members accused for dowry harassment were residing with the petitioner and the deceased, the court noted while granting bail.
“…As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased is a love marriage, the allegation that the demand was made for payment of dowry at the time of marriage and even after marriage there was a further demand for payment of dowry becomes difficult to be believed. ...the court observed in the order.
Case Title: MR. DARSHAN SRINIVAS & ANR v. SIRI PRODUCTIONS & ORS
Case No: MFA No. 4257/2026 (CPC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 255
In a setback to Kannada actor Darshan Srinivas and his wife Vijayalakshmi Darshan, the Karnataka High Court on Friday [July 17] dismissed their appeal challenging the vacation of an interim injunction against the release of Kannada film 'BOSS', clearing the way for the movie's theatrical release. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 255]
Darshan claimed that the film draws inspiration from the ongoing Renukaswamy Murder case involving him and would prejudice his trial.
The single-judge bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur observed that there was 'no perversity or illegality' in the trial court's order while vacating the interim stay against the film's release.
“…Having heard the counsel for the respondent and the counsel for appellants, the question that arises is whether there is any perversity or illegality in impugned order passed by trial court, whether it warrants any interference, and if so what order. After having heard both counsels…and after having deliberated on judgements relied by both counsels, this court is of the opinion that there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court vacating the interim stay against the release of the movie. ...Reasons arrived at by the trial court are just and proper. No interference…. Appeal stands dismissed. Any IA filed by petitioner pending pales into insignificance…”, the court noted in the order.
Husband Can't Seek Divorce Merely Because He Has 'Lost Interest' In Marriage: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M v. B
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4343 Of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
Emphasising the sanctity of marriage under Hindu Law, the Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a husband's appeal seeking dissolution of his 21-year-old marriage, observing that one cannot walk away from a marital relationship merely on the ground that they no longer have 'interest' in it. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice T M Nadaf, while dismissing the appeal against Family Court's rejection of his divorce application noted that the husband cannot be allowed to 'take advantage of his own wrong'.
“…The person who fell in love with the respondent and fathered a girl child who is now almost a major, has come before the Court stating that he is left with no interest in the marriage and therefore, decree of divorce be granted. The marriage under the Hindu Law is a sacrament and it is not a contract. Once the parties are married, the marriage is for life and one person cannot walk away from the marriage on the ground that he/she is left with no interest in the marriage with the other party”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Girish Patil & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: CRL.P No. 101182 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a criminal petition filed by a journalist and an editor of a Newspaper Daily, accused of publishing a news report disclosing the identity of a child victim of assault. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde upheld the ongoing prosecution under Section 74(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. While doing so, the court noted that the publication of a child's name or school details is prohibited irrespective of whether the child is a 'victim, witness, or in conflict with law'.
“…No report in any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or audio-visual media or other forms of communication regarding any inquiry or investigation or judicial procedure, shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particular, which may lead to the identification of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection or a child victim or witness of a crime, involved in such matter, under any other law for the time being in force, nor shall the picture of any such child be published”, the court underscored in its order.
Case Title: Vincent Correa v. Viyola Prathvi Correa
Case No: CRL.RP No. 870/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 258
The Karnataka High Court has held that a father is obligated to bear the educational expenses of his unmarried daughter pursuing postgraduate medical studies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, even after she has attained majority, observing that the parental obligation to provide education does not cease merely because the child has become an adult. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 258]
A Single Judge Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh dismissed a revision petition filed by the father against concurrent orders of the Trial Court and the District & Sessions Court directing him to pay ₹16 lakh towards his daughter's MD Dermatology course fees.
The Court held that educational expenses can be awarded as monetary relief under Section 20 of the DV Act, noting that deprivation of such financial support amounts to "economic abuse" under Section 3(d)(iv) of the Act.
"...While defining economic abuse, the Legislature has also included deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom. It is the custom and practice that everywhere in the world that parents are morally obligated to provide basic amenities, including health and education. If the contention of the petitioner that the child is not entitled to maintenance or educational expenses on attaining majority is accepted, the expression 'in addition to' employed in Section 20(1)(d) would be otiose..."
Case Title: P v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7053 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 259
The Karnataka High Court today quashed an FIR registered against a family for the alleged theft of two cows, strongly criticising the police for registering the case nearly two years after the animals had gone missing and describing the episode as a "classic illustration of abuse of criminal justice system". [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 259]
A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing the petition filed by the accused, observed that the police machinery had been completely misused by the complainant, and the police registered the theft complaint without conducting any preliminary inquiry into whether the cows even belonged to the complainant.
Expressing shock at the police action, the Court orally remarked:
“...When somebody is killed, they [police] would be like 'wait, we are searching the cows'... Not saying animals should not be searched, but two years later you register a complaint?”
The petitioners, arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 4, had approached the High Court challenging Crime No. 47/2026 registered at MK Doddi Police Station under Section 303(2) (theft) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Case Title: TJ V. State Of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: WP 34898/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 260
The Karnataka High Court has held that a private Instagram chat between two classmates, in which a male student complimented his female classmate using what the Court described as “Gen Z lingo”, does not attract the offences of stalking, voyeurism or outraging the modesty of a woman. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 260]
A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while quashing the FIR registered against the student, also directed the Investigating Officer to immediately return the petitioner's laptop and mobile phone, if they had indeed been seized two years ago pursuant to the registration of the case.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a college student against an FIR lodged over an Instagram direct message (DM) sent to his female classmate complimenting her appearance.
Quashing the proceedings, the Court observed:
“...The petitioner in his zeal communicates to the complainant by DM (direct message) on Instagram with regard to how the complainant looked on a particular day, describing her to be beautiful but in a Gen Z lingo… The trouble crops up to the student. A crime comes to be registered and the career of the petitioner is put to jeopardy… The entire fulcrum of the crime for the aforesaid offences revolves around the chat. The chat is not a public chat; it is a chat between two individuals i.e., petitioner and complainant… Yes, the particular word used is inappropriate but that's the word used by students these days....”
Case Title: M/S Bharathi Education Society Trustv. State of Karnataka & Panchayat Development Officer, Grama Panchayat, Bharathinagara
Case No: Writ Petition No. 18384 of 2026 (LB-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
The Karnataka High Court has directed Bharathi Education Society Trust to replace course banners featuring the image of a person in advocates' attire, observing that such publicity could violate the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules prohibiting advertisements by individuals. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 261]
A single judge bench of Justice BM Shyam Prasad granted the Trust eight weeks to replace the banners while disposing of a petition challenging a communication dated June 2, 2026, issued by the Panchayat Development Officer of Bharathinagara Grama Panchayat in Mandya district.
“…it is seen that these buntings have the image of a person in what could be the attire prescribed for Advocates. The Bar Council of India Rules would be against any advertisement of an individual...”, the court noted.
The impugned communication stated that, although the Trust was permitted to display banners, they could not feature the image of any individual. It further noted that the Trust had failed to remove the banners despite having been served with a notice.
Case Title: Divisional Manager, Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. V. Sri Satish S/o Basavaraj Kurubar
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 24075 of 2013 (MV-I)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Motor Vehicle Tribunal granting compensation to a car owner after observing that he had filed a claim against the insurance company in respect of damage caused to his own car which is not permitted under the Section 166 MV Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 262]
The claimant, the owner of a car, alleged that due to the rashness and negligence of the driver, the claimant's car fell into a roadside canal. The lawyer preferred claim against the insurer seeking compensation for the loss he incurred.
Before the Motor Vehicle Tribunal, the insurance company contended that the claimant had approached the wrong forum for compensation for his own car, and that even the insurance policy was not registered in the claimant's name, but in the name of the previous owner.
Case Title: Gadilinga S/o Dodda Basappa v. State of Karnataka & Sharabhayya B
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 101461 of 2026 (482(CrPC)/528(BNSS))
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash an FIR registered against a lawyer for alleged extortion from a labourer to the tune of Rs 5 lakhs by impersonating a police officer, holding that the allegations prima facie disclos commission of a cognizable offence which requires further investigation. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 263]
The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, sitting at Dharwad, noted that the allegations in the Crime registered at Moka Police Station reveal prima facie elements of the
“…contents of the complaint do attract Section 308 of BNS. The reason is the contents of the complaint would indicate that, there was a demand by the petitioners who made a claim that they belong to the Police Department. It is not necessary that the petitioners should be wearing the police uniform at the time when they made the demand. Whether the demand was really made or whether the petitioners were present at the time of the alleged incident, whether the complainant paid ₹2,00,000/- and whether the petitioners refused ₹2,00,000/- are all the matters which require investigation….”, the court said.
Case Title: Y. Venkateshwara Prasad & Ors. v. The State Commissioner for Persons with Disability & Anr.
Case No: WP No. 13534 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed proceedings initiated against residents of an apartment complex under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, holding that the statute cannot be invoked to settle mundane civil disputes merely because one of the parties is a person with disability. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 264]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj was hearing a plea filed by four residents of Adith Bhavan Apartment in K.R. Puram, challenging an order passed by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disability (PwD), issuing a warning to the petitioners based on a complaint filed by a physically disabled co-resident.
“…the authorities constituted under the Act are entrusted with specific statutory functions to address grievances arising from the denial or infringement of rights recognised under the enactment. Their jurisdiction…is confined to matters having a nexus with the rights and protections conferred by the statute. It cannot be expanded to encompass every dispute in which a person with disability is a party, irrespective of whether the dispute bears any connection to the rights created under the Act….”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Suresh Babu J.N. & Ors. v. Jaganmohan & Ors.
Case Nos: MFA No. 3477/2026, MFA No. 3478/2026, MFA No. 3479/2026, MFA No. 3480/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that an order passed by a trial court, which only issues notice on an application for temporary injunction, would not constitute an appealable order under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 265]
The single judge bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, dismissing a batch of four appeals filed by plaintiffs, held that a trial court order issuing notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC, without granting or refusing the ad-interim injunction, would not be amenable to an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r).
“…when there is a clear remedy available under the Code of Civil Procedure as to what orders could be challenged under the appeal and what cannot be, it is not for this Court to get into the mind of the legislature to infringe into the legislature's forte…Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to infringe into the wisdom of the legislature which conspicuously has not included Rule 3 of Order XXXIX in the appeal provisions provided under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r)”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: K v. M
Case No: Writ Petition No. 107250 of 2025 (GM-CPC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a marriage solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, during the subsistence of an earlier marriage, is void ab initio, even if the parties are governed by a personal law that permits polygamy. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 266]
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that such a marriage does not confer the status of a legally wedded wife upon the second spouse.
Noting the above, the court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a woman who sought to be impleaded as a legal representative of her deceased husband in a partition suit.
The court held that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was in violation of Section 4(a) of the Special Marriage Act, which mandates that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage.
“…Once parties voluntarily choose to solemnize their marriage under the Act, they are governed by the mandatory conditions prescribed therein. The statutory requirement that neither party should have a spouse living cannot be diluted by resorting to personal law or any equitable considerations… It is true that Mohammedan personal law, subject to the conditions and limitations recognised therein, permits a Muslim male to contract more than one marriage. Such permissibility, however, operates only within the domain of personal law governing marriages solemnized thereunder…”, the court observed in the order.
Case Title: Sanket & Anr. v. Regional Manager, Karnataka Grameen Bank & Anr.
Case No: WP No. 109488 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 267
Highlighting that the 'creditworthiness of a parent' cannot impede the 'educational aspirations or constitutional rights' of a student, the Karnataka High Court has quashed a rejection letter issued by Karnataka Grameen Bank which denied an educational loan of Rs 12.5 lakhs to a student pursuing B.E. in Artificial Intelligence. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 267]
“…A CIBIL score is merely one indicator of past credit behaviour. It is not a statutory disqualification nor can it become the sole determinative factor while considering an educational loan…”, the single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum sitting at Dharwad noted at the outset.
Observing that loan applications cannot be rejected solely on the ground of the parent's adverse CIBIL score or credit history, the single judge bench noted that such 'inflexible' practises could 'perpetuate economic inequality across generations'
Case Title: Sri. Jawahar Gopal & Anr v. Vishal Baliga D
Case No: Writ Petition No. 6857 of 2026 (GM- CPC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 268
Clarifying the legal position on police assistance for enforcing court orders, the Karnataka High Court has last week held that seeking police aid to implement an interim injunction is a continuing procedural remedy and cannot be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, merely because earlier police protection applications have been filed. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 268]
“…The doctrine of res judicata is founded on the principle that an issue finally adjudicated between the parties should not be reopened. The present application, however, does not invite the Court to re-adjudicate any issue already decided. It proceeds on the allegation that, notwithstanding the subsisting order of temporary injunction, fresh acts of obstruction have rendered the earlier directions ineffective. Every subsequent act of interference with the implementation of an injunction gives rise to a fresh cause for invoking the Court's ancillary jurisdiction. Unless the injunction itself has been vacated, modified, or set aside, the Court's power to secure its enforcement remains for the life of the injunction….”, the court observed in its order.
The single judge bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, hence, dismissed a writ petition filed by a son and his mother who sought to evade enforcement of an injunction, while imposing costs of Rs 50,000 on them for 'abuse of the process of law'.
The writ petition was filed challenging a trial court order requiring the Whitefield Police to assist a party to the suit [plaintiff] to implement interim injunction restraining the aforesaid mother-son duo from interfering with the possession of a property.
Case Title: Pavitra Ramanujam v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: WP No. 14309 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 269
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that court orders prohibiting 'coercive steps' are confined to protecting personal liberty, and such orders do not block the statutory process of investigation, including the power of the Enforcement Directorate to attach property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 269]
“…It [no coercive steps] insulates the individual from arrest; it does not eclipse the statutory authority to carry the investigation to its logical culmination or to invoke remedies expressly sanctioned by law, including the institution of prosecution or the initiation of attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act..”, Justice M. Nagaprasanna held.
The Court thus refused to quash a Provisional Attachment Order passed by the ED against a woman, while holding that the petitioner misconstrued an earlier order of the court directing 'no coercive steps'.
“…An order directing 'no coercive steps' or 'no coercive measures' would only mean that the accused or any person in favour of whom such order is passed, shall not be arrested. An order directing not to take any precipitative action is of wide amplitude. It stays or suspends the process of investigation in its entirety which would mean all action pursuant to the said action would remain stayed.”, the court clarified.
Case Title: Devanura Mahadeva & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
Case No: WP 22330/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 270
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (July 28) refused to interfere with the Election Commission of India's (ECI) timeline for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, holding that the Election Commission is best placed to address procedural issues arising during the exercise. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 270]
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S Hemalekha disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by historian Dr. Ramachandra Guha, veteran activist Devanura Mahadeva, and others, which primarily sought an extension of the SIR timeline in the State.
The court termed the plea as 'premature', holding that the question of whether the timeline is sufficient falls within the 'specialised domain' of the ECI.
Case Title: M/s Sujal Pharma v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: WP 12583/2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 271
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the State Medical Supplies Corporation Limited (KSMSCL) to release a part payment of Rs 1.5 crore to a pharmaceutical firm for drugs supplied during the COVID-19 pandemic, while keeping the balance payment subject to the outcome of an inquiry into alleged irregularities in procurement. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 271]
A single judge bench of Justice M.G.S. Kamal disposed of the petition filed by Sujal Pharma, seeking a direction to consider the representation made by the firm to KSMSCL and for the respondent authorities to pay Rs 3.14 crores along with 18% interest. The payment was in relation to drugs supplied against purchase orders issued in 2021.
“…Respondent-authorities shall release a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- being part payment of the amount towards the purchase orders dated 01.05.2021, 14.05.2021, 20.05.2021 and 06.07.2021 as per Annexure-C series within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order…The affidavit and the copy of the title document of the property as noted above filed by the proprietary of the petitioner is taken on record. The same shall constitute a security/guarantee against the part payment to be made by the respondent-authorities towards the purchase orders dated 01.05.2021, 14.05.2021, 20.05.2021 and 06.07.2021 as per Annexure-C series”, the court concluded in the order.
Case Title: The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Neeraj Kumar Sharma
Case No.: WA No.1203 of 2026
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 272
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a Single Judge's order that had quashed the seizure of a premium Mercedes Benz AMG G63 suspected of tax evasion using fabricated documents. The single judge had also directed restoration of the vehicle's registration. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 272].
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S Hemalekha however held that the vehicle was registered using fabricated documents and that the transport authorities had acted within their statutory powers.
“…"The respondent[subsequent purchaser] has been unable to produce any material to show that the vehicle in question was registered in his favour on the basis of any sale document executed by either Sri Nihal Ahmed[original purchaser] or HDFC Bank[hypothecated bank]… the State has produced documents, including the sale certificate and the tax invoices purportedly issued by Mercedes-Benz, on the basis of which the vehicle in question was registered in favour of the respondent. If that assertion is correct, the decision of the concerned RTO to cancel the registration cannot be faulted, as the said documents are ex facie false”, the court noted in the order.
For context, one Mr. Nihal Ahmed had originally purchased the vehicle, a Mercedes-AMG G 63, for Rs 1.96 crores, partly financed by the HDFC Bank to the tune of 1.95 crores.
Case Title: Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s AMR Housing Development Corporation & Ors.
Case No.: WA No. 1214/2025 & Connected Matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 273
The Karnataka High Court upheld an order quashing land acquisition proceedings for construction of Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP) observing that there was "nothing nice about the" NICE [Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterpris] project except that farmers were robbed of their lands without being compensated. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 273]
In doing so the court dismissed appeals filed by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise (NICE) and the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), challenging the single judge's order.
The Division Bench of Justice D. K Singh and Justice T.M Nadaf said that the project appears to be 'one of the biggest scams'.
“…The facts as disclosed would clearly suggest that there is nothing nice about the NICE project except that the farmers have been robbed of their lands and livelihood of generations without payment of compensation …We have been informed that out of 111 kms Expressway, the NICE has constructed only 5 kilometres Expressway in the last 25-26 years as per the affidavit dated 28.07.2026 filed by…Additional Chief Secretary, PWD. The NICE is sitting over huge land bank of more than 20,000 acres, and the land and the assets have been alienated and capitalized to its benefit…”, the court pointed out in the order.
It also noted that the above factual aspects denote that the project is in violation of Supreme Court's order in Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority v. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. & Ors (2021) and in violation of the terms of Framework Agreement (FWA) executed between the Karnataka government and the appellant-NICE for implementation of Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP) in 1997.