Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 398NOMINAL 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....
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
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
Shri Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
Goutham Raj S.M. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
Sidul Mandal v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & Anr.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
X v. State of Karnataka & Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
State of Karnataka & Authorities v. Employees of Private Aided Educational Institutions., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
XXX v. Registrar General of Karnataka High Court & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike & another v M/S Maya Traders & others., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
SRI MUDDURA M. SOMANNA @ PRASAD v SRI B. RAMESH, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
Miss Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
Swamy & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287
State of Karnataka v. JAR Gold Retail Private Limited & Connected Matters., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 288
Srushti v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 289
Dr. Vinuta B. & M/s Kids Clinic India Ltd. (Cloudnine Hospital) v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
Sri Ajit Hanumakkanavar v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 291
Smt. Nagarekha v. State of Karnataka & Anr.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
Fr. Elias Daniel & Ors. vs. Department of Internal Administration & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
CHADURANGA KANTHARAJ URS v UNION OF INDIA & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
Smt. Lakshmamma vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
SRI MAYUR D BHANU v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
PROF DR KAUSHIK MAJUMDAR v/s INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
Darshan v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
Dr. Mohammed Shakeel Ansari v. Union of India & Anr,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
Hindu Jagarana Vedike v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
Earth Recycler Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
MUKESH JAIN v STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
Sri G. Eshwaraiah S/o G. Narasimhulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
. Sri K N Venugopal @ Venugopala Reddy and Another vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
Hari Prakash SP & Ors.v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Shiva Shankarappa Sahukar v. Special Secretary & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
State of Karnataka v/s Pavitra Gowda & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
Naveen G. v. State of Karnataka & Anr..., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
KSRTC v. Pampapal & Other Connected Matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
B Nagendra v. Enforcement Directorate, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
Rakesh Kumar Sahu & Anr v.State of Karnataka., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
V. v .Z, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
X v.Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
Sangeetha Mehrotra vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
Abdul Jabbar v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
C v. T, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
Rahim Khan v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
Smt. Kavitha Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
V. Amaresh @ Ambarish v. State of Karnataka & Anr ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
Naveen G. v. State of Karnataka & Anr..., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
S v. N, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
Sheela S v State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
FAIR VAKKAYIL JOHN vs UNION OF INDIA & others., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
R.GOVINDA REDDY v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 325
Smt Sheela S vs State of Karnataka & others,, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 326
G v. M, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 327
Dr Adnan Saeed v. Smt. Vandana Sharma & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
Ravi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka & Ors ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
X v/s State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
X v. Z, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
SRI. SATHISH N. VAIDYA & OTHERS vs MR. M.P. NORONHA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD & another vs PADMANABHA SHETTY G & others ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 333
A vs State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 334
Chandrakant SHANKAR Vaddar vs State of Karnataka & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 335
Aravind Reddy v. State of Karnataka & ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 336
Akthar Hussain Laskar @ Md. Hussain & Abdul Aleem Mondal @ Md Jubal @ Md Jubab v. NIA & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Compnay Ltd. V. Vishwanath & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
A vs S,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 339
Sri Vijayaraghava Marathe v. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
Darshan S v. State of Karnataka,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
RAJAMATI & OTHERS VS. LEELAVATHI & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
B.R. Vijay Kumar ("Duniya Vijay") v. Smt. Nagarathna ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
Rajesh Nayak v. The Commissioner & Ors. ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
A.C.C. Limited v. Union of India & Others & Connected Matters,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
Multiplex Association of India & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
ARTI SINGH & ANOTHER VS. CASHFREE PAYMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
Panchaksharaiah v. G.S. Chandrashekar & Another; Vikash Kumar Vikash v. G.S. Chandrashekar & Another , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
AMARESH H. @ AMARESH POMPANA GOUDA HULUGUNCHI VS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS and batch ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
A v. C, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 350
SHILPA ARAVALI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, KIRAN KUMAR P VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 351
BAZME TOHID TANZEEM & ANOTHER VS. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF & OTHERS, ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 352
Vijay Tata v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 353
H M Manu v. Marigowda, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 354
P v.N,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 355
Krishna Murthy @ Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Others., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 356
Gopalrao vs State of Karnataka & others.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 357
CHANDRAKANTH VS MANZOOR AHMED & OTHERS ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 358
Gudadappa Rudrappa Talawar & Anr. v. The Section Officer, HESCOM, Balekundri Kh Section & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 359
The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Hulagamma Mallappa Biradar & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 360
Salma & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 361
High Court of Karnataka v. Sri. Pankaj Kaushik,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 362
ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 363
GNANASHEKAR M. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 364
Ritvik S. Sharma v. State by Subramanya Nagar Police Station.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 365
Smt Vijayalakshmi Darshan v. State of Karnataka &Ors.2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
GIRIDHAR NEELAKANT PAI VS NEELAKANT NARAYAN PAI & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 367
MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS & Batch,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 368
Uday Shetty Muniyal AND State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
Dr. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
M.N. KHAJA HUSSAIN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
C SWAMY VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
DR RAJALAKSHMI SHANKAR VS. THE SECRETARY, REP BY UNION OF INDIA, THE MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS & OTHERS,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 373
High Court of Karnataka, represented by the Registrar General v. Sri H.P. Sabjan, Advocate,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Estate Management Unit (DRDO) v. State of Karnataka & Others & Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 375
Felix Mkpang Boco v. Union of India & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 376
VENKAPPA GOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 377
R v S,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 378
Imtiyaz Nuruddin Chinchali v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 379
ADAGURU H. VISHWANATH VS B.S. SURESHA,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 380
A v. R,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 381
Pratap N M v. State of Karnataka,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 382
MALA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 383
SRI SURESH @ SURESH NAIK K VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 384
DR. ASHWIN HEBBAR K VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 385
T G BALAN & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 386
U VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 387
X v Y,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 388
X & another v Rajesh, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 389
Union of India & Ors. v. Mohsin Sharieff & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
Juhi vs Union of India & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 391
AISHWARYA @ ISHWARYA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 392
SANTHOSH KUMAR H.L & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 393
RAMESH BABU N v/s STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
SURAJ REVANNA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
X v/s Y ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
MURALI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
SHRIDHAR & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
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.
Case Title: Shri Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Title:WP No. 8032 of 2026 & WP No. 9372 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the state's amendment prescribing a 120-day outer limit for filing written statements. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 274]
However, the single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has 'read down' the provision to ensure that civil courts retain a 'narrow and exceptional' discretion to accept written statements beyond the 120 days in cases where denial could lead to grave 'miscarriage of justice'.
While reading down the provision to avoid inconsistency with the other portions of CPC, the court tested the amendment on the touchstone of Article 14 and notes as below”
Case Title: Goutham Raj S.M. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12679 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a 24-year-old man, accused of assaulting police personnel, while observing that merely running away from police cannot constitute 'use of criminal force' under Section 353 [Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty] of the IPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the petition by quashing the charge sheet for offences under Sections 332, 353 and 34 of the IPC.
On the early hours of December 15, 2023, when the police was night patrolling, the petitioner and another accused was stopped by the police out of suspicion. The police allegedly demanded the vehicle documents which was met with a refusal from the accused.
Later, when the complaint was registered by the Police Constable, it was portrayed as the accused assaulting the policemen and fleeing the scene.
“…Section 353 punishes a person who would stop the public servant from performance of official duties by use of criminal force. There is no allegation of use of criminal force. In fact the allegation is, petitioner ran away when the police wanted to stop him. If running away is usage of criminal force against a public servant, there cannot be a better illustration of abuse of the process of the law…”, the court noted in the order, pointing out the discrepancy in invoking Section 153.
Case Title: Sidul Mandal v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 8790 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
The Karnataka High Court has observed that facilitating fake Aadhaar and PAN cards for illegal immigrants from Bangladesh prima facie amounts to an act endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276]
The single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty thus dismissed the bail plea of Sidul Mandal, a 46-year-old man from Dhaka, accused in the racket.
“…The act committed by the petitioner as found in the charge sheet has the effect of endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India and the said act is punishable with imprisonment for life under Section 152 of BNS, 2023. However, the Investigation Officer has prima facie erred in not invoking Section 152 of BNS, 2023, in the present case against the petitioner though the charge sheet material prima facie makes out a case for the said offence…”, the Court observed in the order.
Case Title: Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & Anr.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 8044 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
The Karnataka High Court has held that a writ petition against a workers' union to restrain a proposed strike is not maintainable as a general rule under the Industrial Relations Code 2020, remarking that Trade Union does not qualify as 'State' under the Constitution.
On the other hand, an aggrieved employer could approach the Industrial Tribunal for enforcement of the statutory prohibition on strikes during conciliation proceedings. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276]
For context, proposed strike is prohibited under Section 62(1)(d) and is illegal under Section 63 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020
The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, while dismissing the writ petition filed by Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. against a strike notice issued by its Automotive Electronics Employees Union, said,
“it is evident that respondent No.2-Union does not qualify as a body discharging public duty or public function. Admittedly, the Union is neither the 'State' nor an instrumentality or agency of the State. It is neither a statutory authority nor a body substantially funded by the State. Nor is it a body required by statute to discharge any public function. In the present case, no statutory obligation involving the discharge of a public duty is imposed upon respondent No.2-Union. The petitioner is, indeed, complaining of violation of the statutory provisions of the Code, 2020 governing strikes. Such statutory obligations, however, cannot, by themselves, be equated with a public duty or public function”.
Case Title: X v. State of Karnataka & Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru
Case No: Writ Petition No. 22291/2025 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that police investigating one offence cannot turn a blind eye to evidence prima facie disclosing another serious offence, while directing the Crime Investigation Department (CID) to conduct a fresh probe into an attempt to rape case of a woman. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 278]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing the writ petition filed by the victim, censured the Thirumalashettahalli police for confining the crime merely to an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to murder), completely overlooking the 'graphic narration' of attempted sexual assault in the victim's statement.
“…It is startling, if not shocking, that the investigating agency confined the crime merely to an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Equally disquieting is the fact that the jurisdictional Court, oblivious to the tenor and substance of the victim's statement, proceeded to frame charge only for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC…. A statement which, on its plain reading, prima facie discloses ingredients of an attempt to commit rape appears to have escaped the attention of both the investigating agency and the Court below….Such an omission, at least prima facie, strikes at the very root of a fair and comprehensive investigation…”, the court observed in the order.
“…The investigation, prima facie, appears to have perceived the stab wounds but overlooked the conduct that preceded those wounds. It noticed the injuries upon the body, but failed to examine whether those very injuries were inflicted in the course of an attempt to commit a far graver offence. Such an investigation cannot be described as either comprehensive or complete…”, the court reasoned further.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Authorities v. Employees of Private Aided Educational Institutions
Case No: W.A.No.2476/2015 and 101 connected matters
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 279
Highlighting the parity between government and aided school employees, the Karnataka High Court has struck down two state enactments that sought to deny pensionary benefits and additional increments to teachers and non-teaching staff of private aided educational institutions.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 279]
The Division Bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur and Justice S.G Pandit in its order held that the two state enactments were violative of Article 14, terming it 'manifestly arbitrary' and an attempt of the legislative to overrule court judgments.
“…The impugned enactments…do not cure any defect pointed out by the Court. Nor do they fundamentally alter the legal framework upon which the earlier judgments were rendered. The enactments merely seek to negate the effect of the earlier judgments and deprive the employees of the benefits recognised thereunder. Such an exercise amounts to legislative overruling simpliciter and not a valid exercise of removal of legal basis….”, the court observed.
Case Title: XXX v. Registrar General of Karnataka High Court & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 22456 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
The Karnataka High Court has directed Google, Indian Kanoon, and others maintaining judicial records to mask the name of a woman who was acquitted in a criminal case in 2019, observing that a final acquittal must be recognised not just in courtrooms but also in the digital world. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 280]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over a single bench, held that the continued presence of the petitioner's name in online records, despite her acquittal, violated her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court also dismissed the apprehension expressed by the High Court's registry and City Civil Court Registrar that granting the relief would 'open floodgates' for similar claims.
“…Courts do not adjudicate rights by counting the number of those who may seek justice in the future. They adjudicate them by testing the legitimacy of the claim against the touchstone of the Constitution. If, indeed, the recognition of such a right were to result in many more similarly placed citizens approaching constitutional Courts seeking identical relief, so be it..”, the court firmly said.
Case: Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike & another v M/S Maya Traders & others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 694 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
Karnataka High Court has held that Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike (Mangalore Municipal Corporation) can require firecracker traders to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from fire department as a precondition to carry on their business, even in absence of an express statutory provision backing such a requirement.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 281]
“Private interest stands subordinate to public interest and public at large,” the Division Bench of Justice DK Singh and Justice TM Nadaf said while setting aside the Single Judge's order quashing the municipal corporation's directions.
The appeal arose from the Single Judge's order allowing writ petitions filed by firecracker traders, who contended that the Municipal Corporation's direction requiring them to produce an NOC lacked statutory backing and violated their fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution.
The High Court observed, “It cannot be lost sight that, in recent times, there are several fire hazards particularly in cracker shops and go-downs, claiming lives of innocents, including children,” adding that the intention of the authorities to insist on NOC is to “prevent any unfortunate hazard before it causes serious damages both life and property into its fold.”
The Court further noted that such a requirement squarely falls within the purview of reasonable restrictions under Article 19.
The Court took into account the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Karnataka State Fire and Emergency Services Department on February 1, 2024, prescribing detailed safety measures for retail sale of crackers, crackers godown and crackers manufacture units. The SOP also included annual renewal of fire license from the fire department. The Court said that it is the duty of the fire department to ensure strict adherence to the SOP and that of municipal corporation to minimize the risk of unfortunate fire hazards.
Case Title: SRI MUDDURA M. SOMANNA @ PRASAD v SRI B. RAMESH
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.636 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
The Karnataka High Court has refused to remand a cheque bounce case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) after finding that the convict had repeatedly failed to cross-examine the complainant and lead any defence evidence, holding that the case was a “classic example of abuse of process.”[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 282]
Justice HP Sandesh was hearing a revision petition challenging the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court convicting the petitioner in the cheque bounce case and seeking remand of the matter.
The Court noted that the complainant remained present before the Trial Court on 12 occasions, but the petitioner failed to cross-examine him, and instead sought exemptions on 21 hearing dates.
The Court remarked, “He made the complainant to be present before the Court for his cross-examination 12 times and instead of appearing before the Court, exemptions were filed on 21 dates of hearing.”
Case Title: M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case No.: WP 18285/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (August 5) held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC, challenging Enforcement Directorate's search and freezing action under Section 17(1A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is maintainable. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 283]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna thus rejected ED's preliminary objection to a petition moved by gaming company Gameskraft Technologies, against freezing of its bank accounts and investments based on a February 23 ECIR.
ED had contended that the freezing action, under Section 17(1A) PMLA, is exclusively civil in nature and thus not amenable to jurisdiction under Article 226 read with Section 482 of the CrPC/ 528 of BNSS.
Rejecting the argument, the Court today observed that a search under Section 17(1A) of the PMLA is not an independent civil exercise but a continuation of the criminal investigation initiated through an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
“…During the pendency of investigation into an offence of money laundering, once viewed in that perspective, the argument that search retains an exclusive civil character loses its force…. This court therefore holds that petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of CrPC challenging search and seizure proceedings that emanate from an ECIR is perfectly maintainable. Preliminary objection consequently fails. Issue answered accordingly”, the court noted in the order.
The Court held that the search, seizure and freezing powers under Section 17 are intrinsically linked to the investigation of the offence of money laundering and, therefore, cannot be viewed as having an exclusively civil character.
With the preliminary objection decided against the ED, the Court will now proceed to hear the petitions on merits.
Case Title: M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: WP 1668/2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (August 5) held that an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot place it beyond judicial scrutiny by merely describing it as an "internal administrative document". [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 284]
“….The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 is neither subservient to statutory classifications nor susceptible to being curtailed by administrative terminology. The power of judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It cannot be rendered illusory merely because the foundational document is nomenclatured as an ECIR, instead of an FIR….”, the court said.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observations while hearing a plea filed by faming company Gameskraft Technologies.
“…The label attached to a proceeding cannot eclipse its true character. Substance must always prevail over nomenclature. If the consequences are coercive, the scrutiny must be constitutional. If liberty, property and reputation stand imperilled, judicial review cannot be denied at the threshold on a plea of semantics”, the court observed.
Case Title: Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WA 675/2026 C/W WP 35404/2025 & WP 15057/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the revocation of suspension of Dr. Ashwin Hebbar, an Associate Professor accused of sexually harassing his postgraduate students. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 285]
The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice T M Nadaf also directed disciplinary action against senior officials who, it found, had attempted to protect the doctor, including Mohammed Mohsin, IAS, Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education, and Dr. Virupakshappa V, Director of the Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences (SIMS).
The Court was hearing a writ appeal filed by SIMS challenging the order of a Single Judge, as well as a writ petition filed by Dr. Hebbar challenging his transfer from SIMS to the Haveri Institute of Medical Sciences.
Describing the doctor in strong terms, the Bench observed, “…Dr. Ashwin Hebbar is a wolf in white coat. He must be proceeded not only with the pending disciplinary proceedings expeditiously, but also by the National Medical Commission and if found guilty, his license should be cancelled...”
Quoting the famous doha of Saint Kabir Das to underline the sanctity of the teacher-student relationship, the Court said, “GURU GOVIND DOU KHADE, KAKE LAGUN PAYE? BALIHARI GURU AAPNE, GOVIND DIYO BATAYEIN” [Both the Guru and God are standing before me; at whose feet should I bow? Glory be to the Guru, for it is he who revealed God to me]
Case Title: Miss Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 2169 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against an advocate accused of demanding ₹50 lakh from the mother of a murder accused by allegedly claiming that the money would be paid to a High Court judge to secure bail. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 286]
Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that allegations involving demands for money in the name of a judge transcend an ordinary cheating case and become an issue of "institutional integrity"
“…in such cases investigation is a must as the question involved is Institutional integrity. The offence of cheating allegedly committed by an individual in the normal circumstance becomes an institutional concern when such cases are projected. Therefore, there can be no question of interdiction of investigation on any ground whatsoever unless investigation would ensue and a final report is filed before the concerned Court…”, the court observed in its order.
The Court dismissed the petition filed by advocate Dayeena Banu seeking quashing of the FIR registered against her under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), holding that the allegations prima facie disclose the offence of cheating and warrant investigation.
Case Title: Swamy & Anr. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition (Crl.P) of 2026 (under Section 483 BNSS)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287
The Karnataka High Court has granted regular bail to two persons arrested for allegedly assaulting a lodge owner over his decision to name his lodge 'CSK Comfort'- a name the accused believed was a reference to the 'Chennai Super Kings' cricket team of IPL (Indian Premier League). [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287]
The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty allowed the bail petition filed by Swamy and Suprith, accused in a crime registered by Tilak Park Police Station, Tumakuru.
According to the FIR, on June 1, 2026, there was an IPL match between Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) and Gujarat Titans (GT). The complainant was running a lodge in the name of 'CSK Comforts'.
After the match ended, the accused allegedly came near the said lodge, and enquired why he had kept the name 'CSK' for the said lodge. Though the proprietor-complainant explained that 'CSK Comforts' does not refer to the 'Chennai Super Kings' cricket team, the accused allegedly abused and assaulted him, and caused damage to his property.
Case Title: State of Karnataka v. JAR Gold Retail Private Limited & Connected Matters
Case Nos: Crl.P. 5929/2026, 5930/2026, 5935/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 288
The Karnataka High Court has held that investigating officers are empowered to freeze bank accounts during investigation under Section 106 of the BNSS and are not required to invoke Section 107 for attachment of property in every case. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 288]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna made the ruling while allowing criminal petitions filed by the State of Karnataka against JAR Gold Retail Private Limited and setting aside orders of the jurisdictional court directing the defreezing of the company's bank accounts.
The Court held that Sections 106 and 107 of the BNSS operate in distinct fields and that interpreting Section 107 as the sole mechanism for securing bank accounts would render Section 106 ineffective.
“…Section 106 and 107 of the BNSS deals with different situations. An interpretative exercise that breathes life into one provision by suffocating the another is one that this Court could never undertake. The submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent[Jar Gold] would tumble down under the weight of the statutory text, binding precedents, legislative intent and inevitable consequence of the interpretation canvassed hereinabove…”, it observed.
Case Title: Srushti v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: WP 23373/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 289
The Karnataka High Court on Monday [August 10] refused to entertain a NEET aspirant's plea who had alleged a "massive discrepancy" between her online marks and her official scorecard, after the National Testing Agency (NTA) contended that the document in question [screenshot allegedly taken from the website] was forged and did not originate from its website.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 289]
The Division Bench of Justices Jayant Banerjee and T.P Vivekananda was hearing a plea filed an 18-year-old student from Vijayapura, who claimed that while a screenshot she possessed showed her securing 454 marks, her official scorecard reflected only 191 marks.
During the proceedings, the NTA, represented by Senior CGC Vinay Venugopal refuted the petitioner's claims. The testing agency submitted that the screenshot relied upon by the student was never generated from its official portal and amounted to a fabricated document.
Hearing this, the court orally expressed strong displeasure over the manner in which the petition was pursued. The bench cautioned the parents of the petitioner for exploiting the court's leniency towards minors.
Case Title: Dr. Vinuta B. & M/s Kids Clinic India Ltd. (Cloudnine Hospital) v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WP 19927/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 290
The Karnataka High Court has on August 10 [Monday] quashed the multiple notices under Section 94 and Section 179 of BNSS issued by the police to Cloud Nine Hospital and its staff-including its female employees, in connection with the unnatural death of a patient following a polypectomy procedure. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 290]
“….when the petitioners have responded to every notice, furnished every document sought, cooperated throughout the enquiry, and yet continue to be subjected to successive requisitions wholly disproportionate to the object of an enquiry under Section 194 of the BNSS, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned notices amount to a patent abuse of the process of law. Their continuation would not advance the object of the inquest; it would only legitimise an exercise of power that the statute itself does not sanction”, the single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted in the order while quashing the notices issued by the police.
Case Title: Sri Ajit Hanumakkanavar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No.7417 of 2019
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 291
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against Suvarna News anchor Ajit Hanumakkanavar for allegedly making disrespectful remarks about Prophet Mohammad during a televised debate. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 291]
The single judge bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani, while allowing the petition, observed that another complaint was registered against petitioner and Manager of Suvarna News 24/7 News Channel, in an FIR (Crime no.292/2018) lodged for offences under Sections 153A and 505(2) IPC which had been quashed.
The court observed that the main grounds of challenge were in respect of very same incident, wherein another FIR registered on similar allegations was quashed as the registration of multiple complaints was illegal and complaint "did not disclose essential ingredients for offences alleged".
Case Title: Smt. Nagarekha v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No.104228 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
Clarifying the criminal liability for electrocution deaths, the Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor who was charge-sheeted for the death of a labourer due to electrocution on her agricultural land. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 292]
The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanth Hegde held that mere ownership of property where a transformer is installed cannot attract criminal liability Section 304A IPC, unless there is an overt act or specific allegation of negligence against the owner.
“…In the complaint, it is stated that the electricity connection to the bore well was taken by…. accused No.2 and 3. There is no allegation that the petitioner has taken any electricity connection to the bore well. There is no allegation that the petitioner has taken illegal electricity connection…. That being the position, in case the electric wire passing through the land of the accused No.1, the owner of the property cannot be accused unless an overt act on the part of the petitioner is established or pleaded. No such allegations are made…”, the court said while allowing the FIR quashing plea.
Case Title: Fr. Elias Daniel & Ors. vs. Department of Internal Administration & Ors.
Case No: WP No.1452/2024 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
The Karnataka High Court has held that while State may on its own appoint a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) where a case needs special knowledge, it however cannot appoint an SPP on the specific request of the complainant as it goes against principle of fairness required in a criminal trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 293]
In doing so the court quashed a State Government's notification appointing Advocate Sadashiva Murthy as SPP in the murder case of Fr. Thomas K.J., the erstwhile Rector of St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary in Bengaluru.
The petitioners, Fr. Elias Daniel, Fr. William Patrick, and Carmel Pete have been booked for offences under Sections 302, 201, 149 r/w Section 120B of IPC, for the murder of Fr. Thomas K.J. on March 31, 2013.
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held:
“…. An accused has no right to choose, or to object to, the prosecutor who is to prosecute him. In the same way, a complainant can have no right to choose the prosecutor who is to prosecute the accused, and much less to have a particular person appointed by name. It is one thing for the State, on its own, to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor where the case needs special knowledge that the regular Public Prosecutor may not have. It is quite another thing for the State to appoint a named person at the specific request of the complainant. The first may be proper; the second is not, and it goes against the fairness that a criminal trial requires.”
Case Title: CHADURANGA KANTHARAJ URS v UNION OF INDIA & others, WRIT PETITION NO. 53075/2015
VENKATRAO Y. GHORPADE & another v UNION OF INDIA & others,
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3221 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the vires, applicability of Section 5(ii) Hindu Succession Act–which exempts Act's applicability on estates passing to a single heir under a covenant between an erstwhile Ruler and the Indian Government or under a law enacted before the Act came into force–on personal properties, impartible estate of former rulers.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 294]
The Court held that the provision is not rendered redundant merely because Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution— which guaranteed privy purse, rights and privileges to former Rulers — were deleted by the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
Justice MGS Kamal said:
“Articles 291 and 362 were only with respect to guarantees and assurances made by the Dominion of India with regard to payment of Privy Purse, personal rights, privileges, dignities and titles of erstwhile Rulers of Princely States of India and not with respect to their personal private properties and "Gaddi", impartible estate
The provisions of Section 5(ii) of the Act, 1956 will have its relevance to the extent of providing rules of succession to an 'impartible estate”, to be according to law and custom in view of covenants contained in instruments of merger at Article IV of Annexure-D and Article 5 of Annexure-F.
Case Title: Smt. Lakshmamma vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: WP No. 33179/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
The Karnataka High Court has rapped the State authorities for failing to complete a housing project under the Chief Minister's 1 Lakh Bengaluru Housing Scheme, despite receiving payment from a beneficiary, observing that the authorities were “making retired people run around”.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 295]
Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observation while allowing a petition filed by a woman seeking refund of the amount paid towards a flat under the scheme.
The Court directed the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation to refund the amount paid by the petitioner, along with 6% interest per annum calculated from the respective dates of payment until repayment. It orally remarked,
“…Retired people, you are making them run around”.
SRI MAYUR D BHANU v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
WRIT PETITION No.16181 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
While flagging the "disturbing trend" of criminal proceedings being lodged against lawyers for carrying out professional obligations, the Karnataka High Court remarked that as long as advocates act professionally their conduct cannot be criminalised merely because his advise displeases the adversary.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 296]
In doing so the court quashed a FIR against a lawyer over allegations of cheating and criminal intimidation where the lawyer, who appears for a co-accused, was accused of issuing a telephonic threat to the complainant.
Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order said:
"This Court has, of late, witnessed an increasing and disturbing trend where Advocates, merely because they discharge their professional obligations in representing litigants or legally assisting them, are sought to be implicated in criminal proceedings. Their only perceived offence is that they stood beside their clients, articulated their cause before judicial fora and performed the duties which the legal profession demands of them. Such attempts strike at the very independence of the Bar, an institution that forms one of the indispensable pillars sustaining the administration of justice.
So long as the Advocate acts within the bounds of law and professional ethics, his or her conduct cannot be criminalised merely because his representation or advise displeases the adversary. If criminal prosecution becomes the inevitable consequence of fearless advocacy, the legal profession itself would be reduced to one of apprehension rather than independence. The majesty of the Bar cannot be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled litigants wielding the criminal process as a weapon of retaliation or intimidation against officers of the Court".
Case title: PROF DR KAUSHIK MAJUMDAR v/s INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12748 OF 2015 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
The Karnataka High Court has directed Bengaluru's Indian Statistical Institute to complete the proposed construction of disabled-friendly accommodation within two years, notwithstanding the availability of funds. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 297]
The court passed the order in a plea by a specially abled Associate Professor working with the institute who had sought various reliefs including direction to ISI Administrators to provide appropriate infrastructural facilities to the persons with physical disabilities in general and to the Petitioner in particular, including suitable accommodation, transportation and other facilities.
The plea further sought direction to ISI to constitute a permanent committee, within the ISI, at each of its Centres to deal with the issues confronted by disabled persons; to formulate appropriate policies providing for reservation for candidates with disabilities/physically handicapped persons in recruitment and promotions; as contemplated in Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act 1995.
Darshan v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (August 13) dismissed a petition filed by Kannada actor Darshan, Accused No. 2 in the Renukaswamy murder case, challenging the trial court's refusal to allow him to file objections to a co-accused's application to turn approver.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 298]
Justice M Nagaprasanna held that a co-accused has no right of audience at the stage when a court is considering an application by another accused seeking pardon and permission to turn approver under Section 307 CrPC.
“….You are nobody. An accused is a nobody to say another co-accused turning an approver and his application for the same should seek the other accused's approval, or else, the application is not maintainable," the court orally observed.
Darshan had approached the High Court against an order of the trial court rejecting his request to file objections to the application filed by Pradosh Rao, Accused No. 14, seeking permission to turn approver in the high-profile murder case.
Case Title: Dr. Mohammed Shakeel Ansari v. Union of India & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No.6821 of 2023 (S-CAT)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a lecturer of the National Institute of Unani Medicine (NIUM) who sought counting of his past service as Clinical Registrar for extending benefits under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 299]
The Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao affirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru Bench, which had earlier rejected the petitioner's claim.
“Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the fact that the petitioner entered the post of Lecturer by way of lateral entry without break in service.…Continuity of service is distinct from entitlement to count past service rendered in another cadre for promotional or financial benefits. Unless the governing Rules or the Scheme specifically provide for such reckoning, no such right can be claimed merely because there was no break in service…”, the Court clarified.
Case Title: Hindu Jagarana Vedike v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No. 25036 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (August 14) quashed the police's refusal to permit a torchlight march proposed by Hindu Jagarana Vedike in Mysuru, observing that citizens cannot be prevented from celebrating Independence Day over apprehensions of communal tension. [2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 300]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the authorities to permit the organisation to conduct its 'Akhanda Bharatha Sankalpa Diwas' torchlight march from RMC Ganesha Temple to Doddagadiyara Circle in Mysuru between 5:30 PM and 7:30 PM on August 14.
“…Independence Day is required to be celebrated by every citizen of India. Such being the case, the Independence Day is being proposed to be celebrated, there cannot be any issues raised as regards communal tension or otherwise… The last submission made by AAG is that as regards to some of the organising members, FIRs and chargesheets are filed, and there is a possibility of them involving in unlawful activities which could disturb public peace. Merely because chargesheets have been filed against certain persons does not mean they cannot be allowed to participate in Independence Day celebrations…”, the court observed
Case Title: Earth Recycler Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No.9114/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)301
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Earth Recycler Pvt. Ltd. and its directors seeking quashing of the FIR registered against them for allegedly collecting expired food products, re-labelling them, and selling them to the unsuspecting public. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 301]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the allegations of re-labelling expired food products and pushing them back into the market constitute a 'calculated assault on public health', and cannot be viewed as a mere regulatory infraction.
“…The re-labelling of expired food products and their re-entry into the stream of commerce is not a mere infraction of food-safety regulation; it is a calculated assault on public health. An expiry date is not an ornamental inscription on a package, capable of being erased and replaced at the whim of a trader. It marks the outer boundary beyond which the safety and quality of the product for human use can no longer be assured. Once that boundary is crossed, deterioration, microbial contamination, chemical alteration and loss of nutritional integrity may set in, sometimes silently and without any visible warning. …To erase an expiry date, affix a fresh label and place such a product back on the shelf is, therefore, to dress decay in the garb of freshness and deception in the attire of trade.”
Case Title: MUKESH JAIN v STATE OF KARNATAKA
WRIT PETITION No.5267 OF 2026 (GM - RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
The Karnataka High Court has held that courts dealing with seized property under Section 497 BNSS must strictly adhere to the prescribed timelines for its disposal, requiring preparation of the property's statement within 14 days of its production before the court and an order regarding its disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery within the subsequent 30 days.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 302]
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that Section 497(2) and Section 497(5) BNSS collectively prescribe a 45-day period from the date of seizure for the concerned court or Magistrate to pass an order regarding disposal of the seized property.
“The timeline for disposal of property that is confiscated is under two provisions of law. One is under Section 497 (2) of the BNSS where preparation of statement of all properties brought before the Court must be done within 14 days from the production of properties and two, under Section 497(5) of the BNSS which mandates the concerned Court to pass an order for disposal of the property within 30 days from the date of preparation of the statement under Section 497(2) of the BNSS. Therefore, in all, the concerned Court is required to pass an order within 45 days from the date of the seizure,” Justice M Nagaprasanna observed.
Case Title: Sri G. Eshwaraiah S/o G. Narasimhulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Others
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 9560 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
Clarifying the rights of complainants in anti-corruption cases, the Karnataka High Court has recently held that the de-facto complainant who arranges 'trap money' cannot be left in the lurch until the conclusion of a prolonged trial to recover their funds. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 303]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing a plea, also iterated the comprehensive guidelines for the expeditious release and disposal of various categories of seized property, including cash, vehicles, and digital evidence, as laid down by the apex court and other High Courts.
“…the complainant is, beyond any pale of doubt, the rightful owner and lawful custodian of the trap money. Yet, the recognition of ownership, if divorced from possession, is but a barren declaration. A person may possess title in law, but if he is denied enjoyment of the property for years together without any legal necessity, such title becomes illusory and reduced to a mere abstraction. The law cannot content itself with acknowledging ownership while simultaneously permitting prolonged deprivation of its enjoyment”, the court laid down in the order.
Case Title: Sri K N Venugopal @ Venugopala Reddy and Another vs. The State of Karnataka and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 20839 of 2026 (LB-BMP)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
The Karnataka High Court has held that municipal authorities cannot impose the post-facto condition of executing a Relinquishment Deed for land without consideration, as a prerequisite for granting an Occupancy Certificate (OC), especially when such a condition was not imposed at the time of sanctioning the building license. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 304]
The single judge bench of Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad has allowed a plea filed by property owners who were asked by the Town Planning Authorities to relinquish over 656 square meters of land for road widening, without assuring any compensation, to secure the Occupancy Certificate for his completed building.
“…The petitioners' request for an Occupancy Certificate should be examined based on the conditions upon which the sanction is granted and the construction is completed. Indisputably, the relinquishment was not insisted upon while granting the building license and sanctioned plan, and this relinquishment is not insisted upon even when the Commencement Certificate is issued. Post-facto conditions cannot be insisted upon, and there must be a specific provision permitting the same if such conditions are to be sustained….”, the court laid down in the order.
Case Title: Hari Prakash SP & Ors.v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case Number: WP No. 805 of 2014 & WP No. 5693 of 2014
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Concerning the maintainability of writ petitions against private educational institutions, the Karnataka High Court has held that private, unaided institutions are not 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, and disputes regarding the payment of salary by such institutions are purely contractual matters lacking a 'public law element'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 305]
The single judge bench of Justice Ashok S. Kinagi dismissed two pleas filed by 89 non-teaching staff members of PES Pharmacy College and PES Institute of Technology (led by the Peoples Education Society), seeking a mandamus directing the management to pay salaries on par with Government educational institutions.
“…in the instant case… petitioners submitted that the respondent-University are bound by the Regulations of AICTE and UGC which provides for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staffs. Admittedly, the said university is a private university does not qualify as the State or Instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, making private employment disputes. Admittedly, the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents is in regard to the payment of salary. The said dispute is unmaintainable as the University is a private university and does not qualify as the State or Instrumentality of the State”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Shiva Shankarappa Sahukar v. Special Secretary & Anr.
Case No: WP 21376/2026
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 306
The Karnataka High Court has on August 18[ Tuesday] quashed the suspension of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) Chairman Shivasankarappa Sahukar, holding that the order was passed without the constitutionally mandated 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers under Articles 163 and 166. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 306]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj partly allowed the writ petition filed by Sahukar, who was suspended by the Governor following a resolution by KPSC members seeking his resignation.
“…The impugned suspension order dated 10.07.2026, bearing No. ... passed in purported exercise of power under Article 317(2) of the Constitution of India and communicated by respondent No. 2, is hereby quashed. As a consequence, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner as the Chairman of the KPSC within 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner, upon reinstatement, is entitled to function and officiate as the KPSC Chairman and is entitled to all consequential arrears and monetary benefits flowing from the service….”, the court noted initially in the order.
Case Title: State of Karnataka v/s Pavitra Gowda & Ors.
Case No: CRL.P No. 6820/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
Clarifying the applicable principles regarding the cross-examination of one's own witness under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Karnataka High Court has on August 18 [Tuesday] dismissed a petition by the State seeking to cross-examine the mother of the deceased in the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case involving actor Darshan. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 307]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while upholding the trial court's order, held that a witness cannot be subjected to cross-examination by the party that called her merely because of a 'stray answer' or 'inconvenient' testimony.
“…A witness does not become hostile merely because every syllable uttered by the said witness does not march to the drumbeat of the party who summoned him. Nor does Section 154 of the Evidence Act confer upon a party an automatic right to cross-examine its own witness whenever an answer turns inconvenient. Inconvenience is not hostility; discrepancy is not disloyalty; and an isolated departure is not necessarily an abandonment of the case. Something more must be demonstrated before the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Evidence Act can be invoked…”, the court opined.
Case Title: Naveen G. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 4666 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
The Karnataka High Court has held that allegations of a man persistently stalking a woman, threatening to circulate photographs of her and repeatedly sabotaging her marriage prospects, despite her refusal and an earlier suicide attempt, prima facie made out a case of abetment to suicide.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 308]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna refused to quash criminal proceedings against the accused, holding that the allegations, if read cumulatively, disclosed the ingredients of abetment requiring adjudication at trial.
It dismissed the petition seeing the quashing of proceedings under Sections 75 (sexual harassment), 78 (stalking), and 108 (abetment to suicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
“The case at hand cannot be characterised as one where the allegations are bereft of the ingredients of abetment. This is not a case of one angry word spoken in the heat of a moment. It is not a case of an isolated quarrel followed, after a considerable hiatus, by suicide. Nor is it a case where the accused is sought to be prosecuted merely because he happened to figure somewhere in the emotional landscape of the deceased. The allegations travel much farther”, the court said.
“…The complaint and the charge sheet, if read as a whole, prima facie depict the deceased being progressively cornered- her refusal allegedly ignored, her privacy threatened, her workplace invaded by pursuit, her matrimonial prospects repeatedly sabotaged and her apprehension that she would not be permitted to lead a life independent of the petitioner allegedly reinforced by his continued conduct. Whether every one of these allegations is true, is not for this Court to decide today…”, the court inferred further about the mens rea aspect of the petitioner-accused which is yet to be ascertained in the trial.
Case Title: KSRTC v. Pampapal & Other Connected Matter
Case No: MFA No. 6955/2018 (KSRTC vs. Pampapal), MFA No. 8569/2018 (Pampapal vs. KSRTC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
Interpreting the term 'homemaker', the Karnataka High Court has held that even highly qualified post-graduates who render services at home are entitled to compensation for loss of future earnings if they are not working elsewhere at the relevant time. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 309].
The Court rejected KSRTC's argument that the claimant, who holds a Master's Degree in Biotechnology and had worked as a Guest Lecturer, cannot be regarded as a homemaker.
“…Every woman who renders services to her family members at home is liable to be regarded as a 'HOMEMAKER' irrespective of the fact that such woman holds higher qualification either it is a Degree or Post Graduation or a Doctorate. Even a working woman or a professional can be considered to be a home maker so long as such woman renders services at home taking care and looking after the welfare of the family members.…”, the court held.
Case Title: B Nagendra v. Enforcement Directorate
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 12007/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
The Karnataka High Court on August 20 (Thursday) allowed a petition filed by B. Nagendra, a Cabinet Minister in the Karnataka Government, permanently relaxing a bail condition imposed on him in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case arising out of the alleged misappropriation of funds from the Valmiki Scheduled Castes Development Corporation. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 310]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna deleted the condition imposed by the trial court requiring Nagendra to obtain prior written permission before leaving Karnataka. The Court, however, made it clear that he cannot travel outside India without the permission of the concerned trial court or the High Court.
“….in light of him being a minister in the cabinet, and holding the portfolio…. would necessarily require him to travel beyond the shores of this jurisdiction. In light of the said circumstances, while observing that petitioner cannot travel without the permission of concerned court or this court beyond the shores of this nation, petitioner is free to travel within the country, as not permitting him to travel within the court would curtail his liberty and the post he is holding today …The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed…. Condition No. (c) imposed in the bail order dated 14.10.2024 in Crl. Misc. No. 7892/2024, which reads "The petitioner shall furnish his passport to the Court and shall not leave the State without obtaining written permission from the Court," stands deleted …”, the court said.
The condition deleted by the Court had required the petitioner to surrender his passport and not leave the State without obtaining written permission from the Court.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Sahu & Anr v.State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 4677/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
The Karnataka High Court has disposed of a petition filed by two Estate Officers of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in connection with a case concerning the disappearance of 21 stray dogs from the DRDO campus in Bengaluru, after noting that the investigation has been completed and the chargesheet filed. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 311]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna recorded that one of the petitioners, Rakesh Kumar Sahu, has been dropped from the array of accused in the chargesheet, while the second petitioner has been retained as an accused in the final report.
The Court was informed by the Additional Solicitor General and CGC Vinay Venugopal that the first petitioner did not figure in the chargesheet. When counsel for the complainant objected to his exclusion, the Court said that while it could not curtail the complainant's rights, the appropriate remedy would be to take recourse before the trial court.
At the outset, the Court took note of the submissions made by the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) and CGC Vinay Venugopal that the first petitioner does not figure in the chargesheet. When the counsel for the complainant raised objections regarding the dropping of the first petitioner, the Court remarked that though it can't curtail the rights of the complainant, the apt recourse would be before the trial court.
“…. The investigation stands complete and the chargesheet is filed before the concerned court. The chargesheet drops first petitioner from array of accused, retains the second petitioner and chargesheet is filed before concerned court on 2nd petitioner. The counsel for complainant submits that he has objections to dropping of first petitioner from the array of accused, therefore liberty is reserved to the complainant to take recourse to law if they are so aggrieved by the filing of the final report before the concerned court…The subject petition stands disposed of… Liberty is further reserved to these parties to knock the doors of this court in the event of need in the future”, the court accordingly noted in the order.
Case Title: V. v .Z
Case No: WP 4677/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
he Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a husband's revision petition against a maintenance order, while observing that treating a wife as an 'employee' hired to do household chores and insisting upon seeking prior permission to visit her parents is contrary to the 'constitutional spirit of human dignity and social justice'.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 312]
“…This Court does not understand why an Indian woman is required to take permission of all present at her matrimonial home to fulfil her basic desire of visiting her parents house as and when she wish and feels to go. This Court is of the view that anyone including husband cannot command and demand any female including his wife to do the household activities and to look after, his parents. Household activities have to be shared by men and women equally…”, the court observed.
The single judge bench of Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha made the remarks while dismissing a revision petition filed by the husband, who challenged the Family Court's order directing him to pay Rs. 9,000 per month in maintenance to his estranged wife and minor daughter.
Case Title: X v.Y
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 20839 of 2026 (LB-BMP)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
Imposing a fine of Rs 5 lakhs on a father who allegedly 'abducted' his minor daughter from the Family Court premises, the Karnataka High Court has recently directed the immediate return of child's custody to the mother. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 313]
The single judge bench of Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha allowed a plea preferred by the mother, while setting aside the Bengaluru Family Court's order dated July 29, 2026, which had dismissed her application seeking production and restoration of custody of her minor daughter aged around 7 years.
“…Abruptly taking the custody of the child without at least enquiring the child whether she is willing to accompany and giving time to the child at least to think about, to respond and to make up her mind, is in clear violation of basic human rights…Adults as well as children have equal human rights. In the case on hand, the child was taken away as if she is a commodity or lifeless object…”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Sangeetha Mehrotra vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No.: CRL.P No. 9793/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (August 25) quashed criminal proceedings against a senior citizen whose 10 Golden Retrievers allegedly attacked a lawyer on his way to court, questioning “which court was open” on the Sunday when the alleged incident took place.[2026 (Kar) LiveLaw 314]
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the complaint was “so vague” and the police action “so cryptic” that the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by the senior citizen after the pendency of the criminal case prevented her from renewing her passport. She had been booked under Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code (negligent conduct with respect to animals).
Case Title: Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 9779 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (August 24) quashed a chargesheet against the owner of a homestay in Kodagu who was booked for failing to report a sexual assault on a US national at his property, along with offences under the repealed Foreigner's Act, 1946. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 315]
Justice M. Nagaprasanna in his order said:
“Section 239 of the BNS punishes the breach of a legal duty; it does not create one out of silence. …If there is no legal duty, there can be no legally culpable omission; and if there can be no legally culpable omission, Section 239 of the BNS cannot be summoned merely because the prosecution alleges knowledge…. To permit it to survive would be to convert a provision punishing breach of a legal duty into one punishing breach of a perceived moral duty. The two are not synonymous. Morality may expect a citizen to speak; criminal law can punish his silence only when the statute commands him to speak. A moral expectation cannot, by prosecutorial alchemy, be converted into a penal obligation”, the court underscored.
Case Title: Abdul Jabbar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Criminal Petition Nos. 10339/2025, 10314/2025, 10321/2025, 15550/2025, 16275/2025, 16338/2025, 16367/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed multiple pleas seeking cancellation of bail granted to persons accused in a mob lynching case over the victim allegedly chanting pro-Pakistan slogans, while also issuing directions to ensure compliance with the apex court guidelines in Tehseen S Poonawalla v. Union of India with respect to interim compensation and issuing notice to victim's kin. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 316]
The single bench of Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil also iterated the guidelines issued in Tehseen Poonawalla and demanded its strict compliance, including grant of interim compensation and notice to be issued to the victim or victim's kin before granting bail to accused in mob lynching/violence cases.
“…The Government Order…. along with the memo [filed by the state on compliance with Tehseen Poonawalla]] indicates the compensation to be provided to the victims or the next of kin of the victims. However, it is to be noticed that the said order does not contain any provision for grant of interim compensation to the victim or the next of his/her kin as per the guidelines in the case of TEHSEEN S POONAWALLA, referred supra. Hence, I am of the considered view that the State is required to be directed to formulate a scheme to inculcate the provision for interim compensation to the victims or the next of their kin in consonance with the guidelines in the case of TEHSEEN S POONAWALLA…”, the court said.
Case Title: C v. T
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 8362/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a decree of divorce granted on the ground of mental cruelty, and permanent alimony granted to his wife by the Family Court. While doing so, the court made a crucial distinction that mere separate living within the same premises, by itself, cannot be treated as cruelty. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 317]
“…Standing by itself, such an arrangement [separate rooms] cannot be treated as cruelty. The mere fact that spouses occupy separate rooms, without anything more, would not justify a finding of cruelty. What is relevant is the surrounding circumstances in which such separation took place and the manner in which the matrimonial relationship had otherwise progressed….”, the court observed in the order.
The Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan underscored that spouses occupying separate rooms in the same house, without anything more, would not justify a finding of cruelty.
“…One circumstance which assumes significance is that, for a considerable period, the parties, though residing in the same premises, occupied separate rooms and were leading substantially separate lives. The appellant[husband] himself has admitted that the parties were residing separately within the same premises, with the appellant occupying one room and the respondent occupying another room along with one of the children….”, the court added.
Case Title: Rahim Khan v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 8071 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against Bidar Congress MLA Rahim Khan for allegedly using a loudspeaker for election campaigning two minutes beyond the permitted time of 10 PM. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 318]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing the MLA's plea, held that a difference of merely two minutes cannot be treated as an offence, particularly when there is no standard clock prescribed for determining the exact time.
“…Two minutes in what, which is the standard clock that is seen, is not even indicated. According to the flying squad, it is two minutes. According to the petitioner, it was only 10 p.m. For two minutes, a crime is registered on this disputed question of fact…”, the Court pointed out.
Case Title: Smt. Kavitha Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Criminal Petition No.17375 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a trial court order accepting police's second 'B' report in a case involving the alleged suicide of a student who is claimed to have left behind a death note stating 'marks is not everything' while naming her principal, teachers, and classmates. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 319]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing the criminal petition filed by the mother of the deceased, noted:
“…In the considered view of this Court, the case could not have been closed by accepting the 'B' report. The re-investigation proceeded on a completely different footing on a wrong provision of law that it is an abetment to suicide of an adult under Section 306 of the IPC, while it was an abetment to suicide of a child under Section 305 of the IPC. If it is abetment to suicide of a child, the rigours of investigation would be completely different. The analysis and examination of the outcome of the investigation again would completely differ as the psychological impact of any harassment of the school or teachers on a child, compared to the adult, is different…”, the court pointed out that this difference was not taken into account by the trial court or the investigating officers.
Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines For Trial Courts & Police On Section164 CrPC Statement, Says Copies Must Be Furnished To Accused
Case Title: V. Amaresh @ Ambarish v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Appeal No.366 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
Upholding the right to a fair trial, the Karnataka High Court has recently acquitted a POCSO accused, while simultaneously issuing suo motu guidelines for Investigating Officers and trial Courts on recordview of Section 164 CrPC [Section 183 BNSS] statements, as well as the mandatory furnishing of statements recorded to the accused. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 320]
The Division Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice G Basavaraja allowed the appeal filed by the accused and set aside the sentence of conviction rendered by a Kolar court.
“…An accused, howsoever grave the accusation, is entitled to a fair trial, to know the precise charge he is called upon to meet, to have that charge tested on legally admissible and reliable evidence, and to the benefit of every reasonable doubt that genuinely arises from the record. The graver the offence and the greater the resultant stigma and sentence, the more scrupulous must be the Court's scrutiny of the evidence before conviction for it is equally true that a wrongful conviction is no less a miscarriage of justice than a wrongful acquittal”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: AR v State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 6103/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
The Karnataka High Court has granted relief to a man booked under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), holding that accidentally coming in front of a woman while answering nature's call, without any sexual intent, would not by itself constitute the offence.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 321]
The bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed:
"The petitioner, admittedly, even according to the complaint, was answering nature's call. Answering nature's call was after searching for a public toilet all over and not finding it. The complainant walks into the place where the petitioner was answering the nature call, a gesture that the complainant narrates is only shock that the petitioner saw the complainant, as is narrated in the statement itself. In the considered view of this court, answering a nature call and coming in front of the complainant, at that point in time, would not become an ingredient of outraging the modesty of a woman, as obtaining a 75(2) of BNS".
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had gotten off a bus and was looking for a public restroom. Since he was unable to find a restroom, he proceeded towards a railway track to urinate. While urinating, the complainant happened to walk in the area. The petitioner noticed her, following which she saw his private parts and lodged the complaint.
Case Title: S v. N
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15549 OF 2026 (GM-FC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
The Karnataka High Court directed a separated couple to undergo psychological assessment and counselling for “fair parenting”, while refusing the husband's plea to subject their minor twins to a psychological assessment to evaluate the extent of “parental alienation” allegedly caused by their mother.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 322]
“Undoubtedly in case there is necessity for such psychological assessment and evaluation, Court is bound to do so. However, in the case on hand this Court does not find any such necessity to order the children to subject themselves for psychological assessment and evaluation that too to know the impact of parental alienation,” Justice Chillakur Sumalatha said while rejecting the father's plea.
The Court observed that in their fight over the guardianship and custody of the children, the parents were subjecting the children to serious hardship.
“The children of 5-6 years generally tend to spend their time playing, engaging themselves with other children, learning and getting themselves involved in various activities of their choice. But this case reveals sad state of affairs where the parents claiming themselves to be the best protectors of children, are subjecting the children to unwarranted hardship,” the Court said.
Case Title: Sheela S v State of Karnataka
Case No: WP No. 12878 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
The Karnataka High Court has held that the death of a son does not by itself obligate the daughter-in-law to maintain her mother-in-law under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, which allows a senior citizen to get a property transfer cancelled if the receiving party fails to provide basic care and physical needs of the senior citizen.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 323]
Setting aside the order of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal that granted relief to the mother-in-law, the bench of Justice Suraj Govindraj observed:
"The death of the son cannot, by itself, create a fresh statutory obligation upon the Petitioner under Section 23. The rights and obligations arising under Section 23 must be determined with reference to the transfer and the conditions attached thereto"
Case Title: FAIR VAKKAYIL JOHN vs UNION OF INDIA & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.24293 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
The Karnataka High Court has held that a person under investigation has no vested right to choose, nominate, or seek the substitution of an Investigating Officer based on subjective apprehensions of bias.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 324]
The Court, accordingly, rejected the prayer seeking substitution of the probing officer and imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner for forwarding his representation relating to pending investigation to constitutional authorities, including the Chief Justice of India.
“Unless a clear case of mala fides, demonstrable bias, lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process is made out before a competent Court, the person under investigation cannot insist that the investigation should be conducted by an officer of his choice or seek the recusal of the Investigating Officer as a matter of right,” Justice Suraj Govindaraj said.
The Court noted that the petitioner has produced no material which could prima facie justify an inference that the investigation is actuated by mala fides or that the Investigating Officer has disabled himself from conducting a fair investigation.
Case title: SRI R.GOVINDA REDDY v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA and batch
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2025 and batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 325
The Karnataka High Court has quashed acquisition of land near Bannerghatta National Park for a housing project, observing that the area forms part of a corridor used by elephants who cannot be displaced from their homes or treated as occupants without any rights.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 325]
It further underscored that while land acquisition should be for the greater purpose of public good, however no public purpose can supersede the object of environmental conservation.
A division bench of Justice DK Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan in its order said:
"It is true that the object of land acquisition should be for the greater purpose of public good. The lands may be acquired for various projects which are covered under the scope of 'public purpose.' However, in our view, no public purpose can supersede the object of environmental and ecological conservation. As important as it is to encourage development and urbanisation, the same must be done while balancing the interests of the environment and its species. The proposed Suryanagar Project aims to give affordable and well-planned housing plots to the allottees and the general public being the residents, but the same is done at the cost of displacing the wildlife and depriving them of their natural habitat. It is a settled and enduring sentiment that “there is no place like home.”
Yet, the actions of the Respondents, as borne out from the record, compel this Court to confront a disquieting question: whether the same fundamental principle of a secure and undisturbed home is to be denied to wildlife. The elephants in question, for whom these corridors constitute not merely a passage but an essential part of their natural habitat and existence, cannot be treated as occupants without rights whose homes may be displaced at will"
Case Title: Smt Sheela S vs State of Karnataka & others,
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.12878 OF 2026
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 326
The Karnataka High Court has held that the expression “love and affection” written in a Gift Deed cannot be treated as a statutory maintenance condition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 326]
Section 23 of the Act allows a transfer of property by a senior citizen— by way of gift or otherwise— to be declared void by a Tribunal if the transfer was made on the condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, and the transferee thereafter refuses or fails to comply with that condition.
“The expression “love and affection” appearing in the Gift Deed cannot, without more, be transformed into a statutory maintenance condition. To do so would amount to rewriting the terms of the transfer and supplying an obligation which the parties themselves did not record,” Justice Suraj Govindraj said.
Case Title: G v. M
Case No: WP No.24556/2026 (GM-FC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 327
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking a direction to expedite divorce proceedings, observing that judicial officers cannot be pressurised with rigid timelines and that 'justice is not merely about speed'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 327]
The single judge bench of Dr Justice Chillakur Sumalatha noted that quality and fairness of judicial decisions cannot be compromised in the course of speedy disposal.
“…High Court cannot lay excessive emphasis on numerical disposal and pressurise for speedy adjudication of matters... Justice is not merely about speed. Judgments cannot be obtained by click of button. Reaching the correct and fair conclusion after due consideration of evidence is not an easy task…”
The court further noted that undue pressure on judicial officers can affect the quality of justice rendered. While endeavour must be made to avoid undue delays, it shouldn't affect judicial independence, the court opined.
Case Title: Dr Adnan Saeed v. Smt. Vandana Sharma & Ors.
Case No: CCC No.933/2023 along with WA No.928/2023 & WA No.114/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a government bond requiring a doctor to serve till retirement, especially when no posting orders were provided after completion of a super-specialty course, amounts to an unreasonable condition that cannot be enforced. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 328]
The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T noted in the order that the doctor-petitioner, though he completed his M. Ch Surgical Oncology course through in-service quota in 2018, was not granted posting for over 3 years despite reporting for duty soon after the course completion. Pertinently, the door had executed a bond which mandated compulsory government service till retirement with no voluntary retirement eligibility.
“… in the absence of any posting orders being issued to the respondent, the appellants cannot raise these contentions in these proceedings. It is not on account of any fault of the respondent that appropriate posting orders as provided in the Bond and the Government Order were not made available to the respondent. The respondent, a Super Specialty Qualified Doctor cannot be expected to remain idle and not work when no posting orders are provided to him, even in spite of reporting to the Government for duty and seeking the same”.
The court further held that the condition in the bond requiring a doctor to remain indebted to the Government for life, particularly when no posting orders were provided, cannot be countenanced.
Case Title: Ravi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: Criminal Petition No.100680/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
The Karnataka High Court has recently accepted the unconditional apology tendered by an advocate, who had allegedly threatened a Sessions Judge and attempted to hamper court proceedings. While doing so, the court imposed a symbolic fine of Rs 1,000 and directed the lawyer to plant 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings as a 'social action'.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 329]
The single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar sitting at Dharwad noted in the order as below:
“…Justice has been pictured in as Goddess of Justice with open eyes holding scale in one hand and the Constitution of India on the other hand. The scales connote the weighing and balancing of rights and privileges. The judge and the lawyer should remember, first and foremost, that in weighing and balancing rights and privileges they are building together a monument in the Temple of Justice. At the same time we should follow principles enshrined in the Constitution of India in letter and spirit in our life… This building is never-ending, for the process of justice is never finished…Hence, this case shall remind all of us and make us introspect what we are and what is our contribution to society and to the nation.”
The petitioners-accused had filed a petition under Section 447 BNSS seeking transfer of Sessions Case No.5/2026 pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal.
In April, the High Court had dismissed the transfer petition with costs and had initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the advocate for his conduct during the Session trial.“…Therefore it is observed that the judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stoneward by browbeating or bullying methodology either it is by litigants or by counsel…”, the court noted as the reason for its previous order initiating contempt, as a measure to deter other legal professionals from repeating the same conduct.
Case title: X v/s State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No.11340/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
Granting bail to man booked in a rape case, the Karnataka High Court observed that when a man who promises marriage subsequently approaches the woman's family seeking approval and where her mother refuses the proposal then it cannot be said that the man had no intention to fulfill the promise.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 330]
The single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty noted that the victim herself, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, confirmed that after the alleged sexual act between them, the petitioner had approached the woman's mother and iterated his willingness to marry her daughter. However, the said prospective alliance was allegedly rejected by the mother of the victim.
“…For the purpose of Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, accused should have sexual intercourse with a woman by deceitful means or by making promise to marry the said woman without any intention of fulfilling the same…. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that petitioner, who allegedly had promised to marry the first informant had approached her mother but the proposal was refused by the mother of the first informant… In the present case, having regard to the aforesaid aspects, it cannot be said that petitioner had no intention to marry the first informant”, the court accordingly noted in the order granting bail.
Case Title: X v. Z
Case No: RPFC No.133/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a revision plea filed by a wife seeking maintenance, holding that she failed to establish reasonable cause for leaving the matrimonial home, particularly when she left to care for COVID-affected parents and subsequently refused to return despite her husband's requests.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 331]
The single judge bench of Dr. Justice Chilakur Sumalatha noted as below in the order:
“…As per the contents of Ex.R1 - Complaint, petitioner went to her maternal home to take care of her parents and sister as they contacted COVID and her father suffered with heart attack. Thus, it cannot be held that due to the attitude of respondent, petitioner left matrimonial home and went to her maternal home…Also, undisputedly, as per the contents of Ex.R3 statement given by wife to police, her husband approached her parents house asking her to return to matrimonial home”, the court noted at the outset, iterating the findings of the family court.
The court highlighted that the grant of maintenance is not automatic and the wife seeking maintenance should meet certain specific criteria for the same.
“….A wife is entitled to get an order of maintenance against her husband only if she meets required criteria prominent of which are:
(i) That her husband neglected or refused to maintain her;(ii) That she is unable to maintain herself; and(iii) That her husband has got sufficient means to maintain her…”, the court pointed out.
Case: SRI. SATHISH N. VAIDYA & OTHERS vs MR. M.P. NORONHA
WRIT PETITION NO.23294/2022 (GM-CPC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
The Karnataka High Court has upheld 3-month civil imprisonment against the editor, managing director and director of Karavali Ale newspaper for violating a temporary injunction order, holding that the trial court could not have have directed them to tender an apology instead of imposing a punishment under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.
The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the appellate court's order. The appellate court had found error in the trial court's order, which directed the petitioners to tender an apology instead of imposing the punishments provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC for disobedience or breach of injunction—namely, attachment of property or detention in civil prison for up to three months.
“The legal maxim Nulla poena sine lege means no punishment without law, the Court is duty bound to award a punishment within the framework of law and cannot invent new penalties,” Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil observed.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development, wherein the Apex Court had said, “It is well settled that when a statute or statutory rules prescribed a penalty for any act or omission, no other penalty not contemplated in the statute or statutory rules can be imposed. It is well settled that when statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it is to be done only in that manner.”
Case Title : M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD & another vs PADMANABHA SHETTY G & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14682 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 333
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a health insurance company cannot deny reimbursement merely because the insured patient was not hospitalised for the administration of injections, where such injections were part of the continuing treatment for a disease covered by the policy.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 333]
“Hospitalisation is not an end in itself; it is a mode in which medical treatment may be administered. Where advances in medical science enable a treatment which would otherwise have required a longer hospital stay to be administered safely and effectively without hospitalisation, the absence of hospitalisation cannot, by itself, be treated as determinative of whether the treatment is connected with the insured disease,” Justice Suraj Govindraj observed.
Case Title: A vs State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 756 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 334
The Karnataka High Court granted bail to a man booked in a POCSO and SC/ST Act FIR accused of sexually assaulting a minor in a brothel, observing that customer of a brothel cannot possibly know the age or caste of a victim.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 334]
Justice S Rachaiah allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge.
“Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal of the averments of the charge-sheet it makes clear that the appellant is one of the customer of the brothel which was being run by accused No.1. On going through the averments of the said charge-sheet, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has to be justified for the reasons that the appellant being a customer of the brothel cannot be possible to know the actual age and caste of the victim. Having considered the said aspect, it is appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for,” the Court said.
Case Title: Chandrakant SHANKAR Vaddar vs State of Karnataka & others
Case No: WP No. 104096 of 2026 (GM-Police)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 335
The Dharwad bench of Karnataka High Court declared a State Government notification conferring externment powers on Superintendents of Police under Sections 55 and 56 of Karnataka Police Act, as non-est and a nullity, observing that an executive instruction or notification cannot run contrary to express provisions in parent statute.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 335]
For context, Sections 55 and 56 of the 1963 Act provide power to remove persons about to commit crimes or convicted of certain offences from an area to the Police Commissioner, for Bangalore city and other areas for which a Commissioner is appointed. For other areas, the power can be extended only to the District Magistrate (DM) or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) through a notification published in the Official Gazette.
Quashing an externment order issued by the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, against the petitioner, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation that where a statute prescribes the authority, mode, and manner of exercise of power, the executive cannot, by administrative instruction, circular, or notification, confer such power upon an authority not contemplated by the statute. Executive instructions may supplement statutory rules where there is a gap, but they cannot override, amend, or run contrary to the express provisions of the parent statute.”
Case Title: Aravind Reddy v. State of Karnataka & ors.
Case No: WP No.36586/2025 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 336
The Karnataka High Court has expressed deep displeasure over the police's decision to issue a Look Out Circular (LOC) against advocate-cricketer and AVR Group founder Aravind Reddy in a case involving bailable offences, including the alleged stalking of a Kannada actress, while disposing of the writ petition after the State agreed not to enforce the LOC further. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 336]
The single judge bench of Justice T.P Vivekananda noted in the order that the petitioner had not eloped abroad in anticipation of the arrest over bailable offences, but he was returning from Sri Lanka after participating in a cricket tournament. The court hence found no justifying circumstances for the issuance of LOC.
“…From 17.10.2025[date of registration of FIR] till 06.11.2025, what steps the respondent police have taken to trace the petitioner is not forthcoming from the writ petition papers or the documents produced along with the memo. It is on record that the petitioner has traveled to Sri Lanka only on 06.11.2025 and it cannot be said that in anticipation of his arrest in respect of the crime registered on 17.10.2025, the petitioner has travelled to abroad….This Court expresses deep displeasure against respondent Nos.3 to 5[DCP, ACP & Commissioner] for taking extreme step of issuance of Look Out Notice/Circular against the petitioner, pursuant a crime registered against the petitioner for the bailable offences.”, it was noted in the order.
Case Title: Akthar Hussain Laskar @ Md. Hussain & Abdul Aleem Mondal @ Md Jubal @ Md Jubab v. NIA & Ors.
Case No: CRL.A No.277/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 337
he Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed the appeal of two men convicted under UAPA seeking reduction of their sentence from 7 years to 5 years, holding that the gravity of the offences committed by them warranted no leniency from the court. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 337]
The Division bench of Justice H.P Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod noted in the order that the reduction of sentence cannot be granted as a matter of right to the terror convicts.
“…the Trial Court considering the gravity of the offence, imposed sentence of 7 years proportionate to the crime committed by the appellants and the appellants also as a matter of right cannot claim to impose minimum sentence of only 5 years and it is the discretion of the Court to impose the same, even though the accused persons have pleaded guilty without trial….”
For context, the appellants were convicted by the Bengaluru Special Court for NIA Cases for offences under Sections 13 (Punishment for Unlawful Activities), 18 (Punishment for Conspiracy), 38 (Offence Relating to Membership of a Terrorist Organization), 39 (Offence Relating to Support Given to a Terrorist Organization) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and Sections 120-B, 121-A, 153-A, 153-B of IPC, and had been imprisoned for the past 4 years.
Case Title: The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Compnay Ltd. V. Vishwanath & Ors.
Case No: MFA No.202713/2023
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 338
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a claimant who rode a motorcycle under the influence of alcohol couldn't claim full compensation, attributing 30% contributory negligence to the injured rider. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 338]
The single judge bench of Justice K.V Aravind, sitting at Kalaburagi, held that ignoring the violation of law such as riding a vehicle under the influence of alcohol would be counter-productive to the safety of citizens on the road. In such cases, the norm of liberally interpreting benevolent laws cannot be extended indefinitely when the claimant himself has violated the law, the court opined.
Case No: REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100123 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 339
The Dharwad Bench of Karnataka High Court has held that a woman who knowingly marries a man believing him to be a divorcee cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if she failed to verify whether the divorce decree had attained finality or was stayed in appeal.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 339]
Justice Geetha K.B. dismissed a revision petition filed by a woman challenging the Family Court's order denying her maintenance.
“When once it is brought to the knowledge of petitioner that respondent is a divorcee, the diligent person will make efforts to verify the genuineness of said factum; whether any appeal against the said order is filed, pending or not.
Case Title: Sri Vijayaraghava Marathe v. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge & Ors.
Case No: Criminal Petition No.12406/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 340
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a defective affidavit accompanying a private complaint is a curable defect, and the same cannot be used as grounds to abandon the statutory procedure under Section 175 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and opt for a complaint enquiry under Section 223 BNSS instead. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 340]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was adjudicating a challenge to a trial court order refusing further investigation into allegations of irregularities in BDA (Bengaluru Development Authority) land allotment involving the trust of senior Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge and his family.
“…The concerned Court, instead of permitting such rectification[curing defects of affidavit] and thereafter traversing the statutory route ordained under Section 175 of the BNSS, allowed itself to be arrested by the technical infirmity in the affidavit and diverted the proceeding altogether to an enquiry under Section 223 of the BNSS. Such an approach places procedure on a pedestal above purpose…. The requirement of an affidavit is undoubtedly a statutory safeguard and must be scrupulously complied with before any substantive order directing investigation is made; but a safeguard intended to ensure responsibility in invocation of the criminal process cannot be converted into a stumbling block, which extinguishes that very process even before the stage for its invocation arrives.”, the court noted by relying on the precedents in N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka (2025) and Arul Gerald Prakash v. State of Tamil Nadu(2025) which has held that defects in filing affidavits in itself can be cured.
Case Title: Darshan S v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Crl P 13595/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 341
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (September 8) set aside a trial court's order granting conditional pardon to an accused-turned-approver Pradosh in the Renukaswamy murder case allegedly involving Kannada actor Darshan, holding that the procedure adopted suffered from 'procedural aberrations'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 341]
Darshan, accused No.2 in the murder case, had approached the High Court challenging two orders passed by LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court Judge S.M Sambrani, namely, order granting pardon to Pradosh S. Rao and treating him as an approver, and the earlier order calling for a report from the Probation Officer
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna today said,
“….In light of the procedural aberrations, Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The orders dated 20 August 2026 and 25 August 2026 stand obliterated….The matter is remitted back to the concerned Court to pass an order afresh on the application filed under Section 307 of Cr.P.C and regulate its procedure… taking the issue to its logical conclusion. While so doing, the Court shall bear in mind the observations made in the course of this order."
Case Title: RAJAMATI & OTHERS VS. LEELAVATHI & OTHERS
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200037 OF 2014 (PAR/POS)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 342
The Kalaburgi Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the offerings made by devotees to a hereditary archak (temple priest) in the mangalarathi (prayer ritual) plate constitute his individual income saved under Section 3 of the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930, and do not form part of a joint family nucleus.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 342]
“The offerings made by the devotees to the archak is the remuneration that he receives for leading a pious life and as a token of respect for his vidwath in agama shastra, mastery over kriyas, kainkaryas, memorizing hymns, mantras, rituals and understanding the relevant religious texts and reciting them appropriately and invoke the blessings of God etc,” the Division Bench of Justice R. Nataraj and Justice Tyagaraja N. Inavally observed.
“These offerings are therefore in recognition of the learning of the person and hence, are deemed to be his own income saved under Section 3 of the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930 and not the income of the joint family,” the Court added.
The Court also drew a distinction between the offerings made to the temple and those to the priest, stating, “Therefore, any offering by the devotees to the temple cannot become the income of the priest but on the contrary would be accounted by the Trust. The only offering that a priest is entitled to take home is the offering made by the devotees in the mangalarathi plate.”
Case Title: B.R. Vijay Kumar ("Duniya Vijay") v. Smt. Nagarathna
Case No: MFA No.6129/2024 (FC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 343
The Karnataka High Court has granted a decree of divorce to popular Kannada actor 'Duniya Vijay' (B.R. Vijay Kumar) on the ground of cruelty, while awarding Rs 2 crores as permanent alimony to his estranged wife, Nagarathna. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 343]
“…Fame does not create an exception to a person's conduct but it magnifies its standard. When a man of public influence strays from the sanctity of marriage, his fall from grace does not become a cause for adulation. This Judgment is rendered, not in celebration of the husband's conduct but inspite of it, considering the peculiar facts herein. We hope that it serves as a reminder that respect earned on screen cannot compensate for dereliction of matrimonial obligations at home”, the court noted in the order at the outset.
Case Title: Rajesh Nayak v. The Commissioner & Ors.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6653 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
Calling for an overhaul of finance management of Hindu temples, the Karnataka High Court has upheld the dismissal of an employee held for misappropriation of temple funds, while simultaneously issuing a comprehensive set of directions applicable to all Hindu religious institutions in the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 344]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj while hearing the plea against the dismissal of a 2nd Division Assistant at Sri Durga Parameshwari Temple, Udupi concluded that the employee was guilty of issuing duplicate receipts and misappropriating temple collections.
Calling such practises 'a systemic concern' affecting the utilisation of temple finances prone to fraud and misappropriation, the court noted as below:
“The system, in short, neither prevented the fraud nor preserved the trail needed to prove it …What this case shows is how easily temple collections can be siphoned off, and how difficult such wrongdoing can be both to detect and to prove…Temple funds are not ordinary funds. They are trust property, gathered from the faith of devotees and held for the deity and for the institution. A system of financial control that depends on chance discovery and manual reconciliation, and that can be defeated by one employee with exclusive access to a counter and a password, does not answer to that duty in the present age…”, the court noted in the order
Case Title: A.C.C. Limited v. Union of India & Others & Connected Matters
Case Numbers: WP No. 25298 of 2024 (GM-MM-S) C/W WP No. 18655 of 2025 (GM-MM-S) & WP No. 36850 of 2025 (GM-MM-S)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
The Karnataka High Court has on September 8 [Tuesday] quashed a Rs 482.69 crore penalty imposed on ACC Limited- a part of the Adani Group- holding that mining operations during a statutorily extended lease term won't be deemed as 'unlawful' merely because a Supplementary Lease Deed was not executed to that effect.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 345]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha has allowed the writ petitions filed by ACC Ltd, while dismissing the State's challenge to a revisional order that had rejected the State's demand for royalty on a notional basis.
“…By virtue of Section 8A(5) of the MMDR Act, the term of the mining lease in question has been extended till 31.03.2030. Thus, by virtue of the statute, ACC held the mining lease and the right to extract minerals... In this view, the minerals extracted by ACC cannot be construed as minerals extracted without authority of law solely on the reason that a Supplementary Lease Deed recording the extension of term... was not executed”, the Court observed while rejecting the State's argument that a registered lease deed is essential for the validity of mining operations during the extended period.
Karnataka High Court Quashes Enforcement Of 2% Cinema Cess On Film Tickets
Case Title: Multiplex Association of India & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WP 28571/2026
2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 346
The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of the Multiplex Association of India and PVR INOX Limited by setting aside the measures used to enforce 2% cess on cinema tickets under the Karnataka Cine and Cultural Activists (Welfare) Act, 2024.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 346]
The single judge bench of Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad ruled that the steps taken to operationalise and collect the cess could not stand because the 2024 Act had not been validly commenced through a notification under Section 1(2) of the 2024 Act.
The writ petition had challenged the 2024 Act, the Karnataka Cine and Cultural Activists Social Security and Welfare Rules, 2025, the 2026 amendment to the Act, and various notifications, office orders, circulars and enforcement notices issued to implement the cess against cinema halls and multiplexes.
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside 'Unreasoned' Ex-Parte Takedown Order In Defamation Case
Case Title: ARTI SINGH & ANOTHER VS. CASHFREE PAYMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4754 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an ex-parte order directing fintech journalist Arti Singh and tech news platform Head and Tale Media Pvt. Ltd founded by Singh, to take down allegedly defamatory articles against digital payments platform Cashfree Payments.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 347]
In doing so the court held that the trial court's order–passed in a defamation suit filed by Cashfree–was unreasoned and failed to record findings on the three essential ingredients required for grant of an ex-parte injunction — a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
“Whenever an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is considered, the trial Court is required to deliberate upon three essential requirements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused more to which of the parties,” Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur observed.
The Court noted that the Trial Court failed to spell out the fulfilment of essential requirements under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) while grating ex-parte injunction order, and said, “In the present case on hand, it is apparently clear that reasons are not spelt out in the impugned order passed by the trial Court as to what is the prima facie case made out and the two other essential requirements of balance of convenience and irreparable hardship that would be caused more to which of the parties.”
Case Title: Panchaksharaiah v. G.S. Chandrashekar & Another; Vikash Kumar Vikash v. G.S. Chandrashekar & Another
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 8397 of 2021 c/w Criminal Petition No. 1694 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 348
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash an FIR against former Superintendent of Police of Chikkamagalur district [accused no.1] accused of hurling a paperweight at a subordinate officer during over being allegedly absent from sports activities. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 348]
However, the single judge bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani has quashed the FIR against the former Inspector [accused no.2] accused of abusing the complainant.
The court held that while the former Inspector's alleged acts of reprimanding the complainant for skipping sports activities had a nexus with maintaining discipline in a uniformed force, the former SP's alleged act of calling the complainant to his chamber, locking the door and hitting him with a paperweight causing a bleeding eyebrow injury could not be considered a 'bona fide exercise of official duty'.
Case Title: AMARESH H. @ AMARESH POMPANA GOUDA HULUGUNCHI VS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS and batch
Case No: WP NO.105825/2024, WP NO. 105789/2023, WP NO.105795/2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 349
The Karnataka High Court has held that a government scheme or a developmental project cannot be “abandoned, shifted or stalled” merely because there has been a change in political dispensation.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 349]
In doing so the court quashed a communication issued by the sitting MLA of Siruguppa who had directed shifting of an irrigation project from Ibrahimpur village to Nagalpur village.
“A change in political dispensation, by itself, cannot furnish a ground to obliterate or undo decisions already taken in accordance with law. Governmental schemes and developmental projects, particularly projects intended for the benefit of marginal farmers, cannot be treated as matters which can be abandoned, shifted or stalled merely because there has been a change in the political executive,” Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed.
Case Title : A v. C
Case Number : Writ Petition No. 16393 of 2026 (GM-FC)
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 350
The Karnataka High Court has recently modified a family court's visitation order that required a 10-year-old boy studying in Bengaluru to travel nearly 1,000 kilometres every month to spend a weekend with his mother in Honnavar, observing that the child had 'literally become a victim of the disputes' that occurred between the estranged couple. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 350]
The Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha was hearing a writ petition filed by the father, challenging the order passed by a Family Court at Honnavar in an interim application, in favour of the wife.
“…A child of 10 years old cannot take up such a hectic task. Literally child has become a victim of the disputes that are prevailing between the estranged couple who are parties to these proceedings. Paramount welfare of the child is the prime consideration. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the directions given for such visitation are unsustainable.”, the court noted.
Case Title : SHILPA ARAVALI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, KIRAN KUMAR P VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number : CRL.P No. 10705/2026, CRL.P NO. 10794/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 351
The Karnataka High Court refused to quash an FIR against a couple, accused of defrauding a woman of Rs 1.40 crore on the promise of securing an MBBS seat for her daughter, holding that mere presence of a monetary/civil transaction cannot be permitted to “smother” a legitimate criminal investigation.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 351]
The couple claimed that the case was at best a civil transaction between them and the complainant which happened three years ago and that the complainant waited three years to lodge a complaint.
Rejecting the petitioners' argument that the criminal proceedings were a coercive device for recovery of money, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed:
"The submission that the proceedings are merely a coercive device for recovery of money, therefore, cannot become a talisman by the mere utterance of the expression “civil dispute”. Every transaction involving money does not, by that circumstance alone, shed its criminal complexion. Where the very foundation of the transaction is alleged to have been laid in deception and the victim is induced to part with property on a representation which, from its inception, is alleged to have been dishonest, the cloak of a civil transaction cannot be permitted to smother a legitimate criminal investigation"
CASE TITLE: BAZME TOHID TANZEEM & ANOTHER VS. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF & OTHERS
CASE NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 101523 OF 2026 (GM-WAKF)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 352
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court quashed an Office Memorandum issued by the State Board of Auqaf constituting an ad-hoc committee for eleven months to manage and supervise a waqf institution, holding that the Board bypassed the statutory mechanism under the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 352]
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was hearing a plea moved by the President and Secretary of the Bazme Tohid Tanzeem Committee of Mudalagi— stated to be a religious institution— challenging the board's decision to constitute an ad-hoc panel to manage the institution without following the procedure under the 2017 Rules.
The Court held that it can exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in Wakf matters when they concern the violation of a mandatory statutory provision in breach of natural justice principles, or a disregard of judicial directions.
“Where the Rules framed under the Act prescribe the manner in which the succeeding managing committee has to be constituted and specifically provide for the consequence of failure to constitute such committee, the Board cannot bypass that mechanism by resorting to an ad-hoc arrangement,” Justice Magadum observed.
Case Title: Vijay Tata v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
Case No: W.P. No. 24980 of 2019 c/w W.P. No. 56732 of 2018
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 353
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a cheating FIR against realtor-businessman Vijay Tata, booked in the Ambidant Marketing investment "scam"–a company accused of cheating its customers of their money, holding that there was no incriminating material against him except inadmissible confession statements of co-accused. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 353]
For context, in 2018, a case was registered at Devarajeevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, against Ambidant Company and its directors under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and other penal provisions.
M/s Sanchaya Land and Estate Pvt. Ltd, of which Tata is a representative, is said to have entered into a number of agreements of sale with M/s. Ambidant Construction Pvt. Ltd, in terms of which M/s. Sanchaya had agreed to register various flats/apartments in favour of M/s. Ambidant Construction Pvt. Ltd. or its nominees. According to these agreements, flats were allotted to approximately 85 nominees of Ambidant.
Case Title: H M Manu v. Marigowda
Case No: WP 15209/2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 354
The Karnataka High Court has held that the power of a trial court under Order XVIII Rule 18 CPC to inspect a suit property and record a memorandum of facts must ordinarily be exercised only after evidence has been recorded in the suit.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 354]
ORDER XVIII pertains to hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses wherein Rule 18 states that Court may at any stage of a suit inspect any property or thing concerning which any question may arise [and where the Court inspects any property or thing it shall, as soon as may be practicable, make a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection and such memorandum shall form a part of the record of the suit.
Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil set aside a memorandum of facts recorded by a Malavalli trial court, holding that in the present case the trial court has “committed a grave error in prematurely exercising” the power to inspect suit property.
'Permanent Alimony Not Intended To Equalise Wealth': Karnataka High Court Slashes Wife's ₹2 Crore Alimony To ₹50 Lakh
Case Title: P v.N
Case No: MFA No. 1575 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 355
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld the dissolution of marriage between a couple on grounds of cruelty, while substantially reducing the permanent alimony awarded to the wife from Rs. 2 crores to Rs. 50 lakhs. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar 355]
The court held further that permanent alimony is not intended to equalise the assets or wealth of the parties but to ensure reasonable maintenance.
A Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan disposed of an an appeal filed by the husband, challenging the Family Court's order, while holding that alimony must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual needs of the wife and the paying capacity of the husband, without placing an unreasonable financial burden upon him.
Case Title: Krishna Murthy @ Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No. 21332 of 2026 (GM - RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 356
The Karnataka High Court has held that a part-heard criminal trial which has not crossed stage of examination of accused, final arguments nor has been reserved for judgment can be transferred to another court and in such circumstances accused cannot insist upon the same presiding officer to continue hearing his case.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 356]
Referring to judgments, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said that in the present criminal trial, the evidentiary exercise was yet to be concluded and noted that it was not under the exceptions mentioned in the notification, whereby certain cases were allowed to be retained and continued by the same Judge.
“When the re-allocation took effect, the proceeding was at the stage of securing the presence of PW-20, the Investigating Officer, and recording his evidence. The evidentiary exercise itself was yet to conclude. The case had not reached the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.; it had not travelled to final arguments; and, a fortiori, it had not been reserved for judgment or order.
Case Title: Gopalrao vs State of Karnataka & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 103223 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 357
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the State cannot render a legally recognised and transferable leasehold interest incapable of being conveyed due to a technical deficiency/defect in their software.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 357]
The observation was made in a plea seeking a direction to the state government to accept and register sale deeds executed by the petitioner and to provide an alternative mode of registration until technical glitches in the Kaveri 2.0 portal are rectified.
The petitioner— a builder who had acquired a land under Nirantara Patta (permanent lease) and constructed a residential building consisting of 34 flats— submitted that after the Kaveri 2.0 portal was introduced, the sale deeds of 13 flats were not processed because his name appeared as “Holder/Tax Payer” instead of “Owner”.
Case Title: CHANDRAKANTH VS MANZOOR AHMED & OTHERS
Case No: MFA No. 200873/2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 358
The Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) cannot deny compensation under the head of loss of future income merely because the claimant's salary has been protected pursuant to being assigned a lower position/reduction in post after a road accident. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 358]
The court said that reliance on pay protection benefit without examining the loss of opportunities to the claimant amounts to an error.
Justice K V Aravind, allowing two appeals in part, remitted the matter to the tribunal for determining the loss of future income, and also enhanced compensation under several other heads.
Case Title: Gudadappa Rudrappa Talawar & Anr. v. The Section Officer, HESCOM, Balekundri Kh Section & Ors.
Case No: WP No. 114767 of 2015
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 359
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a 2015 order of Belagavi Lok Adalat which had rejected compensation claim for a minor boy's death by electrocution by attributing negligence to the boy who had died while trying to retrieve a kite entangled in a high-tension electric line. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 359]
Th single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the plea filed by parents of the boy while holding that electricity authorities [Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited and its officers] cannot escape liability on the claim that the child climbed the pole himself.
The court, hence, declared that the respondents HESCOM, and its officers would be liable to compensate the parents on the principle of strict liability.
"The doctrine of strict liability leaves no manner of doubt that the respondents are legally liable to compensate the parents of the deceased child. The tragic death of an elevenyear-old child due to contact with a live high-tension electrical installation cannot be brushed aside by attributing negligence to the child himself. The responsibility for ensuring that such dangerous installations do not become death traps rests squarely upon the electricity authorities. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the 'Negative' and the impugned award deserves to be interfered with"
Case Title: The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Hulagamma Mallappa Biradar & Ors.
Case No: MFA No. 104064 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 360
The Karnataka High Court has held that an insurance company won't be liable if a vehicle driven by a learner's license holder met with an accident, and the driver failed to prove compliance with Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, such as being accompanied by an instructor with valid license when the accident happened. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 360]
The single judge bench of Justice Raghavendra Seetharam Srivatsa, sitting at Dharwad, has directed the insurer to deposit the compensation amount with the Tribunal and permitted it to be recovered from the vehicle owner, by applying the 'pay and recover' principle.
“…Although the Insurance Company may not be liable stricto sensu, the Insurance Company can be directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle…”, the Court said.
To elaborate further, the High Court applied the 'pay and recover' principle after it concluded that the driver with learner's license failed to prove that he was accompanied by an instructor who had a valid driving licence and who was seated as to be in a position to control or slow down the car when the accident occurred.
“…. The Tribunal has concluded, only on the ipse dixit of the driver, that he was accompanied by the instructor… at the time of the accident. It is relevant to note that the purported instructor was not examined. He would have been the star witness on behalf of the driver. Further, the Police charge sheet cites certain eye witnesses to the incident. None of them is examined. The charge sheet does not mention the presence of the alleged instructor. The complaint filed by the child's father…also does not mention the presence of the alleged instructor… Further, there is absolutely no evidence of compliance with clause(c) of Rule 3 regarding display of the “L” sign”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Salma & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No: MFA 2825/2016
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 361
The Karnataka High Court has held that a smell of alcohol emanating from the stomach as per a post-mortem report is insufficient to conclude that a deceased workman was 'under the influence' of alcohol. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 361]
The single judge bench of Justice Ravi V. Hosmani has set aside a Tribunal order dismissing a compensation claim under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 preferred by the legal representatives of a deceased lorry driver, observing that 'consumption of alcohol and being under influence of alcohol are two wholly different aspects'.
“…If an incident occurs while workman is under influence of alcohol or drugs, liability of employer/insurer would stand discharged. However, consumption of alcohol and being under influence of alcohol are too wholly different aspects. And prescription of alcohol limit under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would substantiate such distinction. Based only on smell of alcohol, it cannot be implied that such person had consumed alcohol was under its influence…”, the court noted in the order.
The dependents of the deceased lorry driver filed a plea under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 before a Bengaluru Tribunal in 2014. As per their version, the deceased was working with the respondent no.2- employer who entrusted him with driving the vehicle from Bengaluru to Hassan. Enroute, the vehicle met with an accident and the deceased- driver suffered fatal injuries.
Case Title: High Court of Karnataka v. Sri. Pankaj Kaushik
Case No: CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 10 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 362
The Karnataka High Court has sentenced an advocate to a one-day simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs 2,000 under Contempt of Courts Act, accused of interrupting court proceedings in an intoxicated state, shouting at a Judicial Magistrate, and making scandalous and unfounded allegations against judicial officers.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 362]
The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T observed that the contemnor, instead of demonstrating any remorse or offering viable mitigating circumstances, attempted to justify his actions and made unfounded statements against the judicial institution.
“The very demeanor and tone of the accused is clearly contemptuous of the orders and authority of the Court and the judicial system as such,” the Court said.
It added, “Far from expressing any remorse for the initial criminal contempt committed by him, he has attempted to justify his actions and has proceeded to make scandalous and unfounded statements against the judicial institution as a whole. His conduct can only be termed as deliberate and adamant and reveals complete apathy towards social, moral and judicial codes of conduct...The accused/contemnor is convicted for Criminal Contempt of Court punishable under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971”
Case Title: ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.882 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 363
The Karnataka High Court has held that owners of shopping malls who operate diesel generator (DG) in their premises cannot be mandated to renew trade licenses annually, observing that Section 354 State Municipal Corporations Act only contemplates a one-time “permission” to install machinery and not renewable “trade licence”.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 363]
For context, Section 354 requires prior permission to construct or establish a factory, workshop or workplace that uses steam, water, mechanical or electric power. It also applies to installing any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by these or other power sources.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda set aside a Single Judge's order that had upheld the demand of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for annual renewal of trade license and allowed in part the writ appeal filed by Phoenix Market City mall's owner M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt. Ltd.
CASE TITLE: GNANASHEKAR M. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
CASE NO: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.361 OF 2025 (A)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 364
The Karnataka High Court has held that refusal by a shopkeeper to hand back a playing ball to a minor and asking him to bring his father to take back the ball after which he allegedly got upset and died by suicide, does not amount to abetment of suicide of a child under Section 305 IPC.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 364]
Section 305 concerns the offence of abetment of the suicide of a child or an insane person. To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove the essential elements of abetment provided under Section 107 of the IPC. A person is considered to have abetted an act if they instigate someone to commit that act, engage in a conspiracy to execute it, or intentionally aid the act through their actions or illegal omissions.
A Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod dismissed the appeal filed against the acquittal of two shopkeepers, observing:
“In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused have done any positive act and have driven the child to commit suicide leaving with no other alternative but to put an end to his life. Not only is the said positive action in close proximity to the time of occurrence absent, but there is also no evidence of any continuous physical or mental torture meted to the deceased by the accused...
Case Title: Ritvik S. Sharma v. State by Subramanya Nagar Police Station
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 3845/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 365
The Karnataka High Court on Friday [September 18] quashed criminal proceedings under Section 67 Information Technology Act, initiated against a young student who had posted an allegedly offensive Instagram story showing a beer bottle, following the death of Kannada actor Puneeth Rajkumar. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 365]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while issuing a stern warning to the youngster, allowed the petition which sought to quash the proceedings, arising out of an FIR registered by Subramanya Nagar Police Station back in 2021.
“There is no dispute about the posting of message on the Instagram handle of petitioner …It is not only the statement which is made that is required to be considered but the timing and context in which the statement was made... It is rather sad that such a post had been put up immediately after the expiry of well-respected film actor. The petitioner ought to have known that making such a statement at the relevant point of time and the context in which it was made-the said film actor being against the consumption of alcohol by younger persons -would have an effect…”, the court noted at the outset.
Case Title: Smt Vijayalakshmi Darshan v. State of Karnataka &Ors.
Case No: WP 28836/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (September 18) indicated the procedure by which Kannada Actor Darshan's shall be physically produced during the Renukaswamy murder trial, directing that the prosecution shall examine material witnesses and that the actor can be physically produced during the cross-examination of such witnesses. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 366]
The single judge bench of Justice V. Srishananda passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Darshan through his wife Vijaya Lakhsmi, challenging a trial court order that had refused his request for physical production during trial.
“…As undertaken by the prosecution before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the same matter, the prosecution must examine 60 witnesses, which shall include the seven material witnesses submitted by the petitioner as per the list dated 16.09.2026 and the list dated 18.09.2026, except CW 228, CW 232, and CW 233…When once the seven witnesses mentioned in the list dated 16.09.2026 and CW 168 in the list dated 18.08.2026 are examined in chief, all those witnesses shall be bound over, and two or three consecutive dates may be fixed by the trial judge in consultation with the counsel for the accused as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor, and all those witnesses may be cross-examined on those dates…
Case Title: GIRIDHAR NEELAKANT PAI VS NEELAKANT NARAYAN PAI & OTHERS
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101014 OF 2017 (MV-I)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 367
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court ordered a SIT probe to investigate allegations of collusion by the claimant and the complainant in a motor accident claim, after observing that the parties had colluded to "manipulate the case" solely to obtain compensation from the insurance company.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 367]
Justice Geetha K.B. upheld an MACT order dismissing a compensation claim and directed the state police authorities to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate criminal collusion between the parties.
"In the present case, even though respondent No.3 himself came forward to give evidence and complainant was examined as R.W.3 and not as the claimant's witness shows that there is clear collusion in between claimant, respondent Nos.1, 3 and complainant to manipulate the case"
The court found that there were proper reasons to disbelieve the case of the claimant.
Case Title: MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS & Batch
Case No: WA No. 263/2022 and connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 368
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order directing an autonomous medical institute to pay the “stipendiary nurses” at par with regular employees as well as to not discontinue their service until recruitment for staff nurses on a regular basis takes place. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 368]
For context, stipendiary nurses are employed on a contractual basis who receive a regular fixed stipend instead of a salary.
A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda were hearing a batch of writ appeals filed by Mysore Medical College and Research Institute and the State of Karnataka against a common judgment of the Single Judge dated July 22, 2021.
Karnataka High Court Directs State To Decide Representation On Reconstruction Of Parashurama Statue At Udupi Theme Park
Case Title: Uday Shetty Muniyal AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 22881/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to consider a representation seeking reconstruction and reinstallation of the Lord Parashurama statue at the Parashurama Theme Park in Karkala, Udupi district. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 369]
Disposing of a PIL filed by Uday Shetty Muniyal, a Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda observed that the dispute was “purely factual” and that it was for the State Government to take a decision on the petitioner's representation.
“We can easily say it does not appear to be a PIL at all. You want this to be considered by the first respondent, that's all,” it orally remarked.
The Court thereafter recorded in its order, “Annexure-D is representation preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent [Department of Tourism]. Since the disputes are purely factual, it is for the first respondent to take decision.”
Case Title: Dr. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: WP No. 23448/2026 (GM-RES-528-529)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 21) constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a de novo investigation into the alleged Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) Veterinary Officer (Group A) recruitment scam, while declining to entrust the probe to the CBI.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 370]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order in a batch of petitions, including those filed by BJP MLA Basanagouda R Patil Yatnal, the All-Karnataka State Students Association, and several successful and unsuccessful candidates alleging large-scale irregularities in the recruitment of 400 Veterinary Officers by the KPSC.
“…In the peculiar facts obtaining in this case, while I do not deem it appropriate to permit the investigation to continue at the hands of the CID or the jurisdictional police, I am equally not persuaded that entrustment to the CBI is the only available recourse…. I deem it appropriate to constitute a SIT comprising senior and experienced officers to undertake the investigation. It is in public domain that the ED has also registered an ECIR pursuant to the predicate offences noted hereinabove and are investigating into the offences under the PMLA. In that light, the SIT shall extend such cooperation to the ED as well in furtherance of the investigation now directed”, the court noted in the order at the outset.
Promotion Can't Be Withheld If Complaint Against Employee Does Not Result Into Departmental Inquiry, Other Action: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M.N. KHAJA HUSSAIN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.103388 OF 2023 (S-PRO)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has ruled that promotion of a government employee cannot be withheld merely on the grounds that a complaint has been filed against the employee, if it has not resulted in any departmental inquiry or other action as contemplated under the Service Law. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 371]
Justic T.M. Nadaf observed,
“In that view of the matter, withholding the promotion of the petitioner who is otherwise eligible for promotion as per the Provisional List prepared is against the settled position of Service Law. A mere intimation by the police or correspondence, without the same resulting in any enquiry as contemplated in the Law, cannot be a circumstance to deny the petitioner, the promotion for which he is otherwise entitled.”
Karnataka High Court Mandates Admitting, Marking Of Undisputed Documents Under S.330(3) BNSS To Ensure Speedy Trial
Case Title: C SWAMY VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANOTHER
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 10693 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
The Karnataka High Court has mandated all the trial courts in the State to adhere to Section 330 BNSS, corresponding to Section 294(3) CrPC, to ensure the fundamental right to a speedy trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 372]
Under Section 330(3) of the BNSS, if the genuineness of a document is undisputed, it can be admitted as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under BNSS without formally proving the signature of its author.Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.
Disposing of a petition filed by a government official seeking to quash a 10-year-old CBI charge sheet on grounds of delay, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice V. Srishananda observed,
“It is the experience of this court that provisions of Section 294(3) of Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 330(3) of BNSS is hardly put to use. Therefore, it is just and necessary for this Court to direct all the trial judges to adhere to the mandate in Section 294(3) of Cr.P.C, corresponding to Section 330(3) of BNSS, in all pending trials.”
CASE TITLE : DR RAJALAKSHMI SHANKAR VS. THE SECRETARY, REP BY UNION OF INDIA, THE MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS & OTHERS
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26896 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 373
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Paralympic Committee of India (PCI) to reconsider the team selection process for the women's doubles events in table tennis for the upcoming Aichi-Nagoya 2026 Asian Para Games after finding the selection method “ex-facie contrary" to well known norms of selection for double events. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 373]
The Asian Para Games are set to take place between October 18 -24, 2026 in Aichi-Nagoya, Japan.
Justice C.M. Poonacha was hearing a writ petition filed by Dr. Rajalakshmi Shankar Janardhana Murthy, a para-Table Tennis athlete, who had sought directions for her name to be considered for selection in the upcoming Asian Para Games. Murthy holds the eleventh position in Asia in Women's Singles Class 2, as of July 21, 2026, while in the doubles event, she, along with her partner Sonalben Patel, falls within the top eight among Asian countries in international ranking.
Case Title: High Court of Karnataka, represented by the Registrar General v. Sri H.P. Sabjan, Advocate
Case Number: Criminal Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 374
The Karnataka High Court has recently sentenced a lawyer from Chitradurga to simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, after finding him guilty of criminal contempt in a suo motu petition registered through the Registrar General of the Court. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 374]
The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan passed the order, noting that the first charge against the lawyer that he accused the trial court of passing a judgment by 'match fixing' stood proved. The court added that the contemnor refused to tender an unconditional apology.
The subsequent charge was with respect to a remark in the statement of objections to the notice filed in contempt case itself, wherein the contemnor mentioned that a previous order of the High Court in a criminal appeal was false, fabricated and created only for the purpose of falsely implicating him in the criminal contempt case.
Case Title: Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Estate Management Unit (DRDO) v. State of Karnataka & Others & Connected Matters
Case No: W.A. No. 2121 of 2015 & Connected Matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 375
The Karnataka High Court has recently allowed a batch of writ appeals filed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Union, restoring the land acquisition proceedings for the establishment and completion of the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR) in Bengaluru, while holding that national security is paramount and must always take precedence over individual interests or personal rights. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 375]
“…National security is paramount and must always take precedence over individual interests or personal rights. While personal rights are undoubtedly precious, they cannot be asserted in a manner that compromises the safety and security of the nation. The nation must come first, for the protection of the country is the foundation upon which all individual rights and freedoms securely rest…”
Case Title: Felix Mkpang Boco v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: WP 29876/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 376
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (September 23) dismissed a writ petition filed by a Nigerian national challenging a 'Leave India' order issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), observing that his visa had expired on August 31 and that he had no vested right to seek its extension, which falls within the sovereign discretion of the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 376]
Justice C.M. Poonacha dismissed the plea filed by Felix Mkpang Boc, a final-year undergraduate student at Jain (Deemed-to-be University), Bengaluru, challenging the FRRO's September 9 order directing him to leave India on or before September 23 after obtaining an Exit Permit.
CASE TITLE: VENKAPPA GOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA
CASE NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5909 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 377
The Karnataka High Court has held that posting a statement as a WhatsApp status does not constitute “publication or circulation” on a public forum so as to amount to a statement which creates or promotes enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes under Section 505(2) IPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 377]
In doing so the court quashed an FIR under Section 505(2) IPC against a man accused of posting a WhatsApp status which allegedly created “enmity between communities” following the Lok Sabha election result announcement in 2024.
Section 505(2) of the IPC (corresponding to Section 353(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) penalizes a person for publishing or circulating statements intended to create enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different communities on the grounds of religions, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, community or any other ground.
Case Title: R v S
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3547/2026(FC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 378
The Karnataka High Court has held that the quantum of permanent alimony cannot be determined based solely on the duration of marriage or “by applying a mathematical formula”. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 378]
In doing so the court dismissed cross appeals filed by a husband and wife challenging a family court order that dissolved their marriage and awarded Rs 50 lakh as permanent alimony to the wife.
“The contention of the Respondent that the amount should be reduced merely because the marriage was of short duration or because he claims to be presently unemployed cannot be accepted. Permanent alimony cannot be determined on the basis of the duration of the marriage alone or by applying a mathematical formula,” the Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan said, while upholding the family court order.
Case Title: Imtiyaz Nuruddin Chinchali v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No.101720 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 379
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against a man who was booked by Athani Police for allegedly putting up barricades in front of his shop and making insulting remarks against the Prime Minister when he was questioned by a social worker. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 379]
The single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T held that the complaint did not disclose intentional insult to the complainant, and mere abuse or rudeness may not amount to an offence under Section 352 BNS.
“…The allegation against the petitioner is essentially that, when the complainant questioned him regarding the barricades, he made certain statements against the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. There is no specific allegation that the petitioner abused or intentionally insulted the complainant so as to provoke a breach of peace..”, the court pointed out.
Case Title: ADAGURU H. VISHWANATH VS B.S. SURESHA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14685 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 380
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition filed by BJP Member of Legislative Council (MLC) Adaguru H. Vishwanath, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in a defamation case filed by the State Transport Minister, BS Suresh. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 380]
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said that whether the alleged statements were made in good faith, or if they lowered the minister's reputation, are maters to be determined at the time of trial.
“In the instant case, since the petitioner has not disputed the statements allegedly made in the press conference. The Court is of the view that as to whether the statements were made in good faith, whether the statements fall under the exceptions and whether the statements have actually lowered the reputation of the complainant/respondent, are the matters that have to be considered at the time of trial,” the High Court said.
Case Title: A v. R
Case Nos.: Crl.P No.101593/2025 connected with Crl.P No.101594/20
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 381
The Karnataka High Court has quashed domestic violence proceedings against a husband's parents, holding that a general allegation that they supported their son, without any specific allegation or overt act of domestic violence, cannot justify continuation of proceedings against them. The case against the husband, however, will continue. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 381]
Justice Venkatesh Naik T was hearing two petitions filed by the husband and his parents. While the parents sought quashing of the entire proceedings initiated by the wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the husband also challenged an order directing him to pay ₹7,000 per month as interim maintenance to the wife.
Case Title: Pratap N M v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 469/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 382
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a science educator and YouTuber, Pratap N M, who runs the channel 'Drone Prathap', over a video demonstrating the reaction of sodium with water. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 382]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj opined that though it does not endorse the manner in which the experiment was conducted, the act was 'educative' and not 'malicious'.
“….As indicated above, though this Court does not condone or commend the actions taken by the petitioner, the fact remains that it is not a malicious action but only an educative action on the part of the petitioner, which should not require such an educator to go through the ordeal of a criminal investigation thereafter….”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: MALA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
Case No: WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO.100019 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 383
The Karnataka High Court has held that the failure to inform a detenu of their right to make a representation to the Central Government under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 seeking revocation of detention order, violates safeguard under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 383]
A Division Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni at Dharwad quashed a preventive detention order issued against a person, observing that preventive detention cannot be converted into a “parallel mechanism for cancellation of bail.”
“If the statute confers upon the Central Government, the power to revoke an order of detention, the detenu must necessarily have an effective opportunity to invoke that power by making a representation. A right to make a representation, if kept beyond the knowledge of the person whose liberty is taken away, would be a right existing only on paper. The right becomes real and meaningful only when the detenu is made aware that such a representation can be made and to whom it can be made,” the High Court said.
It added, “If the Detaining Authority fails to communicate to the detenu his right to make such a representation to the Central Government seeking revocation of the order of detention, the failure is not a mere procedural aberration capable of being brushed aside as inconsequential. It cuts at the very root of the constitutional safeguard engrafted under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and renders the continued detention constitutionally vulnerable.”
Case Title: SRI SURESH @ SURESH NAIK K v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.111 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 384
The Karnataka High Court has held that mere knowledge of where valuable articles are kept, coupled with general suspicion, cannot form the basis of a criminal prosecution for theft, while quashing an FIR registered against a man under Section 305 BNS. .[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 384]
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that when different complaints made by family members disclose materially contradictory versions regarding missing gold articles, then allowing investigation to continue against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
“The petitioner is sought to be implicated essentially on the ground that he was aware of where the gold articles were kept and had access to the house. Mere knowledge of the place where articles are kept, coupled with a general suspicion, cannot by itself constitute the basis for a criminal prosecution for theft, particularly when the material already on record discloses a completely different circumstance in which substantial quantities of gold were allegedly handed over to the petitioner,” the Court said.
Internal Committee's Closure Report Not Enough To Close Sexual Harassment FIR: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: DR. ASHWIN HEBBAR K VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18058 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 385
The Karnataka High Court has held that an Internal Committee's report following an inquiry into a sexual harassment complaint cannot, by itself, result in the closure of a criminal case involving a cognizable offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 385]
Justice V Srishananda observed that since the offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code is cognizable, the Internal Committee's proceedings and report would not be sufficient to close the criminal case unless a police investigation takes place.
As per the facts, the complainant was working as a Junior Resident under the petitioner in the Department of General Surgery, wherein the petitioner was working as a Assistant Professor. She alleged that she was sexually harassed by the petitioner. The matter was referred to Internal Local Committee and it was closed. However a complaint was lodged based on which police registered the case under Section 354A IPC against which petitioner approached the high court.
Case Title: T G BALAN & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 991 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 386
The Karnataka High Court refused to quash an FIR registered against two persons–one of whom allegedly posed as an advocate–accused of cheating a widow of over Rs 21 Lakh on the promise of resolving her property litigation, holding that the allegations disclosed a criminal element and could not be dismissed as a purely civil matter. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 386]
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while dismissing the petition filed by the accused, directed the police to conduct a “proper and in-depth investigation” into the case.
Observing that the petitioners failed to fulfil their promise of resolving the complainant's property litigation and that one of them was later found not to be an advocate, the High Court said, “This conduct would be required to be examined during the course of investigation to ascertain whether accused no.1 had represented that he was an advocate and whether he is an advocate or not since such a conduct would not only have a bearing on the present matter would also have bearing on the judicial system as a whole, where litigants depend on the judicial system for proper adjudication of their matters in a manner known to and in accordance with law.”
Case Title: U VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.220 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8868 OF 2017
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 387
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused by his estranged wife of sexually assaulting their minor daughter, holding that the complaint was a “classic example of afterthought and for personal vengeance against the husband.”[ 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 387]
Justice H.P. Sandesh noted that the criminal complaint under the POCSO Act was filed only after the wife's application seeking temporary injunction against a family court order granting interim custody to the father was rejected.
The High Court observed that neither the complaint filed by the mother nor the communication from NIMHANS disclosed that the child was subjected to molestation.
“The court has to take note of the contents of the complaint wherein there is no allegation that the child was subjected to molestation by the father. No doubt, the statement of victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C wherein a statement is made that father had taken her forcibly to the Chennai and subjected to such act. The same is not found in the contents of the complaint filed by the mother and that complaint was even dated 23.03.2017 and there is inconsistency in the contents of the complaint as well as the statement made before the Magistrate and child was also in the custody of the mother and it appears to be tutored,” the Court said.
CASE TITLE: X v/s Y
CASE NUMBER: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101273 OF 2021 (FC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101274 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 388
The Karnataka High Court has held that the requirement of producing a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for admitting electronic evidence such video recordings stored in CDs is not mandatory in proceedings before Family Courts.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 388]
The Division Bench of Justice M.I. Arun and Justice Raghavendra Seetharam Srivatsa held that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 overrides the Evidence Act provisions regarding the relevance and admissibility of documents.
“It is clear from a reading of Section 14 that the Family Court may receive any document as evidence that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Evidence Act,” the Court said.
Wife's Masters Degree, Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Can't Be Grounds To Deny Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: X & another vs Rajesh
Case No: REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100065 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 389
The Karnataka High Court has held that a claim for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be denied to a wife merely because her earlier claim for permanent alimony was rejected in divorce proceedings, or on the grounds that she holds an educational qualification that might allow her to earn a livelihood.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 389]
Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha allowed the revision petition filed by a wife against a family court order that had granted maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC only to the couple's minor child while rejecting her claim.
“In the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, gave a finding that petitioner No.1 is not entitled for maintenance from respondent as her claim for Rs.10,00,000/- towards permanent alimony was rejected and that she has not challenged that order. It was also observed that Petitioner No.1 whose educational qualification is M.A. may earn for her livelihood,” the Court observed.
It added, “It is not the case of even respondent that petitioner No.1 is a working woman. Thus, only because she holds M.A. degree, maintenance cannot be denied to her. Also as earlier indicated, permanent alimony was not granted to petitioner No.1 only because she failed to establish the financial capability and status of the respondent/husband. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Family Court ought not to have rejected her claim for maintenance in the proceedings initiated by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is of the view that petitioner No.1 is entitled to claim maintenance from respondent/husband.”
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Mohsin Sharieff & Ors.
Case No: WA No. 1929 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single judge bench's order which had directed the revenue entries in favour of a private claimant over a few acres of land in Yelahanka, which the Defence Ministry claimed was acquired in 1943 for the Air Force Station's aircraft taxi track. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 390]
The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan noted that the Military Land Register is conclusive proof of title. Invoking the maxim 'nemo dat quod non habet', the court opined that a 2015 court commissioner-executed sale deed could not convey title over land acquired by the Defence Ministry in 1943.
“…. after several decades, an attempt has been made to create a private title over the very same land and to assert rights against the Defence authorities. However, such an attempt has not escaped the scrutiny of this Court. After the acquisition, the land was utilised for the purposes of the Indian Air Force and compensation was paid to the original land owner. It is a classic case of 'nemo dat quod non habet'—no person can convey a better title than what he himself possesses. The Military Land Register is an official document and a conclusive document insofar as defence land is concerned….”, the court noted in the order.
SC, ST, OBC Reservation Cannot Be Applied To NRI Quota Seats: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Juhi vs Union of India & others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 107372 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 391
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the reservation for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) or Other Backward Class (OBC) cannot be applied to the Non- Resident Indian quota in the NEET-UG counseling process.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 391]
The Division Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni rejected a petition filed by an 18-year-old NEET-UG candidate seeking directions allowing her to retain her OBC status during the ongoing NEET-UG counselling process, despite having applied as an NRI (sponsored) candidate.
The Bench noted that the NRI seats are reserved under the unreserved category, and a candidate can opt only for one type of reservation during counseling.
“The NRI quota is a separate quota and 15% of the seats are reserved for NRIs. The nuances of such reservation are found in the brochure that is notified in terms of law, which clearly indicates that NRI can only be under the unreserved category,” the Court said.
Case Title: AISHWARYA @ ISHWARYA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13991 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 392
The Karnataka High Court has granted anticipatory bail to BJP MLA B. Suresh Gowda's daughter who is accused of assaulting a woman Police Sub Inspector (PSI) at Maramma temple in Arathi Ukkada.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 392]
Allowing the petition seeking anticipatory bail, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty noted that the incident took place on the spur of the moment, the petitioner and her father had already issued an unconditional public apology, she had no prior criminal antecedents, and she had undertaken to cooperate with the police in the investigation.
“The material on record would go to show that the petitioner is the daughter of MLA and her husband is a serving Deputy Superintendent of Police… Learned Senior Counsel has produced material before this Court which would prima facie go to show that petitioner as well as her father have tendered unconditional apology publicly for the untoward incident that had taken place on 12.08.2026,” the High Court observed.
Case Title : SANTHOSH KUMAR H.L & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 39 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 393
The Karnataka High Court held that an assault on the abdomen of a woman, who was stated to be in an advanced stage of pregnancy, cannot fall outside ambit of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC merely because no visible injury was recorded in the medical certificate or because both the mother and baby are currently healthy. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 393]
Justice Anant Ramnath Hegde was hearing the petition filed by four people charged with the offences punishable under Sections 498A (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives), 307, 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 (penalty for giving and demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, seeking to quash proceedings against them.
“Since, it is not in dispute that, at the time of the alleged incident, the victim was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. Thus, the alleged assault on the abdomen by the petitioners cannot be said to be an act which is outside the purview of Section 307 of the IPC. Merely because there is no injury forthcoming in the medical certificate that, by itself, cannot be a reason to say that the case is out of the ambit of Section 307 of the IPC,” the High Court said.
Case title: RAMESH BABU N v/s STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & Ors.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 13373 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
The Karnataka High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State Information Commission to prescribe a uniform format for the collection, maintenance and disclosure of information relating to the implementation of the RTI Act by public authorities in the State.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 394]
The petitioner an RTI applicant had sought names of the Public Information Officer or Public Information Officers against whom penalty had been imposed under Section 20(1), the amount of penalty imposed and the amount recovered pursuant to such penalty.
For context, Section 20 prescribes the penalty imposed on PIOs who refuse to receive application seeking information within the time specified or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly give incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroy information which was the subject of the request or obstruct in any manner the furnishing of information.
Case Title : SURAJ REVANNA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION No.2796 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
The Karnataka High Court has held that arraying a person as an accused under Section 319 CrPC is not a “frolicsome act” and must be supported by cogent evidence that establishes a much stricter degree of satisfaction than a prima facie case.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 395]
Consequently, the High Court quashed a Sessions Court order arraying Member of Karnataka Legislative Council from Janata Dal (Secular) party Suraj Revanna, as an accused in a case for several offences including attempt to murder.
Section 319 of the CrPC, which corresponds to Section 358 BNSS, empowers a court to proceed against and try a person not named as an accused in the chargesheet if, based on the evidence, it appears to the court that the person has committed an offence.
Case Number : REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 284 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no period of limitation for filing a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC and such a plea cannot be rejected solely on ground of delay.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 396]
Justice Chillakur Sumalatha set aside a family court order which had dismissed a maintenance petition filed by a wife and her daughter solely on the ground of delay.
The High Court noted that the relevant provision does not mention a time period within which a maintenance plea must be filed, and that such a legitimate right to seek maintenance cannot be deprived merely because the wife or child failed to approach the court immediately upon neglect or refusal by the person bound to maintain them.
Case Title : MURALI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12214 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
The Karnataka High Court has held that once a victim's statement is recorded before a jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS the Investigating Officer (IO) cannot independently record a further statement of the victim.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 397]
“Even if the Investigating Officer had to record the further statement of the victim girl, after her statement was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 before the jurisdictional Magistrate, he ought to have produced the victim girl before the jurisdictional Magistrate for recording her further statement and he could not have proceeded to independently record her further statement,” Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty said, while allowing the criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail.
Case Title : SHRIDHAR & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 105612 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court granted one-day parole to two life convicts who wished to marry each other, observing that “moral consciousness cannot overtake the legal entitlement to get married”.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar)398]
Justice M.G.S. Kamal allowed the writ petition filed by the two convicts serving life term, seeking parole to get married. The two petitioners have been convicted for murdering the second petitioner's husband.
“The right to marry, subject to law, cannot be denied merely on the basis of moral considerations when there is no statutory prohibition against the same,” the High Court said.
Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan and Others, the Court said, “As held by the Apex Court, one of the acceptable reasons for grant of parole is to ensure that the convict gets an opportunity for rehabilitation and prepares for realignment with society.”