Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 267 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 274
Nominal Index
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
Judgments/Orders
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”