Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 232 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 241NOMINAL INDEXOmkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited v. The Official Liquidator of M/s BPL Engineering Limited (In Liquidation) & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 232M. Ajay Kumar & Anr. v. State by Hosakote Police & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 233The State of Karnataka & Another vs. Sri Rangaswamy A.R., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 232 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 241
NOMINAL INDEX
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
Judgments/ Orders
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.