Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 242 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 255NOMINAL INDEXCentury Club vs. S. Umapathy & Anr.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 242Sangeetha Agrawal & Anr. vs. M/S Esteem Gardenia Apartment Owners Association, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 243Manjunatha H.C. vs. Buden Sab & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 244P v. State of Karnataka & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 245 Velu @ Velmayil Somu &...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 242 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 255
NOMINAL INDEX
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
Judgments/ Orders
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