Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 118 - 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 125Nominal Citation Bangalore Hotels Association v. Union of India., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 118Mantri Tranquil Apartments Owners Association & Anr. v. BBMP & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 119State of Karnataka v. Prashanth N. @ Prashanth Nataraj, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 120The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Nandakishore Bagare, 2026 LiveLaw...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 118 - 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
Nominal Citation
Bangalore Hotels Association v. Union of India., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
Mantri Tranquil Apartments Owners Association & Anr. v. BBMP & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
State of Karnataka v. Prashanth N. @ Prashanth Nataraj, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Nandakishore Bagare, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
V Chittibabu v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
Hi Car Care v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
M N Ramesh & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Bangalore Hotels Association v. Union of India.
Case No: WP 8968/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
The Karnataka High Court, on Monday, declined to issue directions to the government over the ongoing commercial LPG shortage with regard to the hotel industry. It reasoned that constitutional courts are not equipped to monitor evolving global energy crises or interfere in the executive's distribution policies.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted that it can't venture into the executive domain when the issue at hand involves complex international conflicts, supply chain problems and diplomatic deadlocks.
Case Title: Mantri Tranquil Apartments Owners Association & Anr. v. BBMP & Ors.
Case No: WP No. 40299 of 2014 (C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a batch of petitions challenging notices issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) between 2014 and 2019 for the removal of encroachments put up over storm water drains in the city's Gubbalala area in the guise of land development.
The petitions were filed by Mantri Developers, its Apartment Owners Association and Royal Palms Residents Welfare Association at Gubbalala who had sought a direction to the municipality not to interfere with their occupation and not to demolish the residential complex.
A Single Bench of Justice R. Nataraj held that once a water body or drain is vested in the State under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, its status cannot be 'divested' merely because a planning authority like the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) failed to reflect it in a Master Plan.
Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Prashanth N. @ Prashanth Nataraj
Case No: CRL.A No. 1971 of 2018
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)120
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State's Health and Home Secretaries to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the District Surgeon of Wenlock Hospital and a Police Circle Inspector for 'serious lapses' in reporting and investigating a murder that occurred within hospital premises in 2013.
While upholding the acquittal of the accused by a Mangalore Sessions Court in 2017, a Division Bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T expressed shock that despite a police outpost being present within the hospital and officers arriving at the scene shortly after the initial assault, no FIR was registered for over 13 hours.
Case Title: The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Nandakishore Bagare
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 200277 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
The Karnataka High Court has held that the State Government, as the single largest litigant before constitutional courts, bears a 'corresponding responsibility' to conduct its legal affairs with institutional accountability. The court added that the government cannot expect preferential treatment regarding the law of limitation.
“…The Government cannot take advantage of bureaucratic procedures and routine file movement as a ground to seek condonation of delay...The expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be interpreted strictly, and courts cannot condone delay merely on equitable considerations…”, the court observed, adding that the reasoning in the State's affidavit only reflected 'bureaucratic processing of the file at a leisurely administrative pace'.
Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Sri Sri Ravi Shankar In Alleged Land Encroachment Case
Case Title: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 143/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (March 25) quashed an FIR registered against spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar over alleged land encroachment in Bengaluru.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna however clarified that none of the observations made in the course of the order would be applicable to other accused or pending proceedings before any other forums.
The development comes in a plea moved by the spiritual guru challenging the FIR. On January 13, the Court had stayed the investigation against him.
Case Title: V Chittibabu v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: WP 8163/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (March 25) directed pubs and breweries in Bengaluru to initiate rigorous age verification protocols preferably at the entry of the premises.
In doing so the court refused to quash criminal proceedings against the licensee of a Brewery in the city wherein a teenager had allegedly consumed alcohol and later committed suicide.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while pronouncing the order said that the age verification can be carried out through Aadhar or any other valid identification 'at the threshold of entry'.
Karnataka High Court Slams Unlawful Seizure Of Lamborghini, Directs Action Against RTO Officer
Case Title: Hi Car Care v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: Crl P.2309/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)124
While quashing an FIR in a high-profile fraud and forgery proceeding that revolves around the registration of a Lamborghini Evo with the RTO, the Karnataka High Court has taken strong exception to the conduct of a Senior Motor Vehicles Inspector who seized the said vehicle unlawfully.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while ordering the release of the vehicle in custody within a week, has asked the state to initiate a departmental enquiry against the erring motor vehicles inspector.
The court has quashed the FIR qua the petitioner while also taking note of some other aspects regarding the effacement of the car in RTO office. The plea was filed by Hi Car Care, represented by its Proprietor J. Ramakrishnaiah, who owns the luxury car.
'Procedural Harakiri': Karnataka High Court Criticizes Magistrate For Closing Private Complaint In Absence Of S.175(3) BNSS Order Directing FIR
Case Title: M N Ramesh & Anr. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 14239/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (March 27) expressed its disapproval at a magistrate's order which closed a private complaint, after noting that the police had instead of filing a report as called for by the magistrate court had gone ahead and filed a cheating FIR pursuant to which the complaint was closed.
In doing so the court quashed the FIR and the trial court order, remarking that there was "procedural harakiri" which had occurred in the matter.
The high court set aside the trial court order noting that there was "no order for reference for registration of a crime" by the magistrate and without such an order for reference under Section 175(3) the crime was registered and accepted by magistrate and the private complaint was itself closed.