Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 147- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 153Nominal CitationS.B. Shivamurthy Shivachary Hiremutt vs. Shabir Ahamed and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 147Mr Antony Samy K v. The State of Karnataka & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 148Sri Krishnareddy Rep. by LRs & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. & Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 149Smt. Chandravva Hanamant Gokavi v....
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 147- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
Nominal Citation
S.B. Shivamurthy Shivachary Hiremutt vs. Shabir Ahamed and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
Mr Antony Samy K v. The State of Karnataka & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
Sri Krishnareddy Rep. by LRs & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. & Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
Smt. Chandravva Hanamant Gokavi v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 150
Govinda v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 151
Tabrez Pasha v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 152
State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Sri Guruswamy & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: S.B. Shivamurthy Shivachary Hiremutt vs. Shabir Ahamed and Ors.
Case No.: MFA No. 200322 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
Observing that a religious mutt can claim compensation for the motor accident death of its head priest (mathadipathi), the Karnataka High Court underscored that 'institutional dependency' would be made applicable, similar to the concept of 'familial dependency' normally applicable in road accidents.
A Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice Tyagaraja N.Inavally allowed the mutt's prayer against the Tribunal denying them compensation under the head of 'Loss of Dependency'. The court permitted such compensation payable by pointing out that the restitution for death would accrue upon the mutt for which the 'matadipathi' was a spiritual head.
“The death of a Mathadipati results not merely in the cessation of an individual life, but in a tangible institutional loss, including: loss of spiritual leadership, disruption of administrative continuity, diminution in institutional efficacy, and potential impact on offerings and institutional income…”, the division bench observed that such loss borne by the mutt is directly attributable to the death of their leader due to the motor accident.
Case Title: Mr Antony Samy K v. The State of Karnataka & Another
Case No: Writ Petition No. 6910 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that if a party produces a certified copy of the jurisdictional court's decree and judgment before the registering authority, the latter would be duty-bound to act upon it for cancelling registered deeds even without a formal communication of the order [contemplated under Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act] from the court.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum issued the following directions to the sub-registrars across the state:
“…Even in cases where no formal communication is received from the Court, if a party produces a certified copy of the judgment and decree declaring the registered instrument as cancelled or void, the Sub-Registrar shall not refuse to act upon the decree….In such cases, the Sub-Registrar shall verify the authenticity of the certified copy and thereafter record the cancellation in the relevant registers and indexes…”
Case Title: Sri Krishnareddy Rep. by LRs & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. & Connected Matters
Case Nos: WA No. 99/2013, WA No. 95/2013, WA No. 97/2013, WA No. 2103/2013
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
Terming the acquisition of 53 acre of land parcels near Bengaluru's Hebbal flyover in favour of a non-existent private entity as a 'monumental fraud', the Karnataka High Court has directed a CBI investigation into the discrepancies surrounding the process that took place over two decades ago.
“…The entire exercise of acquiring the land for a non-existent entity was nothing but a monumental fraud committed by the authorities in a criminal conspiracy with the applicant and the Directors of Lakeview Development Corporation Private Limited... This was a fraud on statute to deprive the landowners of their valuable property for pittance on behest of a non-existent entity”, a division bench of Justices D.K. Singh and Tara Vitasta Ganju observed in its order.
The court quashed the 'fraudulent' land acquisition process, noting that the officials of state machinery had colluded with private individuals in the name of land development, to deprive the lawful land owners of their assets.
Case Title:Smt. Chandravva Hanamant Gokavi v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 109734 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
Upholding the recognition of 'right to menstrual leave' as a facet of Article 21, the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (April 15) directed the state government to implement its 'menstrual leave policy' notification across all establishments including the unorganised sector, pending formal enactment of proposed legislation.
The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, sitting at Dharwad bench, in his order noted that menstrual leave "is not a plea for privilege, but an assertion of dignity, fairness and humane understanding within the spaces women inhabit.'
“The significance of menstrual leave policy is not merely administrative, but deeply rooted in the Constitutional promise of equality that embraces all citizens, beneath its expansive canopy. While the law proclaims men and women as equals, nature, in its intricate design, has bestowed upon women, certain biological experiences that set them apart - menstruation being one such profound reality. Menstruation, often referred to as periods, is not an aberration, but a natural and indispensable facet of women's reproductive cycle…”, the court held.
Case Title: Govinda v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No.5248 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused cannot seek reprieve of default bail by citing the 60-day investigation timeline mandated under Section 193(2) BNSS (applicable for offences like POCSO and Rape).
Terming the provision as 'victim-centric', not intended 'to furnish an escape route' for the accused, the Court underscored that Section187(3) BNSS [90-day timeline for investigation in offences punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more] remains the 'sole fountainhead' from which a right to default bail accrues.
Case Title:Tabrez Pasha v. State of Karnataka
Case No.: CRL.RP No.826 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
The Karnataka High Court, while upholding the conviction of an auto-rickshaw driver who orchestrated the robbery of a gold chain from a female passenger back in 2012, has asked the convict to pay an enhanced compensation of Rs 4 lakhs to the victim woman.
The single judge bench of Justice V. Srishananda, however, reduced the driver's sentence to the 15 months already undergone in judicial custody. The court leaned towards adopting the 'reformative theory' and underscored the principle of 'hate the crime, and not the criminal' while doing so.
“This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that every sinner has a future and there is a scope of reformation in everybody's life. Court is also expected to keep in mind the celebrated principles in the criminal jurisprudence that the Courts are required to hate the crime and not the criminal”, the single judge observed.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Sri Guruswamy & Ors.
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 541 of 2026 (EXCISE)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the government policy to conduct E-auctions for liquor licenses and to set reservation norms is constitutionally valid, since the applicants (expired licensees) have no 'vested right' to license renewal.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice CM Poonacha, while setting aside a single bench judge's interim stay order from November 2025, also permitted the continued operation of amended Rules 5 & 5A of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian & Foreign Liquors) Second Amendment Rules, 2025.
“…There is no dispute that the licence granted is for a term of one year commencing 1st of July. Thus, the right to deal in liquor under the licence is for a fixed term. There is no indefeasible right to continue to enjoy the licence beyond its terms. The licence, in the prescribed form, also expressly states the period for which it is granted…”, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held.