Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 154- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 163Nominal CitationThe International School Bangalore (TISB) v. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 154Sahana R. Naik & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 155Shri G. Manjunatha v. The State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 156Malleswaram Brahmana Sabha Trust (R) v. State of...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 154- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
Nominal Citation
The International School Bangalore (TISB) v. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
Sahana R. Naik & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
Shri G. Manjunatha v. The State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Malleswaram Brahmana Sabha Trust (R) v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 157
Sri M.V. Narasimha Prasad v. Office of the Insurance Ombudsman (Karnataka), 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 158
Sharan A. v. Director General of Civil Aviation & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 159
Karnataka Road Transport Employees League v. Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 160
Sri. Ramesh N v. Smt. Raksha M @ Shruthi, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
X v. Z & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
Mohammed Ashiq v. Union of India & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: The International School Bangalore (TISB) v. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 9430 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
The Karnataka High Court has granted relief to an International School in Bengaluru by ordering defreezing of its bank Account, and by quashing a final notice issued against it by the Varanasi Police over a five-lakh fee payment made by a student's parent, allegedly linked to a cybercrime probe.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum stated that the freezing of the entire bank account of the school was a 'drastic and disproportionate measure'. According to the Varanasi Police, the parent who made the 5 lakh fee payment is involved in a cybercrime, and the subsequent fund recipient's (school's) account was also blocked in its entirety after the said transaction.
“…the action of respondent No.2[Varanasi Cyber Crime PS] in directing the freezing of the petitioner's bank account merely on account of an alleged involvement of a parent of a student in a cybercrime registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh appears to be wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioner–institution cannot be penalised for having received bona fide fee payments in the ordinary course of its functioning”, the court noted in the order about the arbitrariness in freezing the entire proceeds in the school's account.
Case Title: Sahana R. Naik & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 11717 Of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
The Karnataka High Court on April 15 (Wednesday) directed the Karnataka School Examination and Assessment Board (KSEAB) to evaluate the March 2026 SSLC exams in line with the rules applicable at the time of issuing the exam notification.
This development takes on prominence in light of the recent statement by the Karnataka Education Minister that a grading system will be implemented instead of the marking system for third languages such as Hindi, Urdu, and Arabic.
The single judge bench of Justice E.S. Indiresh observed that the State would not be justified in changing the valuation procedure contrary to the circular applicable at the time of issuance of the examination notification.
“…It is well settled principle in law that, there shall not be any change in the rules of the game in the midway and implies stability or a strict adherence to the guidelines or rules issued at the time of starting of the game”, the court opined by relying on Naveen Kumar N. And Others Vs. Kptcl And Others, (2025).
Case Title: Shri G. Manjunatha v. The State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 435 of 2024 (GM-CC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Dismissing an appeal by Congress MLA G Manjunatha in an alleged case of "false caste certification", the Karnataka High Court termed the allegation as "serious" and left it open for the State to consider initiating appropriate proceedings against him.
It has been alleged that the MLA, using the disputed Scheduled Caste certificate, contested and won the elections from the Mulbagal reserved constituency back in 2012 as an independent candidate.
The division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M Poonacha in its order observed that there were sufficient grounds and material on record supporting the DCVC's conclusion that the appellant belongs to the Byragi community which falls under OBC category and not the Budga Jangam community which falls under SC category.
Case Title: Malleswaram Brahmana Sabha Trust (R) v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 10181 of 2026 (LB-BMP)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 157
Underscoring that the greatness of Indian civilisation is intertwined with its dharmic and cultural activities, the Karnataka High Court has set aside Bengaluru West City Corporation's order refusing the use of the Yoga Auditorium at Sankey Park for Sri Shankaracharya Jayanti celebrations to be conducted by a Trust.
The single judge bench of Justice M.I Arun observed in the order that the celebration of Indian culture, which is intertwined with Dharma, can never be considered as illegal or unconstitutional.
The request for using the auditorium on April 21 [ Shankaracharya Jayanti] was made by Malleswaram Brahmana Sabha Trust to the West City Corporation, Greater Bengaluru Authority.
The Senior Assistant Horticulture Director of the West City Corporation had declined the request, stating that the Corporation's auditorium could not be used for Dharmic activities.
"Though India is a secular country, it does not mean that the Dharmic and cultural activities in the country cannot be entertained…. The greatness of Indian Civilization is intertwined with its Dharmic and cultural activities and removing it amounts to removing the soul from the country. The Constitution of India itself contains pictures of seal from the Indian civilisation, a Gurukul — an integral part of the Indian Education System, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, Gautama Buddha, Mahavira Swami and the like”, the court opined.
Right To Legal Representation Before Insurance Ombudsman Can't Be Denied At Adjudicatory Stage: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Sri M.V. Narasimha Prasad v. Office of the Insurance Ombudsman (Karnataka)
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 26221 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 158
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the Insurance Ombudsman cannot deny a complainant the option of engaging an advocate once the proceedings move beyond mediation and enter the adjudicatory stage under Rule 17 of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum added that refusal to permit the representation by a lawyer once the proceedings before the Insurance Ombudsman enter the 'quasi-judicial' adjudicatory stage would prejudice the interests of 'vulnerable categories of claimants'.
“…policyholder may not necessarily be a person well-versed in law or procedure; he may be an illiterate villager, a widow who is a homemaker … or a lay consumer unfamiliar with the nuances of insurance contracts and medical documentation. To expect such a claimant to effectively present his or her case involving interpretation of policy terms, exclusions, medical records and causation, without the aid of professional assistance, would be wholly unrealistic and would, in effect, amount to denial of a meaningful opportunity of hearing”, the court held in the order dated March 27.
Case Title: Sharan A. v. Director General of Civil Aviation & Anr.
Case No: WP No.5499 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 159
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed IndiGo airlines to expeditiously conclude its enquiry against a pilot suspended last year for delaying a flight by 8 hours.
The pilot claims that delay was due to a safety hazard of 1000 kilograms fuel deficit he identified in his pre-flight inspection on the Dubai-Bengaluru route. However, the airline chose to "victimise his diligent action" by suspending him and stalling the matter since September 2025.
Meanwhile, he has been unable to complete his flying hours, which is an impediment to his license renewal.
Case Title: Karnataka Road Transport Employees League v. Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: WP 12716/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 160
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (April 22) dismissed plea by State Road Transport Employees League seeking permission to hold an indefinite hunger strike at Bengaluru's Freedom Park, holding that while citizens have a right to protest however public places cannot be occupied indefinitely.
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted that the application submitted by the body to the Police Commissioner seeking permission was 'fundamentally flawed' and contrary to scheme under Licensing and Regulation of Protests, Demonstrations and Protest Marches (Bengaluru City) Order, 2021.
Under this the licensing authority is also conferred with the power to impose time restrictions for demonstrations/ protests.
“…It is clearly evident that the petitioner association intends to go on an indefinite strike [at Freedom Park], which contravenes Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police(2020). The apex court has held that all citizens have the right to go on a protest in a democratic set-up, but public places cannot be occupied indefinitely. Now the rules mandate that the citizen applying for a license to hold a protest has to necessarily comply with requisites under Form 1-4 in the Licensing and Regulation of Protests, Demonstrations and Protest Marches (Bengaluru City) Order, 2021…”, the court said.
Case Title: Sri. Ramesh N v. Smt. Raksha M @ Shruthi
Case Nos: Rev.Pet Family Court No.15 Of 2026 C/W Writ Petition No.8159 Of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a final maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC while simultaneously setting aside an interim maintenance order under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act passed in separate proceedings, holding that continuance of both results in overlapping financial liability of the husband which is illegal.
The single-judge bench of Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao noted in the order as follows:
“The said determination [S.125 CrPC] being a final adjudication on the entitlement and quantum of maintenance, based on appreciation of evidence, assumes primacy over any interim arrangement made during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings…continuation of a parallel direction for interim maintenance in the matrimonial proceedings….result in duplication of relief and overlapping financial liability for the same period, which cannot be sustained in law.”
Case Title: X v. Z & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No.33410 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a software engineer challenging an order of interim maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month for his estranged wife, holding that an able-bodied, well-qualified husband cannot evade his legal obligation of providing maintenance by citing unemployment.
The single judge bench of Justice Dr. K Manmadha Rao noted in the order dated April 17 that the factum of an estranged wife, yielding a salary of Rs 40,000/- per month, is not an absolute bar to award maintenance. The test would be whether her income is sufficient to maintain the lifestyle she enjoyed in her matrimonial home, the court said.
“…The Court must assess if the income is sufficient to sustain a lifestyle commensurate with that enjoyed in the matrimonial home. Given the Petitioner's documented monthly income during the marriage, the Respondent's salary of Rs.40,000/- is comparatively modest and does not bridge the status gap”, the court added.
Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the single judge bench reasoned that 'an able bodied husband is presumed capable of earning' and 'he cannot evade payment of maintenance by citing unemployment.'
Case Title: Mohammed Ashiq v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 6111 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
The Karnataka High Court has iterated that when a criminal case gets stayed by virtue of the powers exercised by the court under Section 482 CrPC, the 'substratum' for continuation of a Look Out Circular (LOC) no longer exists, and such an LOC should not become an interference to carry on with the profession of a person.
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that the police or the investigation agency, as the case may be, cannot keep the issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) or the recall of Look Out Circular (LOC) in a limbo once the proceedings are stayed.
“…where criminal proceedings are stayed by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it has been consistently held that the very substratum for issuance or continuation of a Look Out Circular ceases to exist. Once the proceedings are stayed, it necessarily implies that the petitioner is not required to participate either in investigation or trial during the subsistence of the stay order”, the court observed.