Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 164- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 170Nominal CitationM/s. Vishnu Sri Builders and Developers vs The Commissioner, BBMP & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 164Mr B K Diganth V. State Of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 165Smt. Rathna P v. Sri Chikkamanchaiah S.M., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 166TV9 Karnataka Pvt Ltd & Ors v. CBI & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 167H.D.Revanna...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 164- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
Nominal Citation
M/s. Vishnu Sri Builders and Developers vs The Commissioner, BBMP & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
Mr B K Diganth V. State Of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 165
Smt. Rathna P v. Sri Chikkamanchaiah S.M., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
TV9 Karnataka Pvt Ltd & Ors v. CBI & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 167
H.D.Revanna V. State Of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
Mr. Santosh Kumar .R.S. V. Mr. Aditya Dhar & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 169
Shri Ranveer Singh v/s State of Karnataka & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: M/s. Vishnu Sri Builders and Developers vs The Commissioner, BBMP & Ors
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 1637 Of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a single judge's order directing demolition of construction on the driveway space adjacent to a residential block in Bengaluru's Rajarajeshwari Nagar, after noting that the sanction plan did not conform to the fire safety norms.
In doing so the court observed that high rise buildings regardless of the luxury they provide cannot stand at the risk of General Public particularly the residents of the building and others in the vicinity. The court thus directed the builder to keep the modified sanction plan in abeyance until fire safety norms are fulfilled.
While dismissing the builder's appeal against the single judge's order, a division bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf, observed that the fire safety violations identified during the spot inspection by the Fire Safety Department were detrimental.
'You Don't Leave Women Safe Anywhere': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Instagram Account 'Bangalore Metro Chicks' Owner
Case Title: Mr B K Diganth V. State Of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Crl.P 5218/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 165
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the alleged owner of 'Bangalore Metro Chicks' Instagram account, who had sought quashing the criminal proceedings against him over posting objectionable, non-consensual videos of women travelling in the Bengaluru Metro.
During the hearing Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while refusing to entertain the plea, orally expressed discontent over denial of safe environment to women.
“...The complaint when read alongside the charge sheet, paints a disquieting picture. Women commuting in the anonymity of public transport were subjected to covert surveillance; their images and videos captured without consent, focusing upon various parts of their bodies and thereafter, disseminated in public digital platform for voyeuristic consumption. The investigation, as reflected in the charge sheet, reveals that the petitioner's mobile device contain further incriminating material of a similar nature, reinforcing the allegation”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Smt. Rathna P v. Sri Chikkamanchaiah S.M.
Case No: Writ Petition No.33261 of 2025 (GM-FC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that marriage registration under the Special Marriage Act is not necessary for maintaining a petition for divorce under Section 27 of the aforesaid Act.
The single judge bench of Justice K.Manmadha Rao was considering a plea filed by the wife against the Family Court order that rejected her application to dismiss the divorce petition filed by the husband on account of non-registration of marriage under the aforesaid Ac
“There is no specific provision in the Special Marriage Act, 1954 which contemplates that a petition for a decree of divorce is not maintainable unless the marriage is registered under the Act….Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act only prescribes the conditions required for registration of the marriage and do not declare that registration of the marriage is compulsory or that petition for divorce under Section 27 of the Act is not maintainable unless the marriage is registered…,” the court observed in the order.
Case Title: TV9 Karnataka Pvt Ltd & Ors v. CBI & Anr
Case No: Criminal Petition No.17138 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 167
Quashing proceedings against TV9 Karnataka Pvt. Ltd. and its ex-correspondents in the 2012 City Civil Court complex violence case, the Karnataka High Court said that offence under Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 was decriminalised by a 2023 central amendment and its beneficial effect must be applied retrospectively.
A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by TV9 News Channel and its correspondents, striking down the criminal proceedings before the CBI Special Court registered in 2025 afresh.
“The offence alleged against the petitioners, once bearing the imprimatur of criminality, has since been denuded of its penal character by legislative intervention. The law, in its wisdom, has chosen to recast the alleged infraction as a civil transgression, thereby stripping it of the rigours of criminal prosecution. To permit the continuation of criminal proceedings in the face of such a change would be to disregard not only the letter of the amended statute but also the spirit of fairness that animates criminal jurisprudence,” the court observed.
JD(S) Leader HD Revanna Withdraws From Karnataka High Court Plea Seeking Quashing Of Kidnapping Case
Case Title: H.D.Revanna V. State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 4943/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
Janata Dal (S) Leader H.D Revanna withdrew on Thursday (April 30) his plea before Karnataka High Court seeking quashing of proceedings initiated against him for allegedly kidnapping a woman.
The single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav accepted the memo of withdrawal filed by Revanna's counsel and disposed of the petition to quash the proceedings.
On February 26 the high court had directed the trial court to continue its proceedings against the former minister. Previously, the high court had vacated its interim order stalling framing of charges against Revanna, after taking note of the lack of readiness on behalf of Revanna to go ahead with the matter on merits in view of repeated adjournments sought in the case.
Case Title: Mr. Santosh Kumar .R.S. V. Mr. Aditya Dhar & Ors.
Case No: WP 10911/2026 (C)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 169
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking cancellation of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate granted to the Hindi movie 'Dhurandhar The Revenge' on the allegation that the movie was a plagiarised version of a Bengaluru-based script writer's original script titled 'D-Saheb'.
The single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha laid down in unequivocal terms that a copyright infringement claim requires an appreciation of evidence as to whether an idea has been plagiarised or not, and the same cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction, by relying on R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films & Ors.(1978).
“…The burden squarely lies on the person seeking infringement to prove not only that the other side had access to the original work, but also there exists such degree of similarity which led a prudent and reasonable viewer to make an unmistakable impression that the impugned work is a copy of the original.… Such adjudication involves triable issue of facts, including proof of access, originality and copying which cannot be satisfactorily undertaken in a writ jurisdiction that is confined to examining legality of administrative action…” the court observed.
Case Title: Shri Ranveer Singh v/s State of Karnataka & Anr
Case No: CRL.P 3024/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
The Karnataka High Court has closed the criminal proceedings initiated against Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh for allegedly outraging religious sentiments during a mimicry performance of the daiva/deity from the movie Kantara.
A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna recorded the affidavit containing the actor's unconditional apology and directed him to visit the Shri Chamundeshwari Temple in Mysuru within four weeks to offer prayers.
“…In the light of the petitioner tendering apology and also that he would visit the temple and owing to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to record the affidavit and close the proceedings qua the petitioner that have now been instituted for the aforesaid offences, with a rider that the petitioner shall visit the temple, within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order…”, the single judge bench has said in the order.