LiveLaw Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: August 3 - August 9, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 286Nominal IndexGoutham Raj S.M. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275Sidul Mandal v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & Anr.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 277X v. State of Karnataka & Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 278State of Karnataka & Authorities v. Employees of Private Aided Educational Institutions., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 279XXX v. Registrar General of Karnataka High Court & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 280Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike & another v M/S Maya Traders & others., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 281SRI MUDDURA M. SOMANNA @ PRASAD v SRI B. RAMESH, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 282M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 283M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 284Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 285Miss Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 286Mere Running Away From Police Not 'Use Of Criminal Force': Karnataka High Court Quashes Assault Case Against YouthCase Title: Goutham Raj S.M. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12679 OF 2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a 24-year-old man, accused of assaulting police personnel, while observing that merely running away from police cannot constitute 'use of criminal force' under Section 353 [Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty] of the IPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275]The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the petition by quashing the charge sheet for offences under Sections 332, 353 and 34 of the IPC.On the early hours of December 15, 2023, when the police was night patrolling, the petitioner and another accused was stopped by the police out of suspicion. The police allegedly demanded the vehicle documents which was met with a refusal from the accused.Later, when the complaint was registered by the Police Constable, it was portrayed as the accused assaulting the policemen and fleeing the scene.“…Section 353 punishes a person who would stop the public servant from performance of official duties by use of criminal force. There is no allegation of use of criminal force. In fact the allegation is, petitioner ran away when the police wanted to stop him. If running away is usage of criminal force against a public servant, there cannot be a better illustration of abuse of the process of the law…”, the court noted in the order, pointing out the discrepancy in invoking Section 153.Fake Aadhaar, PAN Cards For Illegal Bangladeshi Immigrants Prima Facie Endanger India's Sovereignty: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Sidul Mandal v. State of Karnataka & Anr.Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 8790 of 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276The Karnataka High Court has observed that facilitating fake Aadhaar and PAN cards for illegal immigrants from Bangladesh prima facie amounts to an act endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276]The single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty thus dismissed the bail plea of Sidul Mandal, a 46-year-old man from Dhaka, accused in the racket.“…The act committed by the petitioner as found in the charge sheet has the effect of endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India and the said act is punishable with imprisonment for life under Section 152 of BNS, 2023. However, the Investigation Officer has prima facie erred in not invoking Section 152 of BNS, 2023, in the present case against the petitioner though the charge sheet material prima facie makes out a case for the said offence…”, the Court observed in the order.Trade Union Not 'State', Employer Can't Generally Invoke Article 226 To Restrain Proposed Strike: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & Anr.Case No.: Writ Petition No. 8044 of 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 277The Karnataka High Court has held that a writ petition against a workers' union to restrain a proposed strike is not maintainable as a general rule under the Industrial Relations Code 2020, remarking that Trade Union does not qualify as 'State' under the Constitution.On the other hand, an aggrieved employer could approach the Industrial Tribunal for enforcement of the statutory prohibition on strikes during conciliation proceedings. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276]For context, proposed strike is prohibited under Section 62(1)(d) and is illegal under Section 63 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, while dismissing the writ petition filed by Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. against a strike notice issued by its Automotive ...

LiveLaw Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: August 3 - August 9, 2026

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

LiveLaw Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: August 3 - August 9, 2026

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers