Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 352 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 367

NOMINAL INDEX

BAZME TOHID TANZEEM & ANOTHER VS. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF & OTHERS, ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 352

Vijay Tata v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 353

H M Manu v. Marigowda, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 354

P v.N,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 355

Krishna Murthy @ Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Others., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 356

Gopalrao vs State of Karnataka & others.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 357

CHANDRAKANTH VS MANZOOR AHMED & OTHERS ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

Gudadappa Rudrappa Talawar & Anr. v. The Section Officer, HESCOM, Balekundri Kh Section & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Hulagamma Mallappa Biradar & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

Salma & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

High Court of Karnataka v. Sri. Pankaj Kaushik,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 362

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 363

GNANASHEKAR M. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 364

Ritvik S. Sharma v. State by Subramanya Nagar Police Station.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 365

Smt Vijayalakshmi Darshan v. State of Karnataka &Ors.2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 366

GIRIDHAR NEELAKANT PAI VS NEELAKANT NARAYAN PAI & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 367

JUDGMENTS/ORDERS

Waqf Board Can't Appoint Ad-Hoc Panel To Manage Waqf Institution By Bypassing Statutory Rules: Karnataka High Court

CASE TITLE: BAZME TOHID TANZEEM & ANOTHER VS. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF & OTHERS

CASE NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 101523 OF 2026 (GM-WAKF)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 352

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court quashed an Office Memorandum issued by the State Board of Auqaf constituting an ad-hoc committee for eleven months to manage and supervise a waqf institution, holding that the Board bypassed the statutory mechanism under the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 352]

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was hearing a plea moved by the President and Secretary of the Bazme Tohid Tanzeem Committee of Mudalagi— stated to be a religious institution— challenging the board's decision to constitute an ad-hoc panel to manage the institution without following the procedure under the 2017 Rules.

The Court held that it can exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in Wakf matters when they concern the violation of a mandatory statutory provision in breach of natural justice principles, or a disregard of judicial directions.

“Where the Rules framed under the Act prescribe the manner in which the succeeding managing committee has to be constituted and specifically provide for the consequence of failure to constitute such committee, the Board cannot bypass that mechanism by resorting to an ad-hoc arrangement,” Justice Magadum observed.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Cheating FIR Against Accused In Ambidant Investment 'Scam', Refuses To Quash ED Summons In PMLA Case

Case Title: Vijay Tata v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

Case No: W.P. No. 24980 of 2019 c/w W.P. No. 56732 of 2018

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 353

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a cheating FIR against realtor-businessman Vijay Tata, booked in the Ambidant Marketing investment "scam"–a company accused of cheating its customers of their money, holding that there was no incriminating material against him except inadmissible confession statements of co-accused. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 353]

For context, in 2018, a case was registered at Devarajeevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, against Ambidant Company and its directors under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and other penal provisions.

M/s Sanchaya Land and Estate Pvt. Ltd, of which Tata is a representative, is said to have entered into a number of agreements of sale with M/s. Ambidant Construction Pvt. Ltd, in terms of which M/s. Sanchaya had agreed to register various flats/apartments in favour of M/s. Ambidant Construction Pvt. Ltd. or its nominees. According to these agreements, flats were allotted to approximately 85 nominees of Ambidant.

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Trial Court's Spot Inspection In Property Suit, Says It Must Generally Follow Recording Of Evidence

Case Title: H M Manu v. Marigowda

Case No: WP 15209/2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 354

The Karnataka High Court has held that the power of a trial court under Order XVIII Rule 18 CPC to inspect a suit property and record a memorandum of facts must ordinarily be exercised only after evidence has been recorded in the suit.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 354]

ORDER XVIII pertains to hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses wherein Rule 18 states that Court may at any stage of a suit inspect any property or thing concerning which any question may arise [and where the Court inspects any property or thing it shall, as soon as may be practicable, make a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection and such memorandum shall form a part of the record of the suit.

Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil set aside a memorandum of facts recorded by a Malavalli trial court, holding that in the present case the trial court has “committed a grave error in prematurely exercising” the power to inspect suit property.

'Permanent Alimony Not Intended To Equalise Wealth': Karnataka High Court Slashes Wife's ₹2 Crore Alimony To ₹50 Lakh

Case Title: P v.N

Case No: MFA No. 1575 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 355

The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld the dissolution of marriage between a couple on grounds of cruelty, while substantially reducing the permanent alimony awarded to the wife from Rs. 2 crores to Rs. 50 lakhs. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar 355]

The court held further that permanent alimony is not intended to equalise the assets or wealth of the parties but to ensure reasonable maintenance.

A Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan disposed of an an appeal filed by the husband, challenging the Family Court's order, while holding that alimony must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual needs of the wife and the paying capacity of the husband, without placing an unreasonable financial burden upon him.

Part-Heard Criminal Trial Can Be Transferred; Accused Cannot Insist On Same Judge Continuing Case: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Krishna Murthy @ Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No. 21332 of 2026 (GM - RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 356

The Karnataka High Court has held that a part-heard criminal trial which has not crossed stage of examination of accused, final arguments nor has been reserved for judgment can be transferred to another court and in such circumstances accused cannot insist upon the same presiding officer to continue hearing his case.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 356]

Referring to judgments, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said that in the present criminal trial, the evidentiary exercise was yet to be concluded and noted that it was not under the exceptions mentioned in the notification, whereby certain cases were allowed to be retained and continued by the same Judge.

“When the re-allocation took effect, the proceeding was at the stage of securing the presence of PW-20, the Investigating Officer, and recording his evidence. The evidentiary exercise itself was yet to conclude. The case had not reached the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.; it had not travelled to final arguments; and, a fortiori, it had not been reserved for judgment or order.

State Can't Restrict Transfer Of Lawful Leasehold Interest Due To Technical Glitches In Online Software: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Gopalrao vs State of Karnataka & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 103223 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 357

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the State cannot render a legally recognised and transferable leasehold interest incapable of being conveyed due to a technical deficiency/defect in their software.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 357]

The observation was made in a plea seeking a direction to the state government to accept and register sale deeds executed by the petitioner and to provide an alternative mode of registration until technical glitches in the Kaveri 2.0 portal are rectified.

The petitioner— a builder who had acquired a land under Nirantara Patta (permanent lease) and constructed a residential building consisting of 34 flats— submitted that after the Kaveri 2.0 portal was introduced, the sale deeds of 13 flats were not processed because his name appeared as “Holder/Tax Payer” instead of “Owner”.

MACT | Pay Protection No Bar To Compensation For Loss Of Future Income If Post Is Reduced Following Accident: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: CHANDRAKANTH VS MANZOOR AHMED & OTHERS

Case No: MFA No. 200873/2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

The Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) cannot deny compensation under the head of loss of future income merely because the claimant's salary has been protected pursuant to being assigned a lower position/reduction in post after a road accident. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 358]

The court said that reliance on pay protection benefit without examining the loss of opportunities to the claimant amounts to an error.

Justice K V Aravind, allowing two appeals in part, remitted the matter to the tribunal for determining the loss of future income, and also enhanced compensation under several other heads.

Karnataka High Court Awards ₹10.52 Lakh To Parents Of Boy Electrocuted While Retrieving Kite, Quashes Finding On Child's Negligence

Case Title: Gudadappa Rudrappa Talawar & Anr. v. The Section Officer, HESCOM, Balekundri Kh Section & Ors.

Case No: WP No. 114767 of 2015

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a 2015 order of Belagavi Lok Adalat which had rejected compensation claim for a minor boy's death by electrocution by attributing negligence to the boy who had died while trying to retrieve a kite entangled in a high-tension electric line. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 359]

Th single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the plea filed by parents of the boy while holding that electricity authorities [Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited and its officers] cannot escape liability on the claim that the child climbed the pole himself.

The court, hence, declared that the respondents HESCOM, and its officers would be liable to compensate the parents on the principle of strict liability.

"The doctrine of strict liability leaves no manner of doubt that the respondents are legally liable to compensate the parents of the deceased child. The tragic death of an elevenyear-old child due to contact with a live high-tension electrical installation cannot be brushed aside by attributing negligence to the child himself. The responsibility for ensuring that such dangerous installations do not become death traps rests squarely upon the electricity authorities. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the 'Negative' and the impugned award deserves to be interfered with"

Insurer Not Liable If Learner's Licence Holder Not Accompanied By Instructor With Valid License At The Time Of Accident: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Hulagamma Mallappa Biradar & Ors.

Case No: MFA No. 104064 of 2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

The Karnataka High Court has held that an insurance company won't be liable if a vehicle driven by a learner's license holder met with an accident, and the driver failed to prove compliance with Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, such as being accompanied by an instructor with valid license when the accident happened. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 360]

The single judge bench of Justice Raghavendra Seetharam Srivatsa, sitting at Dharwad, has directed the insurer to deposit the compensation amount with the Tribunal and permitted it to be recovered from the vehicle owner, by applying the 'pay and recover' principle.

“…Although the Insurance Company may not be liable stricto sensu, the Insurance Company can be directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle…”, the Court said.

To elaborate further, the High Court applied the 'pay and recover' principle after it concluded that the driver with learner's license failed to prove that he was accompanied by an instructor who had a valid driving licence and who was seated as to be in a position to control or slow down the car when the accident occurred.

“…. The Tribunal has concluded, only on the ipse dixit of the driver, that he was accompanied by the instructor… at the time of the accident. It is relevant to note that the purported instructor was not examined. He would have been the star witness on behalf of the driver. Further, the Police charge sheet cites certain eye witnesses to the incident. None of them is examined. The charge sheet does not mention the presence of the alleged instructor. The complaint filed by the child's father…also does not mention the presence of the alleged instructor… Further, there is absolutely no evidence of compliance with clause(c) of Rule 3 regarding display of the “L” sign”, the court noted in the order.

Mere Smell Of Alcohol Can't Prove Workman Was Under Its Influence At Time Of Accident: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Salma & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No: MFA 2825/2016

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

The Karnataka High Court has held that a smell of alcohol emanating from the stomach as per a post-mortem report is insufficient to conclude that a deceased workman was 'under the influence' of alcohol. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 361]

The single judge bench of Justice Ravi V. Hosmani has set aside a Tribunal order dismissing a compensation claim under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 preferred by the legal representatives of a deceased lorry driver, observing that 'consumption of alcohol and being under influence of alcohol are two wholly different aspects'.

“…If an incident occurs while workman is under influence of alcohol or drugs, liability of employer/insurer would stand discharged. However, consumption of alcohol and being under influence of alcohol are too wholly different aspects. And prescription of alcohol limit under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would substantiate such distinction. Based only on smell of alcohol, it cannot be implied that such person had consumed alcohol was under its influence…”, the court noted in the order.

The dependents of the deceased lorry driver filed a plea under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 before a Bengaluru Tribunal in 2014. As per their version, the deceased was working with the respondent no.2- employer who entrusted him with driving the vehicle from Bengaluru to Hassan. Enroute, the vehicle met with an accident and the deceased- driver suffered fatal injuries.

Karnataka High Court Convicts Lawyer For Contempt Over Shouting, Appearing Intoxicated Before Trial Court; Sends Him To 1-Day Jail

Case Title: High Court of Karnataka v. Sri. Pankaj Kaushik

Case No: CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 10 OF 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 362

The Karnataka High Court has sentenced an advocate to a one-day simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs 2,000 under Contempt of Courts Act, accused of interrupting court proceedings in an intoxicated state, shouting at a Judicial Magistrate, and making scandalous and unfounded allegations against judicial officers.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 362]

The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T observed that the contemnor, instead of demonstrating any remorse or offering viable mitigating circumstances, attempted to justify his actions and made unfounded statements against the judicial institution.

“The very demeanor and tone of the accused is clearly contemptuous of the orders and authority of the Court and the judicial system as such,” the Court said.

It added, “Far from expressing any remorse for the initial criminal contempt committed by him, he has attempted to justify his actions and has proceeded to make scandalous and unfounded statements against the judicial institution as a whole. His conduct can only be termed as deliberate and adamant and reveals complete apathy towards social, moral and judicial codes of conduct...The accused/contemnor is convicted for Criminal Contempt of Court punishable under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971”

Shopping Mall Needs One-Time Permission To Install Diesel Generator, Not Annual Trade Licence Renewal: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.882 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 363

The Karnataka High Court has held that owners of shopping malls who operate diesel generator (DG) in their premises cannot be mandated to renew trade licenses annually, observing that Section 354 State Municipal Corporations Act only contemplates a one-time “permission” to install machinery and not renewable “trade licence”.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 363]

For context, Section 354 requires prior permission to construct or establish a factory, workshop or workplace that uses steam, water, mechanical or electric power. It also applies to installing any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by these or other power sources.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda set aside a Single Judge's order that had upheld the demand of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for annual renewal of trade license and allowed in part the writ appeal filed by Phoenix Market City mall's owner M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Scolding Minor & Refusing To Return His Ball Which Damaged Shop Not Abetment Of Child's Suicide U/S 305 IPC: Karnataka High Court

CASE TITLE: GNANASHEKAR M. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

CASE NO: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.361 OF 2025 (A)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 364

The Karnataka High Court has held that refusal by a shopkeeper to hand back a playing ball to a minor and asking him to bring his father to take back the ball after which he allegedly got upset and died by suicide, does not amount to abetment of suicide of a child under Section 305 IPC.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 364]

Section 305 concerns the offence of abetment of the suicide of a child or an insane person. To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove the essential elements of abetment provided under Section 107 of the IPC. A person is considered to have abetted an act if they instigate someone to commit that act, engage in a conspiracy to execute it, or intentionally aid the act through their actions or illegal omissions.

A Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod dismissed the appeal filed against the acquittal of two shopkeepers, observing:

“In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused have done any positive act and have driven the child to commit suicide leaving with no other alternative but to put an end to his life. Not only is the said positive action in close proximity to the time of occurrence absent, but there is also no evidence of any continuous physical or mental torture meted to the deceased by the accused...

Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Over Instagram Post After Puneeth Rajkumar's Death, Warns Student To Be Careful On Social Media

Case Title: Ritvik S. Sharma v. State by Subramanya Nagar Police Station

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 3845/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 365

The Karnataka High Court on Friday [September 18] quashed criminal proceedings under Section 67 Information Technology Act, initiated against a young student who had posted an allegedly offensive Instagram story showing a beer bottle, following the death of Kannada actor Puneeth Rajkumar. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 365]

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while issuing a stern warning to the youngster, allowed the petition which sought to quash the proceedings, arising out of an FIR registered by Subramanya Nagar Police Station back in 2021.

“There is no dispute about the posting of message on the Instagram handle of petitioner …It is not only the statement which is made that is required to be considered but the timing and context in which the statement was made... It is rather sad that such a post had been put up immediately after the expiry of well-respected film actor. The petitioner ought to have known that making such a statement at the relevant point of time and the context in which it was made-the said film actor being against the consumption of alcohol by younger persons -would have an effect…”, the court noted at the outset.

Renukaswamy Murder Trial: Karnataka High Court Says Darshan Will Be Physically Produced During Cross-Examination Of Material Witnesses

Case Title: Smt Vijayalakshmi Darshan v. State of Karnataka &Ors.

Case No: WP 28836/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 366

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (September 18) indicated the procedure by which Kannada Actor Darshan's shall be physically produced during the Renukaswamy murder trial, directing that the prosecution shall examine material witnesses and that the actor can be physically produced during the cross-examination of such witnesses. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 366]

The single judge bench of Justice V. Srishananda passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Darshan through his wife Vijaya Lakhsmi, challenging a trial court order that had refused his request for physical production during trial.

“…As undertaken by the prosecution before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the same matter, the prosecution must examine 60 witnesses, which shall include the seven material witnesses submitted by the petitioner as per the list dated 16.09.2026 and the list dated 18.09.2026, except CW 228, CW 232, and CW 233…When once the seven witnesses mentioned in the list dated 16.09.2026 and CW 168 in the list dated 18.08.2026 are examined in chief, all those witnesses shall be bound over, and two or three consecutive dates may be fixed by the trial judge in consultation with the counsel for the accused as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor, and all those witnesses may be cross-examined on those dates…

'Fraud Committed To Obtain Compensation': Karnataka High Court Finds Collusion In Motor Accident Claim, Orders SIT Probe

Case Title: GIRIDHAR NEELAKANT PAI VS NEELAKANT NARAYAN PAI & OTHERS

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101014 OF 2017 (MV-I)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 367

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court ordered a SIT probe to investigate allegations of collusion by the claimant and the complainant in a motor accident claim, after observing that the parties had colluded to "manipulate the case" solely to obtain compensation from the insurance company.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 367]

Justice Geetha K.B. upheld an MACT order dismissing a compensation claim and directed the state police authorities to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate criminal collusion between the parties.

"In the present case, even though respondent No.3 himself came forward to give evidence and complainant was examined as R.W.3 and not as the claimant's witness shows that there is clear collusion in between claimant, respondent Nos.1, 3 and complainant to manipulate the case"

The court found that there were proper reasons to disbelieve the case of the claimant.