Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 04 – May 10, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 180Nominal IndexSmt. Marry Usha v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171Christophe Stephane Monxion v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 172The Managing Director, KKRTC v. Sunita and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 173X v. Y & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 174Bharath Earth Movers Employees Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 175S v. R & Anr..,2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 176Shri Ranveer Singh v/s State of Karnataka & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 177Smt. Vanitha S. v. The Special Officer and Competent Authority for IMA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 178Channakeshava D.R v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 179Gregory F. Peres v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)180Judgments/ OrdersGoonda Act | Preventive Detention Invalid If Based On Acts Committed As Juvenile: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Smt. Marry Usha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.Case No: WPHC No. 35 of 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171The Karnataka High Court held last week [April 29] that a preventive detention order passed against a 19-year-old under the Karnataka Goonda Act, 1985 would stand vitiated since most of the offences forming the foundation of the said order were committed by the detenu when he was a juvenile.The division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju allowed a habeas corpus plea filed by the detenue's mother and set aside the detention order issued in December 2025 by the State's home department.The court also clarified that no 'subjective satisfaction' could have been derived from the offences committed as a Juvenile so as to pass a detention order under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985.Foreigners Have No Right To Reside Or Do Business: Karnataka High Court Upholds 'Leave India' Notice For Running Restaurant On Tourist VisaCase Title: Christophe Stephane Monxion v. The Foreigners Regional Registration OfficerCase No: Writ Petition No. 10453 of 2026 (GM-PASS)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 172The Karnataka High Court has refused to set aside a 'Leave India' notice issued against a French national for running a restaurant in Gokarna on a tourist visa for the past 15 years, holding that foreign nationals have no fundamental right to reside or carry on their business in India.The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has directed Christophe Stephane Monxion, a French national who entered India on a tourist visa, to leave the country within seven days in accordance with the 'Leave India' notice issued through WhatsApp by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO).“…The protection under Article 21 extends to all “persons,” including foreign nationals; however, the said protection is confined to ensuring that no person is deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. The said guarantee cannot be expanded to confer a right to reside, settle, or carry on business within the territory of India. Such rights are traceable to Article 19(1)(e) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which are expressly confined to citizens of India”, the court accordingly held in the order dated 22nd April.Karnataka HC Rejects Transport Corporation's Plea Against ₹1.1 Crore Accident Compensation, Says Can't Blame Deceased After Disciplining DriverCase Title: The Managing Director, KKRTC v. Sunita and OthersCase No: MFA No. 201877 of 2025 (MV-D)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 173The Karnataka High Court dismissed Kalyan Karnataka Road Transport Corporation's plea (KKRTC) challenging compensation of Rs 1.1 Crore in a motor accident claim, noting that the corporation suppressed the removal of the driver in disciplinary proceedings over the incident and had yet blamed the deceased for negligence.The Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha observed that the Corporation cannot take the contradictory stand that the negligence was entirely on the part of the deceased victim when it had already expelled or punished its employees in departmental proceedings for their negligence. It thus imposed cost of Rs 25,000 to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority."The action initiated by the Road Transport Corporation, namely Kalyana Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, against its driver and conductor arises out of the very same accident in which the death of the deceased occurred. The Corporation, having conducted disciplinary proceedings and having recorded a finding of culpability against its employees, culminating in orders of removal from service or withholding of increment, cannot now be permitted to contend that the deceased himself was negligent and that such alleged negligence was the proximate cause of his death”, the court noted.Complete Exclusion Of Mother From Child's Life ...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 04 – May 10, 2026

Sebin James

Tags