Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 23 - March 29, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 118 - 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 125Nominal Citation Bangalore Hotels Association v. Union of India., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 118Mantri Tranquil Apartments Owners Association & Anr. v. BBMP & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 119State of Karnataka v. Prashanth N. @ Prashanth Nataraj, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 120The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Nandakishore Bagare, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 121Sri Sri Ravi Shankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 122V Chittibabu v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 123Hi Car Care v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 124M N Ramesh & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 125Judgments/ Orders'Courts Can't Supplant Executive Wisdom': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Entertain Hotels Association's Plea Over LPG ShortageCase Title: Bangalore Hotels Association v. Union of India.Case No: WP 8968/2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 118The Karnataka High Court, on Monday, declined to issue directions to the government over the ongoing commercial LPG shortage with regard to the hotel industry. It reasoned that constitutional courts are not equipped to monitor evolving global energy crises or interfere in the executive's distribution policies.The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted that it can't venture into the executive domain when the issue at hand involves complex international conflicts, supply chain problems and diplomatic deadlocks.Developers Can't 'Strong-Arm Law': Karnataka High Court Rejects Pleas Against BBMP Notices For Removing Encroachment Over Storm Water DrainsCase Title: Mantri Tranquil Apartments Owners Association & Anr. v. BBMP & Ors.Case No: WP No. 40299 of 2014 (C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 119Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a batch of petitions challenging notices issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) between 2014 and 2019 for the removal of encroachments put up over storm water drains in the city's Gubbalala area in the guise of land development.The petitions were filed by Mantri Developers, its Apartment Owners Association and Royal Palms Residents Welfare Association at Gubbalala who had sought a direction to the municipality not to interfere with their occupation and not to demolish the residential complex.A Single Bench of Justice R. Nataraj held that once a water body or drain is vested in the State under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, its status cannot be 'divested' merely because a planning authority like the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) failed to reflect it in a Master Plan.2013 Wenlock Hospital Murder: Karnataka High Court Orders Action Against District Surgeon & IO For 'Serious Lapses' In ProbeCase Title: State of Karnataka v. Prashanth N. @ Prashanth NatarajCase No: CRL.A No. 1971 of 2018Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)120The Karnataka High Court has directed the State's Health and Home Secretaries to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the District Surgeon of Wenlock Hospital and a Police Circle Inspector for 'serious lapses' in reporting and investigating a murder that occurred within hospital premises in 2013.While upholding the acquittal of the accused by a Mangalore Sessions Court in 2017, a Division Bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T expressed shock that despite a police outpost being present within the hospital and officers arriving at the scene shortly after the initial assault, no FIR was registered for over 13 hours.'State Largest Litigant, Must Act With Accountability': Karnataka High Court Calls For Digital Litigation Monitoring System To Prevent DelaysCase Title: The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Nandakishore BagareCase No: Writ Appeal No. 200277 of 2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 121The Karnataka High Court has held that the State Government, as the single largest litigant before constitutional courts, bears a 'corresponding responsibility' to conduct its legal affairs with institutional accountability. The court added that the government cannot expect preferential treatment regarding the law of limitation.“…The Government cannot take advantage of bureaucratic procedures and routine file movement as a ground to seek condonation of delay...The expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be interpreted strictly, and courts cannot condone delay merely on equitable considerations…”, the court observed, adding that the reasoning in the State's affidavit only reflected 'bureaucratic processing of the file at a leisurely administrative pace'.Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Sri Sri Ravi Shankar In Alleged Land Encroachment CaseCase Title: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar AND State of Karnataka & ANRCase No: WP 143/2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 122The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (March 25) quashed an FIR registered against spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar over alleged land encroachment in Bengaluru.The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 23 - March 29, 2026

Sebin James

Tags