LiveLaw Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: July 27 - August 2, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 267 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 274Nominal IndexSanket & Anr. v. Regional Manager, Karnataka Grameen Bank & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 267Sri. Jawahar Gopal & Anr v. Vishal Baliga D, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 268Pavitra Ramanujam v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 269Devanura Mahadeva & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 270M/s Sujal Pharma v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 271The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 272Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s AMR Housing Development Corporation & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 273Shri Basavaraj S. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 274Judgments/OrdersBank Can't Deny Education Loan To Student Solely Due To Parent's Poor CIBIL Score: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Sanket & Anr. v. Regional Manager, Karnataka Grameen Bank & Anr.Case No: WP No. 109488 of 2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 267Highlighting that the 'creditworthiness of a parent' cannot impede the 'educational aspirations or constitutional rights' of a student, the Karnataka High Court has quashed a rejection letter issued by Karnataka Grameen Bank which denied an educational loan of Rs 12.5 lakhs to a student pursuing B.E. in Artificial Intelligence. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 267]“…A CIBIL score is merely one indicator of past credit behaviour. It is not a statutory disqualification nor can it become the sole determinative factor while considering an educational loan…”, the single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum sitting at Dharwad noted at the outset.Observing that loan applications cannot be rejected solely on the ground of the parent's adverse CIBIL score or credit history, the single judge bench noted that such 'inflexible' practises could 'perpetuate economic inequality across generations'Police Aid To Enforce Injunction Is Continuing Remedy, Not Barred By Res Judicata: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Sri. Jawahar Gopal & Anr v. Vishal Baliga DCase No: Writ Petition No. 6857 of 2026 (GM- CPC)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 268Clarifying the legal position on police assistance for enforcing court orders, the Karnataka High Court has last week held that seeking police aid to implement an interim injunction is a continuing procedural remedy and cannot be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, merely because earlier police protection applications have been filed. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 268]“…The doctrine of res judicata is founded on the principle that an issue finally adjudicated between the parties should not be reopened. The present application, however, does not invite the Court to re-adjudicate any issue already decided. It proceeds on the allegation that, notwithstanding the subsisting order of temporary injunction, fresh acts of obstruction have rendered the earlier directions ineffective. Every subsequent act of interference with the implementation of an injunction gives rise to a fresh cause for invoking the Court's ancillary jurisdiction. Unless the injunction itself has been vacated, modified, or set aside, the Court's power to secure its enforcement remains for the life of the injunction….”, the court observed in its order.The single judge bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, hence, dismissed a writ petition filed by a son and his mother who sought to evade enforcement of an injunction, while imposing costs of Rs 50,000 on them for 'abuse of the process of law'.The writ petition was filed challenging a trial court order requiring the Whitefield Police to assist a party to the suit [plaintiff] to implement interim injunction restraining the aforesaid mother-son duo from interfering with the possession of a property.'No Coercive Steps' Means No Arrest, Not Stay On Probe: Karnataka High Court Rejects Challenge To ED's Provisional Attachment OrderCase Title: Pavitra Ramanujam v. Deputy Director, Directorate of EnforcementCase No: WP No. 14309 of 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 269The Karnataka High Court has recently held that court orders prohibiting 'coercive steps' are confined to protecting personal liberty, and such orders do not block the statutory process of investigation, including the power of the Enforcement Directorate to attach property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 269]“…It [no coercive steps] insulates the individual from arrest; it does not eclipse the statutory authority to carry the investigation to its logical culmination or to invoke remedies expressly sanctioned by law, including the institution of prosecution or the initiation of attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act..”, Justice M. Nagaprasanna held.The Court thus refused to quash a Provisional Attachment Order passed by the ED against a woman, while holding that the petitioner misconstrued an earlier order of the court directing 'no coercive steps'.“…An order directing 'no coercive steps' or 'no...

LiveLaw Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: July 27 - August 2, 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: July 27 - August 2, 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