Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 06 – April 12, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 133- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 146Nominal IndexShyam Mehta S/o Bimal Mehta & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 134Mohammad Affaan Ahmed v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 135Smt. Shaila & Anr. v. The Managing Director, ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 136Sukruth Keshav Gowda v. State And Others, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 137Committee For Public Accountability (Regd) v. Kannada Univeristy Hampi & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 138Management Of Bosch Ltd v. Andrew C. Shekharan Kp & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 139Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. v. Sri Abhishek Choudhari & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 140Somashehar Rajavamshi V. Union Of India And Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 141M/S. New Space Research and Technologies Private Limited v. The State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 142Omisha Mara v. Passport Authority of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 143Chandana H N v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 144Smt. Eman Abbas Topiwala vs. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 145X v/s Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 146Judgments/ OrdersUttering Caste Slurs At Factory Dispatch Door Accessed By Workers Falls Under 'Public View' Under SC/ST Act: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Shyam Mehta S/o Bimal Mehta & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.Case No.: Crl Petition No.100213 of 2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 134The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the dispatch door of factory premises, though not a 'public place', due to its accessibility to other workers in the premises, can very well fall within the definition of 'public view' as contemplated under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.The court thus said that in such a case Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act was "prima facie" attracted. The offence states whoever not being a member of a SC or ST intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.'Should You Be Spared?': Karnataka High Court Declines To Quash FIR Against Airport Staff Booked For Sexually Harassing Korean WomanCase Title: Mohammad Affaan Ahmed v. State of Karnataka & Anr.Case No: CRL.P 3146/2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 135The Karnataka High Court on Monday (April 06) refused to quash a criminal case registered against an airport staff accused of sexually harassing a south Korean national at the Kempegowda International Airport, and strongly disapproved of the officer's conduct.“…She is a woman of another nation. She has described what all you did. Why did you take her to a gent's toilet?...”, Justice M Nagaprasanna orally asked the counsel appearing for the petitioner who had moved the high court challenging the proceedings.The High Court noted that as per the complaint, the airport staff from a private firm took the south Korean woman to the washroom, made her stand in T position there, and touched her inappropriately without her consent.“What kind of officer you are?.. Should you be spared? tell me...and the justification is that there was someone else in the ladies' washroom?”, the court orally remarked.Lok Adalat Award Not Valid Without Signatures Of Parties; Advocate's Signature Alone Not Binding: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Smt. Shaila & Anr. v. The Managing Director, ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. & Anr.Case No: Writ Petition No. 102733/2021Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 136Quashing a Lok Adalat award payable to the family of the deceased in a motor accident claims appeal, Karnataka High Court has clarified that the claimant not signing the joint memo of the award would render the award non-binding upon him, even claimant's' lawyer signs the memo.The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, relying on various precedents, noted that the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations offer surety about the validity of an award arising from a settlement. The court noted that Regulation 17 explicitly talks about ensuring that the parties affix their signatures after fully understanding the terms of the settlement, for such an award to be valid.“…It is clear from the joint memo that the claimants have not affixed their signatures….It is only the Advocates of both sides and the representative of the Insurance Company who have affixed their signatures…since the claimants have not signed the joint memo, I deem it appropriate to set aside the award of the Lok Adalat and restore the appeal to its file to be heard on its merits”, the bench sitting at Dharwad held.'Bengaluru Traffic Will Teach You Patience': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Road Rage Case Against 23-Year-Old Software EngineerCase Title: Sukruth Keshav Gowda v. State And OthersCase No: CRL.P 2753/2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 137Refusing to quash a road rage case registered against a 23-year-old software engineer working...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 06 – April 12, 2026

Sebin James

Tags