• 

  Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 118 limited only to those specific matters expressly provided for within the Act. A civil suit filed by a third party or a leaseholder to protect possession of a property is maintainable, as such a dispute does not fall within the ambit of 'business of the society' or internal management disputes. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Specific Relief Act. In a summary suit for recovery of possession under Section 6, the plaintiff bears the absolute burden of proving actual physical possession of the property within six months preceding the date of filing. A claim of illegal dispossession cannot be maintained solely on the basis of unsubstantiated oral contentions. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Mohammedan law. Though a written document recording a gift (Hiba) is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the validity of such a gift is contingent upon the donor's clear intention to divest title and the actual delivery of possession. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Enforcement of a foreign award can be refused only on specific statutory grounds. ‘Patent illegality’ ground is not available in respect of foreign awards. A party who voluntarily chooses not to participate in arbitration despite due notice cannot later claim they were ‘unable to present their case’ to resist enforcement. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has the locus standi to seek a review of orders that affect the objectives of the IBC. However, a review petition cannot be granted if there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Mere pendency of a disciplinary investigation against a Liquidator does not invalidate a sale conducted under a valid e-auction notice. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC. The discretionary power to permit withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit cannot be invoked where the alleged 'formal defect' relates to a mere imperfection in the pleadings which can be cured by way of an amendment to the plaint. Karnataka High Court.

  • 17-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Service law. Dropping of the inquiry operates retrospectively, entitling the employee to all withheld benefits and consequential interest from the date of retirement. Withholding of a retired employee's commuted value of pension is arbitrary and unsustainable in law if the underlying disciplinary proceedings are subsequently dropped. Karnataka High Court.

  • 17-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Suit for specific performance. A court exercising its equitable discretion may impose a condition that the purchaser pay an enhanced sale consideration significantly higher than the agreed price to the vendor, in order to balance the equities arising from the escalation of property value due to the efflux of time during litigation. Karnataka High Court.

  • 17-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Motor Vehicles Act (unamended). The Insurer is liable to indemnify the owner for an accident that occurs within the 30 days grace period after expiry of the license period as the driver is deemed to possess a valid licence. Absence of a driving licence does not per se establish contributory negligence unless a direct link is proved between the lack of the licence and the occurrence of the accident. Karnataka High Court.

  • 16-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Partial rejection of a plaint is impermissible. Even in a partition suit where certain properties are alleged to be unavailable, the court’s power extends only to rejecting the plaint in its entirety, as the expression “plaint” denotes the whole pleading. This power is distinct from the striking out of portions of the plaint. Karnataka High Court.

  • 16-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Eviction suit by co-landlord is maintainable even if one co-landlord transfers his interest during the suit's pendency. The failure to formally record the assignment under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC does not automatically render the suit non-maintainable, especially when the assignee continues to prosecute the case on behalf of the surviving co-landlord. Karnataka High Court.

  • 15-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A condition in a tender document that creates an arbitrary and discriminatory classification based on the ownership of a resource, while the material quality and fitness of that resource remain identical, is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.

  • 16-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal