• 

  The right to challenge the transfer on the ground that all the co-owners or their heirs have not joined vests exclusively in those non-joining heirs and not in third parties. Karnataka High Court.

  • 03-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  E-khata for a site in unapproved layout is not impermissible, as it is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. The purchaser of such a site has no legal right to compel the municipal authority to issue an e-khata through a writ of mandamus. Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Video Conferencing Rules. High Court may relax the mandatory requirement of recording a complainant’s evidence through an Indian Embassy or Consulate with a Coordinator in a criminal trial if he demonstrates substantial practical hardship and furnishes a binding undertaking ensuring the integrity and continuity of cross-examination and safeguarding the accused’s right to a fair trial. Karnataka High Court.

  • 03-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Though a plea regarding maintainability of the suit, even if not raised in written statement, may be raised in appeal, particularly when no new facts or evidence is required to address the same. Supreme Court.

  • 31-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An unregistered document, which is compulsorily registrable, even if admitted in evidence without objection from the opposing party, does not become admissible in law and cannot confer any rights upon the parties. Karnataka High Court.

  • 31-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Order XVIII Rule 1 and 3 CPC. Trial Court has no power to compel a defendant to lead evidence first, especially on issues where the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs. The plaintiff must first lead evidence on all issues where the burden of proof rests on him. Karnataka High Court.

  • 31-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Where a contract provides no right of termination, or such right has been waived, a unilateral termination amounts to repudiatory breach, entitling the aggrieved party to treat the contract as subsisting and sue for specific performance without seeking a declaration on the validity of the termination. Supreme Court.

  • 31-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Commercial Courts Act. Order XI Rule 5(1). Strict requirement for a plaintiff to establish a ‘reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint’ does not apply to an application for production of documents filed by any party during the pendency of the suit in direct response to issues or questions raised by the opposing party during the course of the evidence. Karnataka High Court.

  • 31-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act. When a holder of service inam land, possessing the right to regrant, alienates the property, the subsequent regrant in favour of the alienor perfects the alienee’s previously imperfect title by application of the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel. Karnataka High Court.

  • 30-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  ''Suspension in some cases is worse than penalty.'' A suspension order, whether based on direct action or the statutory deeming fiction i.e. custody exceeding 48 hours, is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable if the competent authority fails to fulfill the mandatory statutory safeguard of independent application of mind. Karnataka High Court.

  • 30-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme. When husband is convicted for abetment to commit suicide, the child who suffered the loss is a victim within the definition of the scheme and requires rehabilitation under the Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 30-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A surety for a bank loan cannot unilaterally withdraw from suretyship without substitution. His discharge can only happen on repayment of the loan amount and/or substitution of the surety/guarantor to the satisfaction of the lender. Karnataka High Court.

  • 30-October-2025
  • Daksha Legal