• 

  SARFAESI Act. The 2016 amendment to Section 13(8) has retrospective effect and applies to loans and mortgages created before the amendment came into force. The right of a mortgagor to redeem a secured asset under the is extinguished when the public notice for sale is published. Supreme Court.

  • 24-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A land grant made by the Government for a specific purpose with right of resumption does not constitute a full alienation or sale of the land. Neither a mortgage of these limited rights nor the winding-up of the grantee company extinguishes the Government's power of resumption. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Property obtained by a person through a partition of joint family property retains its ancestral character. On the father’s death, all his children are entitled to an equal share, and he cannot gift such ancestral property to one child to the exclusion of the others. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Where the employer’s service rules mandate equal distribution of family pension among multiple wives, the second wife is entitled to her share under those rules, even if a will in her favor is declared invalid. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The period of limitation for filing a reference application under the Land Acquisition Act commences from the date the claimant gains knowledge of the award if the acquiring authority fails to serve the mandatory award notice. The burden of proof to establish valid service of the notice rests with the Land Acquisition Officer. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  RERA. A regulatory body cannot levy a fee or any other mandatory charge through a mere circular unless the parent statute expressly authorizes it. To qualify as a valid fee, the charge must show a clear quid pro quo, a reasonable link between the amount collected and a specific, measurable service provided to the payer. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Specific Relief Act. A contract to sell a co-parcener’s defined share in joint family property is specifically enforceable, provided the vendor limits the sale to his own lawful share and not the entire property. Section 17, which bars enforcement against a person without title, is inapplicable when the vendor conveys only his legitimate share. Karnataka High Court.

  • 22-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Criminal Law. A contractual dispute cannot be converted into a criminal case unless there is clear evidence of fraudulent intent or criminality at the very outset of the transaction. Where a significant part of the contract has already been performed, it cannot be said that the agreement was entered into with the dishonest intention required to constitute the offence of cheating. Karnataka High Court.

  • 22-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Land Reforms Act. A person who has been previously evicted by a court order is not entitled to occupancy rights, especially when the eviction order has reached finality and there is no evidence of a continuing tenancy. A land tribunal cannot disregard final judgments and decrees from civil and tenancy courts that have established the landlord's possession and the tenant's eviction. Karnataka High Court.

  • 22-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  If a competent court or tribunal stays an order that invalidates a co-operative society’s election, the legal bar on that society’s functioning ceases. Should the society file its delegation form for a federal society election before the final electoral roll is published, the election authorities must include the society’s name in the final list of eligible voters. Karnataka High Court.

  • 22-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Civil Procedure Code. Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 constitutes a decree under Section 2 (2) and is appealable under Section 96. Karnataka High Court.

  • 22-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Income Tax Act. Disallowance of deductions on enhanced income under the proviso to Section 92C (4) is not applicable when an assessee voluntarily declares a higher income based on an Advance Pricing Agreement. An Assessing Officer cannot deny a deduction under Section 10AA on such income. Karnataka High Court.

  • 20-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal