• 

  Karnataka Stamp Act. The maximum stamp duty of Rs. 25 crores on amalgamation of companies specified in the Schedule does not include the additional duty. The duty chargeable under the Act would include not only the stamp duty as imposed under Section 3, but also the additional duty as levied under Section 3B of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 15-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Popularity cannot be a shield for impunity. A celebrity status does not elevate an accused above the law, nor entitle him to preferential treatment in matters like grant of bail. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law, granting no exemption based on wealth, influence, or fame. Supreme Court.

  • 14-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Criminal Law. While the constitutional and statutory framework requires that an arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest, substantial compliance with this mandate is sufficient unless demonstrable prejudice is established. The mere absence of written grounds does not, by itself, render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or deprives the person of a fair opportunity to defend. Supreme Court.

  • 14-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Right to Information Act. In determining whether an entity is a public authority, funding and control by the Government must be taken into account. ‘Nirmathi Kendra’ is a public authority in terms of Section 2(h) of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 16-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Payment of stamp duty and penalty on an instrument, even when ordered by a court under the Karnataka Stamp Act, does not override the four-month time limit for presenting a document for registration as specified in Section 23 of the Registration Act. Court cannot direct a Sub-Registrar to register a document that was not presented for registration within four months of its execution. Karnataka High Court.

  • 14-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Doctrine of res judicata does not apply to a new application for a temporary injunction if the underlying suit has been materially altered by amendment, such as changing a suit for bare injunction to a declaratory suit asserting an easementary right. Karnataka High Court.

  • 14-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Courts should refrain from interfering with or halting an election process once it has commenced, even in the face of allegations of illegality or procedural non-compliance. The preparation of the electoral roll is merely an intermediate stage, and once the process is underway, it must be allowed to run its course without judicial interruption. Karnataka High Court.

  • 14-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The Registration of Births and Deaths Act is a special statute that prescribes a specific and effective remedy for such matters. When a special law designates a competent authority and lays down a prescribed procedure, the jurisdiction of civil courts is impliedly barred. Karnataka High Court.

  • 14-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Continuation of criminal proceedings against a husband’s family member, particularly the father-in-law, without specific and proximate allegations amounts to an abuse of the legal process and serves no purpose, especially when the matrimonial relationship between the principal parties has been conclusively dissolved by a decree of divorce. Supreme Court.

  • 14-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Industrial Disputes Act. When a dispute challenges a settlement made under Section 12(3), the government must exercise a ‘higher degree of scrutiny’ and record its reasons for being satisfied that a case for adjudication exists before referring it. Karnataka High Court.

  • 14-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Sale of property effected after obtaining an ex-parte partition decree but before the filing of a petition for restoration of the suit raises a triable issue as to whether it is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. The purchaser is a necessary party to the suit. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  In a partition suit involving a Christian family, succession must be determined under the Indian Succession Act, and the coparcenary principles under the Hindu Succession Act have no application. Where an intestate dies leaving only children, the property is to be divided equally among all surviving children. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal