Judgements

A coparcener has no inherent right of pre-emption over joint family property unless explicitly provided by law or a valid agreement. Suit to enforce pre-emption rights must be filed within one year from the date of knowledge of the sale, failing which it is barred by limitation under Section 97 of the Limitation Act. Karnataka High Court.

12-February-2025

Daksha Legal
When an accused in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act persistently avoids trial by failing to cross-examine witnesses, respond to summons, or present a defense despite multiple opportunities, the Court is justified in proceeding with the case and convicting the accused without recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court.

12-February-2025

Daksha Legal
Readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. When substantial sale consideration is already paid, (in the present case 95% of the sale consideration), proving further readiness and willingness by the agreement holder is unnecessary. Karnataka High Court.

12-February-2025

Daksha Legal
Prior notice under Section 64 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act is not an absolute necessity and can be exempted in cases where the actions of the Urban Development Authority are not in compliance with the provisions of the Act or its regulations. Karnataka High Court.

10-February-2025

Daksha Legal
Reclassification of kharab land from ‘A’ to ‘B’ must be based on an enquiry and prior notice to affected landowners. Any unilateral action by revenue authorities without affording a hearing violates the principles of natural justice and is legally unsustainable. Karnataka High Court.

11-February-2025

Daksha Legal
A suit for injunction is primarily based on possession, and ownership is not a deciding factor unless possession is disputed. A Panchayat Palupatti recording a past partition can be relied upon to establish possession even if unregistered. Karnataka High Court.

11-February-2025

Daksha Legal
Non-payment of the entire sale consideration does not render a registered sale deed invalid, as title transfers upon execution and registration. The appropriate remedy in such cases is to seek recovery of the unpaid amount rather than cancellation of the sale deed. Karnataka High Court.

11-February-2025

Daksha Legal
A person traveling on the mudguard of a tractor is not an authorized passenger under the Motor Vehicles Act. Such risk is not covered under the statutory insurance policy. The insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Karnataka High Court.

11-February-2025

Daksha Legal
A nominee under an insurance policy is merely a recipient of the amount for the convenience of the insurer and does not become the absolute owner of the policy proceeds. The rightful entitlement of policy amount is determined by the applicable law of succession and legal heirs have a superior claim over the nominee. Karnataka High Court.

11-February-2025

Daksha Legal
Electricity distribution companies have an absolute duty to ensure public safety, and any failure leading to electrocution injuries or death automatically results in liability. The principle of absolute liability applies to state-owned power companies. Karnataka High Court.

10-February-2025

Daksha Legal
Mere financial contribution by one spouse does not confer joint ownership over property registered in the name of the other spouse. For claim of joint ownership, there must be clear intent, explicit agreement, and supporting evidence. Karnataka High Court.

10-February-2025

Daksha Legal
Entry of a court injunction in revenue records is legally permissible and does not require a specific direction from the court. The provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961, do not override the doctrine of Lis Pendens, and the integration of judicial and revenue systems ensures transparency in land transactions. Karnataka High Court.

10-February-2025

Daksha Legal

1
...
110
111
112
113
114
...
461