• 

  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
• 

  Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to decide on the regularization of land possession, as this power is exclusively held by the Taluka Regularization Committee. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Deputy Commissioner's authority under Section 136 (3) is limited to correcting revenue entries and does not extend to annulling previous land grants, determining the validity of transactions, or ordering the resumption of land. The suo motu power cannot be exercised decades after the original grant, especially when third-party interests have been established. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A nominee of a life insurance policy or bank deposit has no beneficial or ownership rights in the deceased’s assets. The nominee merely receives the funds to discharge the bank’s or insurer’s liability, and the amount forms part of the estate to be distributed under succession law. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A plaint cannot be rejected merely because the plaintiff disputes her signature on the vakalat, as this is not a ground under Order 7 Rule 11. Such a procedural defect should be allowed to be cured and cannot defeat the party’s substantive rights. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Land Revenue Act. A suit against the State or its officers regarding entries in revenue records is expressly barred by Section 135. Such a suit is liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for not disclosing cause of action. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. In a suit for a perpetual injunction concerning immovable property, the plaintiff is permitted under Section 26(c) to value the relief sought. The trial court has the discretion to allow an amendment to a plaint to correct a clerical mistake in the suit's valuation, as long as it aligns with the relief sought and does not change the nature of the suit itself. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A person invoking Order XXI Rule 97 CPC must first show a prima facie right, title, or interest in the property to qualify as an ‘’obstructor.’’ A revisional court cannot decide ownership when the property’s status—such as whether it belongs to a public trust—is already pending before another competent court. Without initial credible evidence, the court will not conduct a detailed inquiry under this provision. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules. A medical reimbursement claim cannot be denied merely because a recognized hospital has changed its name, provided it remains the same legal entity. Authorities are responsible for updating their records, and their inaction cannot be used to deprive an employee of reimbursement. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal