• 

  Provincial Insolvency Act. Mere filing or pendency of an insolvency petition does not operate as an automatic statutory bar or trigger a stay against parallel recovery suits initiated by creditors. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  ‘Premium FAR’ under the KT&CP Act is constitutionally valid. Empowering the State to permit prospective additional construction upon the payment of premium charges cannot be equated to an illegal regularization scheme. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Specific performance. ‘Readiness’ denotes the plaintiff’s financial capacity to perform the contract, while ‘willingness’ relates to the plaintiff’s conduct and intention to fulfil contractual obligations. Although actual deposit of the consideration amount is not necessary, the plaintiff must adduce reliable and satisfactory evidence demonstrating the availability of sufficient funds to complete the transaction at the relevant time. Supreme Court.

  • 24-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A review petition cannot be founded on the repetition of arguments which were available at the time of the original hearing and were either expressly considered or are deemed to have been considered while rendering the judgment. Karnataka High Court.

  • 25-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Order XI CPC. The interrogatories cannot be in the nature of a fishing or roving inquiry, nor can they seek information that can be elicited during cross-examination. The provision is intended to facilitate adjudication and not to enable a party to avoid proving facts that the law requires it to establish independently. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When a registered sale deed or property allotment is cancelled by a statutory body as a direct consequence of implementing a binding judicial order that has attained finality, such an action does not constitute an independent, ‘unilateral’ administrative cancellation. Limitation Act has no application for such cancellation. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Contempt of Court. A petition alleging criminal contempt cannot be summarily rejected merely for want of the Advocate General’s consent. Such a petition may be treated as information under the Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules and placed before the Chief Justice for consideration as to whether cognizance of the alleged contempt should be taken. Karnataka High Court. 2026 Daksha Legal Kar 356-366

  • 24-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A compromise decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and unenforceable in law. Mere delay or laches cannot defeat a challenge to such a decree, as fraud vitiates all judicial acts and proceedings. Karnataka High Court.

  • 24-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The principle under Order VII Rule 13 CPC that rejection of the plaint does not preclude the plaintiff from preventing a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action does not apply when the plaint is rejected as barred under a statute. Supreme Court.

  • 22-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Rejection of plaint. An application under Order VII Rule 11 can be filed at any stage of the suit. When a suit is barred under a statute such as Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, the Court has no discretion in rejecting the plaint. Supreme Court.

  • 22-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Murderer being disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered. Bar under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act extends even to claims founded on testamentary succession under a Will. Supreme Court.

  • 22-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Adverse Possession. Possession that originates under an agreement of sale or any other permissive or derivative arrangement cannot ripen into adverse possession unless the occupant clearly, unequivocally, and hostilely repudiates the true owner's title, and such repudiation is brought to the owner's knowledge. Karnataka High Court.

  • 23-June-2026
  • Daksha Legal