• 

  ‘’Examination of judgment-debtor as to his property’’ under Order XXI Rule 41 of the CPC is merely a procedural step in aid of execution and does not constitute an execution proceeding in itself. The court's jurisdiction is not ousted solely because the judgment-debtor disposes of assets or surrenders a lease after the commencement of such proceedings. Karnataka High Court.

  • 04-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act does not bar civil suit for permanent injunction to prevent dispossession without due process of law if actual physical possession has not been taken in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure, even if an Assistant Commissioner's order for property restoration has attained finality. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An adverse inference, being a presumption, can be drawn only during trial and must be based on the specific facts of each case. It requires the evaluation of evidence to determine whether there has been full, partial, or no compliance with the relevant order. Such a presumption is always rebuttable during the course of the trial. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The charges under both criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot be maintained against the same person for the same transaction. The ingredients of both offenses are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist for the same set of facts. The court must determine if either cheating or criminal breach of trust is made out, but not both. Supreme Court.

  • 04-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  In a suit for specific performance concerning immovable property, when the relief sought pertains to the entire property, court fee must be computed on the market value of the whole property and not merely on the consideration mentioned in the agreement. Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The High Court, under Article 226, should not adjudicate property title disputes, especially when a civil suit on the same matter is pending. While a land designation in a master plan may lapse if not acquired or utilized within five years , any subsequent action on a change of land use application depends on the outcome of the title dispute in the civil court. Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act. A no-confidence motion remains valid despite a court-ordered stay. Once the stay is lifted, the Assistant Commissioner may issue a fresh notice, and the meeting must be held within 30 days, excluding the stay period, with at least 15 clear days’ notice to members. Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The right to cross-examine is an indispensable facet of natural justice and a fair trial, which cannot be denied to a litigant mid-trial, even when the court has the discretion to draw an adverse inference for non-production of documents or non-compliance with a court order. Karnataka High Court.

  • 07-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Companies Act 2013. When the ingredients of Section 163 are met, a director can be disqualified from being a director not only in the company as regards which the allegations are made, but also regarding any other company in which he or she is a director, for which no allegations are made. Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-August-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Suit for specific performance. While partial decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC is permissible, it can only be on undisputed facts and unequivocal admission by the defendant and further proof of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. Karnataka High Court.

  • 31-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  In a suit for partition, if the plaintiff seeks to withdraw the suit, defendants asserting a share in the property are entitled to seek transposition as plaintiffs. Upon such a request, the trial court is obligated to permit the transposition and proceed with the suit. Karnataka High Court.

  • 31-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An individual can be permitted to prosecute an appeal as an indigent person under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, when a solvency report from the jurisdictional Tahsildar confirms their lack of means, and there is no substantiated evidence to the contrary. Karnataka High Court.

  • 31-July-2025
  • Daksha Legal