• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Failure to object at the earliest opportunity to the continuation of arbitration proceedings implies implied consent to the extension of the tribunal’s mandate. In the absence of a prescribed limitation period, applications under Section 29-A(5) must be filed within a reasonable time. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When an alternate site is allotted due to the fault of the BDA, interest on differential sital value is chargeable only from the date of legal challenge, not from the original allotment. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Limitation Act. A suit for possession is not barred by limitation under Article 65 unless the defendant proves adverse possession by demonstrating clear, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession. Mere long-standing possession with permissive origin does not confer ownership rights. A counter-claim for adverse possession requires strict proof, and failure to establish hostile animus leads to its rejection. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  State Tax Officers under the KGST Act are cross-empowered under the IGST Act to act as proper officers without the need for a separate notification unless explicitly excluded by the Government of India. In GST-related disputes, alternative remedy under Section 107 of the KGST Act must be exhausted unless there is a jurisdictional challenge. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Stamp Act. Recovery of unpaid or short-paid stamp duty must be initiated within five years from the date of document registration. In cases of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement, the period extends to ten years. Any proceedings initiated beyond these limitation periods are barred by law and cannot be enforced. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act. Minor procedural flaws do not invalidate a no-confidence motion if the essential legal requirements are met. A distinction exists between illegality, which violates a fundamental principle of law, and irregularity, which involves a deviation from established procedures that can be remedied. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Municipalities (President & Vice-President) Election Rules. The requirement of seven days’ prior notice for elections does not mandate exclusion of the first and last days under the General Clauses Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Salary of a legal heir appointed on compassionate grounds does not form part of the deceased’s estate and cannot be attached for recovering debts incurred by the deceased. Liability for such debts is limited to the property inherited, and coercive recovery from the legal heir’s independent earnings is impermissible under Rule 37(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Hindu Succession Act. A registered partition executed and acted upon prior to coming into force of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would be saved requiring the plaint in a suit for partition rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Inordinate delay in land acquisition appeals requires valid justification. Mere plea of illiteracy or ignorance is insufficient. Prior compensation awards are not binding precedents unless land similarity is proven. Compensation enhancement must be based on independent valuation evidence. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Service Law. Termination of a probationer simpliciter is valid when the order merely mentions unsatisfactory performance and does not carry stigma. Previous complaints and actions taken thereon are immaterial if the termination order does not refer to them. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Indian Succession Act. In probate revocation proceedings, transposition of necessary parties is permissible. Limitation in such cases is a mixed question of law and fact and must be determined at the stage of final adjudication rather than during transposition. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-March-2025
  • Daksha Legal