• 

  Though in cases involving violations of the principles of natural justice, the appropriate course is to remand the matter to afford the concerned party an opportunity of hearing, the contemporary view is to curtail litigation and not to multiply. An unwarranted remand by a higher court only initiates a fresh round of proceedings, which ought to be avoided. Supreme Court.

  • 15-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. When the statutory time limit for making the arbitral award expires without an award being made, the mandate of the arbitrator stands terminated and the arbitrator becomes functus officio. In such a circumstance, the Court is empowered and obligated to substitute the arbitrator to ensure the expeditious resolution of the dispute. Supreme Court.

  • 12-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Stamp Act. Recovery of deficit duty in cases of suppression, cannot be invoked against a Co-operative Housing Society for a sale deed executed for the purchase of undeveloped land meant for distribution as sites to its members. The liability for deficit stamp duty based on the subsequent sale of developed sites to members is a future event that materializes only upon the execution of those subsequent sale deeds by the allottees. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An appellate court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Court Act ought not to interfere with the discretionary order of an interlocutory injunction passed by the Commercial Court unless that discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Preventive detention. If the detaining authority fails to provide the detenue with legible copies of all relied-upon documents, the same constitutes a fundamental violation of the right to make an effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Strict compliance with all constitutional and statutory safeguards is mandatory for the exercise of the draconian power of preventive detention. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Hindu Succession Act. Amended Section 6. Person who alienates properties in violation of injunction order of the court cannot take advantage of the alienation by taking shelter under the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Penalty on penalty. A contract, being a commercial agreement, must be construed to give it efficacy rather than invalidate it on broad notions of public policy or unconscionability. Courts do not examine contractual terms unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or biased, and cannot strike down clauses merely because they may consider alternative terms to be fairer or more reasonable. Supreme Court.

  • 11-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Execution proceedings in suit for partition. Person claiming under joint family member who suffered decree cannot maintain application Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be exercised in public interest for questioning the economic/fiscal policy or reforms sought to be undertaken by the Government or its functionaries. Wisdom and advisability of economic policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution. Supreme Court.

  • 11-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Commercial Courts Act. Interlocutory orders passed by Commercial Courts is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. High Court can permit conversion of the revision petition into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Public policy. When the legislature, within the powers conferred by the constitution, has declared the public policy, and fixed the rights of the people by statute, the courts cannot declare a different policy or fix different rights. Supreme Court.

  • 11-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Suit for specific performance. A subsequent agreement holder or purchaser is not a necessary or proper party to be impleaded in the suit since such transactions are governed by the principle of lis pendens. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal