• 

  Order XXIII Rule 3A. When an application questioning the compromise raises a substantial legal question concerning a purported attempt to deprive a daughter of her statutory right to an equal share in coparcenary property, the trial court cannot summarily dismiss the application without issuing notice to the parties or considering its merits. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Land acquisition. If the Land Acquisition Officer fails to justify the award or prove the relied-upon sale statistics, the court must reassess the market value on the basis of the claimant’s evidence, including non-agricultural potential. Where comparable sales are prior or subsequent to the preliminary notification, escalation or de-escalation may be applied to arrive at a fair value, particularly for land with high development potential. Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Right to Property under Article 300A of the Constitution, fortified by the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21, cannot be rendered illusory or defeated by the mere lapse of time when the State itself admits to having taken over and utilized the private land without following due process of law. State must meet the threshold of justification by grant of compensation. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Where the materials on record prima facie disclose specific, detailed, and consistent allegations of sexual assault and other offenses like physical assault and criminal intimidation, supported by a pattern of coercion, digital blackmail, and threats, the defense of a ‘consensual relationship’ or disputes over facts must be determined during a full trial, and not at the preliminary stage of quashing. Karnataka High Court.

  • 02-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. Attachment before judgment cannot extend to properties which have already been alienated prior to the institution of the suit. The remedy to challenge a pre-suit transfer as fraudulent lies exclusively under a substantive proceeding pursuant to Section 53 of the T.P. Act. Supreme Court.

  • 02-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Stamp Act. If possession was already held by the purchaser prior to the agreement of sale or if possession is not delivered under the agreement, the document is only liable to be stamped under the lower duty. Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Trademarks Act. A company in liquidation loses its proprietary rights and goodwill over a trade mark when it has been continuously out of use for a long period. Its non-use is not covered by ‘special circumstances’ under Section 47(3). Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Purchaser of undivided share from a coparcener cannot insist on allotment of a particular developed portion in the partition when the construction was without the consent of the other coparceners. Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Police Act. In all externment proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner need not record whether witnesses are willing or unwilling to testify if the person remains within the jurisdiction. Karnataka High Court.

  • 01-December-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Stamp Act. Court has the statutory power to impound any document that is insufficiently stamped at any stage of the proceedings even after the disposal of the suit and to direct the payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. Karnataka High Court.

  • 29-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A mother-in-law is entitled to seek the eviction of her daughter-in-law from her self-acquired property after the death of her son, provided that the eviction is necessary and expedient to ensure the senior citizen’s maintenance, protection, and dignified residence. Karnataka High Court.

  • 28-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Industrial Disputes Act. Where ‘special casual leave’ effectively amounts to a lay-off, any declaration of such a lay-off without the mandatory prior permission of the Government is illegal. The workmen are entitled to wages for the lay-off period, and the burden of proving that the workmen were gainfully employed elsewhere rests on the employer. Karnataka High Court.

  • 29-November-2025
  • Daksha Legal