• 

  Karnataka High Court orders demolition of constructions built within the mandatory setback areas of individual buildings, where the developer attempted to treat multiple high-rise structures as a single block to avoid the setback requirement.

  • 15-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Suit for partition. A mere existence of a contentious or triable issue in a partition suit does not entitle the plaintiffs to an automatic injunction restraining alienation, particularly when they have not sought a declaration to set aside the earlier sale deeds. Karnataka High Court.

  • 15-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. On the expiry of the term of office of the Board of Directors, a Joint Registrar cannot automatically assume the role of an administrator and function as the Board of Management without the requirement of any particular separate/formal order. Karnataka High Court.

  • 15-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  SARFAESI Act. Under Section 14 the Magistrate performs only ministerial function. He has no authority to adjudicate disputes or entertain objections from borrowers or third parties. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Unregistered power of attorney is admissible as evidence if it explicitly states that no consideration was paid for it and is therefore not required to be registered. Court is not permitted to go beyond the recitals of the document to determine its admissibility. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  In a partition suit, no decree can be granted in favour of a person holding an agreement with a co-sharer. The defendant must prove the sale agreement and possession, which are not deemed admitted merely because the co-sharer has not filed a written statement. The appropriate remedy is a separate suit for specific performance or damages, not a claim within partition proceedings. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. An order refusing an application under Section 8, is an appealable order under Section 37 of the Act. Review of the said order under the Code of Civil Procedure is not permissible. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  ‘’Procedural enactment should not be construed in any manner, which would leave the Court helpless to meet extra-ordinary situations in the ends of justice’’. Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC providing for upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory not mandatory. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A civil court, including a Commercial Court, lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the actions of a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act when the dispute falls within the exclusive domain of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An order or decree of the Supreme Court passed on the basis of a settlement is enforceable by the executing court. If specific execution of such a decree becomes impossible, the executing court is duty-bound to grant an alternative remedy so that the decree holder secures the benefits of the litigation. Orissa High Court.

  • 11-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act. Where service rules do not provide for an appeal, the aggrieved party may file an appeal under Rule 11 of the Rules framed under the Act. A writ petition is not maintainable in such circumstances. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A dispute that is essentially of a civil nature, arising from a breach of contract, cannot be given a criminal texture by clever drafting especially when the allegations concern contractual grievances and monetary claims that are already being addressed in civil or arbitration proceedings. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-September-2025
  • Daksha Legal