• 

  Suit for declaration. A mere misdescription of a property, such as a wrong survey number in a title deed or a compromise decree, will not vitiate a transaction or negate ownership if the identity of the property is otherwise established by the evidence on record, including boundaries and the clear intent of the parties. Karnataka High Court.

  • 21-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Even if a contract specifies a multi-member arbitrators panel, the Court may appoint a sole arbitrator if the parties have, through their conduct or consensus, waived the requirement for a panel, or if the facts of the case necessitate a sole arbitrator for the interests of justice and efficiency. Karnataka High Court.

  • 21-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Where the agreement to sell entered into by the parties clearly states that from the date mentioned in the agreement, the tenant in possession of the property intended to be sold under the agreement shall not be liable to pay any rent, it would imply a surrender of rights as a tenant and the estate vests with the owner. Supreme Court.

  • 21-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A tenant cannot withhold possession of the subject property till the security deposit is refunded. The remedy available to the tenant is to sue the landlord for refund of the security deposit after handing over possession. Karnataka High Court.

  • 20-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Land Acquisition. Payment of solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are applicable to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act, 1956. Karnataka High Court.

  • 20-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  RERA Act, 2016. A financial institution or NBFC, when acting solely as a lender, does not come within the definition of a “promoter” under Section 2(zk). Consequently, it is not required to make a pre-deposit as a condition precedent for the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to entertain its appeal. Karnataka High Court.

  • 20-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Order VI Rule 17, CPC. The due diligence requirement envisaged in the proviso is not of universal application to every application for amendment of pleadings filed after the commencement of trial. In appropriate cases, even where the test of due diligence is not satisfied, the Court's power to allow amendment of pleadings remains intact. Karnataka High Court.

  • 20-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Limitation Act. Administrative delay or laxity can never be treated as a sufficient cause for condoning delay. When the State chooses to litigate, it is bound by the same law of limitation as any other litigant. Delay cannot be condoned on vague or casual grounds unless the State clearly establishes bona fide conduct and due diligence. Karnataka High Court.

  • 20-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Transferee lis pendens may pursue the appeal against a decree of specific performance against the vendor, as a legal representative/ inter-meddler of the estate of the vendor impleading the vendor as a party in the appeal and on his death, on non-substitution of his heirs /legal representatives, the appeal would abate. Supreme Court.

  • 19-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  An appeal against a judgment of acquittal for bailable offences passed by a Magistrate lies exclusively to the High Court under Section 378(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. A Court of Session lacks the jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal; any judgment rendered by it in such a matter is a nullity and void ab initio. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act abate under the Repealing Act if the State fails to take actual physical possession of the excess land before the Repealing Act came into force. The State must prove voluntary surrender, peaceful transfer or forceful dispossession under Section 10(6). Supreme Court.

  • 19-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Companies Act 1956. The Court will not interfere with a Scheme of Arrangement approved by an overwhelming majority unless it is patently illegal, fraudulent, or based on a perverse valuation; pending misfeasance proceedings or minority share disputes do not bar sanction of an otherwise viable scheme. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-January-2026
  • Daksha Legal