• 

  Where civil suit seeking declaration of ownership was abandoned, writ proceedings premised on the same claim ought not to be entertained in absence of any explanation as to why the suit was abandoned. Order of the single judge based on non-existing order set aside. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  POCSO Act and Section 376 of the IPC. Enemity between the families of the accused and the victim coupled with negative DNA report are factors to be taken note of. Where the victim's testimony is inconsistent, the medical evidence is inconclusive, and there is an unexplained, inordinate delay in filing the FIR, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A plea of constructive res judicata under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage, unless the necessary factual foundation, specifically the nature of the cause of action in the earlier suit was pleaded in the written statement. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A Civil or Commercial Court lacks the jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining a secured creditor from invoking its rights under the SARFAESI Act against a guarantor. Any grievance regarding the measures taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act must be addressed exclusively before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17, and a suit designed to bypass this statutory mechanism is barred under Section 34 of the Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 19-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Employment Visa. A foreign national on a contractual visa obtained through misrepresentation, does not enjoy the same degree of procedural protection as a citizen or a long-term resident seeking citizenship. Leave India Notice is not vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Limitation Act. Section 18(1) is attracted only where an acknowledgment of liability is made before the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation for instituting a suit or application in respect of any property or right. The benefit of the Section can be availed only if such acknowledgment is issued within the subsisting limitation period and not after its expiration. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Although Section 498A of the IPC was enacted to curb cruelty against married women, courts must be circumspect in preventing its misuse through vague, omnibus allegations stemming from matrimonial discord. In the absence of prima facie material on record, continuation of the prosecution would be unwarranted, held the Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  The determination of a Grama Panchayat headquarters is an administrative and policy decision within the exclusive domain of the State. Such a decision cannot be invalidated by the Court merely because one village has a higher population than the designated headquarters. In the absence of manifest illegality or procedural impropriety, the choice of a headquarters based on factors of accessibility, central location, and administrative feasibility is final and not subject to judicial second-guessing. Karnataka High Court.

  • 18-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Arbitration and Conciliation Act. An award that grants a claim barred by the law of limitation suffers from patent illegality and is liable to be set aside as it fails to adhere to the fundamental legal principles governing the admissibility of claims. Karnataka High Court.

  • 17-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Partition Act, 1893. Where a property is found to be indivisible and if multiple shareholders seek to exercise their right to buy out other shares, the Court must facilitate a competitive process and is legally mandated to sell the shares to the shareholder who offers the highest price above the court's valuation. Karnataka High Court.

  • 17-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Hindu Succession Act. A daughter’s right to a share in ancestral coparcenary property is a birthright that remains unaffected by revenue-based mutation entries and sale based on such entries. Any denial of a coparcenary share based on the presence or absence of revenue entries is legally unsustainable, as title must be adjudicated based on the source of acquisition and the nature of the property rather than administrative record-keeping. Karnataka High Court.

  • 17-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  2026 Daksha Legal Kar 67-73. Employee’s Compensation Act. The liability of an insurance company under the Act is strictly governed by the terms of the insurance contract. When a policy is issued based on a specific declaration of wages and a specific category of risk, the insurer’s liability to indemnify the employer is limited to those declared values. Karnataka High Court.

  • 16-February-2026
  • Daksha Legal