• 

  Development authority cannot refuse to implement resolutions dropping land acquisition if possession wasn't taken. Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act and Section 21 of General Clauses Act allow withdrawal/rescission of acquisition if original owners retain possession. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-February-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A compromise decree among some co-owners cannot unilaterally change joint property ownership records. Khata registration must include all legal owners unless a competent court resolves the ownership dispute. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-February-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Parliament can levy service tax on restaurants and accommodations under Entry 97 of List I. Service tax and sales tax target different aspects of the same transaction, allowing states to impose sales tax on food sales while the Union taxes the service component. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-February-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Judgment on admission. A suit can be dismissed on the basis of admissions if they are unequivocal and leave no further dispute regarding the material facts in the case. Admissions regarding the validity of a family settlement in a compromise petition falls within the ambit of Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-February-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Compensation in motor vehicles accident cases. Grant of family pension cannot be a ground to deny compensation to wife for loss of dependency since the pension is a deferred wage earned through the deceased’s service. Karnataka High Court.

  • 13-February-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A registered sale deed cannot be declared null and void merely on allegations of fraud and coercion unless cogent evidence is presented. The burden of proof lies on the party asserting fraud. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-February-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A coparcener has no inherent right of pre-emption over joint family property unless explicitly provided by law or a valid agreement. Suit to enforce pre-emption rights must be filed within one year from the date of knowledge of the sale, failing which it is barred by limitation under Section 97 of the Limitation Act. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-February-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  When an accused in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act persistently avoids trial by failing to cross-examine witnesses, respond to summons, or present a defense despite multiple opportunities, the Court is justified in proceeding with the case and convicting the accused without recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-February-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. When substantial sale consideration is already paid, (in the present case 95% of the sale consideration), proving further readiness and willingness by the agreement holder is unnecessary. Karnataka High Court.

  • 12-February-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Prior notice under Section 64 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act is not an absolute necessity and can be exempted in cases where the actions of the Urban Development Authority are not in compliance with the provisions of the Act or its regulations. Karnataka High Court.

  • 10-February-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  Reclassification of kharab land from ‘A’ to ‘B’ must be based on an enquiry and prior notice to affected landowners. Any unilateral action by revenue authorities without affording a hearing violates the principles of natural justice and is legally unsustainable. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-February-2025
  • Daksha Legal
• 

  A suit for injunction is primarily based on possession, and ownership is not a deciding factor unless possession is disputed. A Panchayat Palupatti recording a past partition can be relied upon to establish possession even if unregistered. Karnataka High Court.

  • 11-February-2025
  • Daksha Legal